The voltage depends a lot more on the actual battery/capacitor than on the principle! I guess there's a bit of confusion here, afaik the F1 KERS systems work with very "fast" Lithium Ion batteries, NOT with capacitors! My comments were just meant in a general sense.
Yes - I had not heard of capacitors being used (in reality) either...but had seen a kiinetic flywheel at least in illustrations. Although the capacitors seem to be all the new buzz for laptop computers and cellphones and such.
Didnt know the boost was 6 seconds in total. If thats the case it'll certainly help on tracks like monza and bahrain. Because of the weight of all the flux capacitors and stuff though they'll suffer on smaller/street circuits like monaco. I wonder if they're allowed to remove the system for certain tracks if they feel there's an advantage to be had?
I seem to remember reading that teams would be allowed 1 qualifying lap with the boost on for the entire lap, can anyone verify?
Naturally, which is good for the sport, ie: cars are faster ... BUT ... This technology will help road cars be greener, because acceleration on a road car from stored energy will happen with the petrol engine not doing as much. I think it's the best change to F1 for years. At last the engineers have to think again, instead of just tidying up last years cars. Pete
At BMW's launch they couldn't stop talking about how great KERS technology is and how much they loved it. They'll surely use it at Melbourne. Then there's Williams, the only team to build a mechanical KERS instead of a Battery KERS. They have been awfully quiet on the subject of KERS and it could be their great chance to return to their glory days. It seems every other team has *****ed about KERS Renault - Flavio says its a stupid idea. Ferrari - Non stop KERS whinges Toyota - They say their KERS system works, it just doesn't improve their lap times. Red Bull + STR - Complained about KERS development costs, they subsequently decided to buy Renault's KERS instead. Mclaren + Force India - These two are keeping quiet. So most teams have complained about KERS, but if one team successfully runs KERS in Melbourne, they'll all have it by Spain.
They are allowed to IIRC; but it depends heavily on the design of your car if it makes sense or not. If the car was not designed for the KERS system to be removed, then the effect on weight balance etc might be worse than what you gain by removing the weight. +1 I'm really excited about all those innovations we'll see this season!
I always enjoy debating these science in racing things with Far Out. I have said it before - if you want to run both with and without this, then you will very likely have to design two cars. I am incredulous that any F1 designer would countenance loading up his front spoiler with 50lbs worth of batteries - dead weight for 95% of the lap. I would love to have a couple of beers with Gordon Murray and see what he really thinks of that idea. As for these exciting innovations - the Insight and the Prius have been around for years. This is not innovation in racing leading road cars - it is the other way around, and for political purposes. The technology has its purpose, but for Texas roads I would rather have a Porsche than a Prius. I don't see how you are going to see this at Indianapolis or Nascar either...but then perhaps I underestimate the power of politics in this day and age.
I don't claim to be an insider, but unless specifically asked by my friends not to, I tend to share what I hear. Take all this FWIW, many of us know people working in F1, I'm no different. While I agree in principle with the Melbourne comment above, I'm hearing whispers otherwise. The main rumor circulating is that the cars in their current configuration will be faster at certain (read most) circuits WITHOUT the KERS. This is driven by the weight savings and subsequent ability to locate the ballast for more efficient weight distribution. The interesting tidbit, is that the FIA has not yet required that the teams race with the KERS. If reliability is a concern, the teams can race without whatever element is causing the concern. So in other words, they can race without the KERS citing reliability concerns, much like they would switch off the traction control after a malfunction, when TC was legal a few years back. What is unclear with the FIA rules, is how they will handle it when a team gains an advantage by eliminating the KERS under concerns of reliability. As was stated earlier, tracks where there is major full throttle use (IE: Monza) would see an advantage, but with the KERS as it stands right now, most if not all of the other tracks will see the cars running slower. A side tidbit I also heard, was that Ferrari is exceptionally pleased with how the new car is interacting with the new Bridgestone slick tires. That exact word was used. "Exceptionally" Again, take it for what it's worth. As a Tifosi, I hope the information is legit.
I doubt we will see KERS in 09. I just think they won't run it. And my reason is a conspiracy theory.... and that is, I know Ferrari is VERY much against KERS. And I think if they squeal loudly enough, the FIA will accomodate them. I have no doubt Luca is and has been telling Max something like "Ferrari would have to reconsider it's commitment to F1 if we are required to spend all this money on KERS". Which would translate to... "we are behind on development of it, but I spend an ass-ton of money on this sport, so you damn well better not let some POS Williams be faster than my Ferraris on track!". We already know the FIA favors Ferrari, so why in the world would they let a situation occur whereby the favored team would be running at a disadvantage? I don't think they would.
Hey, Hang on a minute with the talk of KERS meaning more weight..... IIRC, most cars were, or at least could be, built substantially under the limit. They then move big-ass chunks of "something-heavier-than-lead" (and more $ and no doubt less "environmentally friendly" of course!) around to change W/D. Seems to me, ~30KG of KERS batteries/capacitors (or, in Williams case, flywheels) could be packaged to go wherever they want it. It won't be as easily "moveable" as lead, but I don't see them arriving on the scales in Melbourne obese, with or without KERS..... I'm also a fan - Not for tree hugging reasons, but for the technical challenges presented. I for one would love to see Franks (flywheel?) system blow 'em all away (Imagine a Williams jockey hitting the button and haulin' ass past a McCheater! - That would be cool!) Note I didn't say "passing an FCar" - That would *suck*!...... My 02c, cheers, Ian
Same here! I think designing a car that performs reasonably with and without KERS might be the straight way to one or more championships. It's a huge challenge, but isn't that what F1 is all about? We've seen FAR too much nebulous aero development (that even the engineers didn't really understand!) over the last years. It's about time for innovations on the engine and drivetrain. The development on the internal combustion engine is pretty much exhausted, we won't see any huge performance leaps in this sector anymore. I'm optimistic that with KERS we'll now see a lot of new technology and interesting, maybe crazy ideas. Yes, the technology is not entirely new, but that is even more reason for F1 to catch up with road car tech and become the leader again. When I read the articles about the ideas for F1 KERS systems, the Prius with his pretty conservative battery/engine system already looks quite old...
Right. I don't know how much additional weight they carry around and how it relates to the weight of KERS, but you have a point there. However, as you say, KERS can't be shifted around, so there IS a certain loss, even if KERS isn't heavier than the weights they carry around now. (btw, something-heavier-than-lead is Tungsten/Wolfram )
You know what I would prefer to see? (over hybrids?) ---- HYDROGEN. No, not fuel cells - internal combustion HYDROGEN. Then they could really claim they were plowing some new ground and making a move to eliminate carbon emissions. Plus, Kimi would be WAY too terrified to ever dissapoint us again by tearing out of the pits with his fuel line dragging.
+1 As mentioned, I'm really excited about Williams approach - No one else (?) is going that way, and it'd be way cool to see Sir F. back at the front... [Hopefully, should they get it working well, he can then sell it (to RD! to Flav! how cool would that be!....) +1 I'd like to see 'em lose the rev-limiter - Run whatever you want, but be aware of: 1. The longevity requirements & penalties 2. You must make identical engines available to (a limited # of) others for whatever the $ agreed. [Is that # agreed btw? - I may have missed it.] Florian - I'm about to google "tungsten/wolfram" - Thanks! [It *sounds* dangerous and environmentally nasty - I love it! ] Cheers, Ian
Let me speculate, please, on the idea of a flywheel. Way way back when I was taking physics, we had to do a project on a city bus powered primarily by batteries, but with a big auxiliary flywheel to provide go-power when you needed to start from rest. Yes, the idea came from a cover story in Popular Mechanics - wouldn't you just know it? IIRC, it turned out to be a pretty horrible way to store energy. There were several fundamental problems: One big one was strength of available materials. If you got it spinning hard enough to store much energy, it was straining against itself enough to rip the flywheel to pieces and send shrapnel all over the neighborhood. Another issue was that friction was always present around its rotation...even if you were careful to create the very best bearings possible and evacuated the housing so it ran in a near vacuum. Finally, in the day (1960s), nobody had come up with a very good transmission method to get the power to the wheels. The best was thought to be electric motor-generator sets but of course that brings up their own loss of efficiency. My gut feel? Maybe you could get 6 seconds worth of boost out of a flywheel driven mechanism. But, never much more. And this does not bode well for the stated purpose of providing a pilot technology for green-friendly ROAD VEHICLES. And, I think most rational engineers would really prefer higher revs, a little more displacement, a light turbo, or some engine enhancement to make the 50 hp x 6 seconds of extra power.
Hydrogen combustion engines are not THAT spectacular. And in the car industry, hydrogen is nearly dead. The companies are just thinking about how to let the whole projects die without losing their face. Not much is known about the Williams flywheel, but I hazard a guess and say it's the system I've read about in the magazine mentioned. Too bad you guys don't understand German - it is a reluctance machine with two rotors rotating in opposite directions to compensate the moment of inertia -> the flywheels. The working principle of a reluctance machine is a bit complicated, I don't want to bore you with details. The point is: It still works with electric energy to get the power from and to the wheels, but the storage itself is not chemically in batteries, but with kinetic energy stored in the rotor of the electric motor. If you want to know how it works exactly, post and I'll explain, or just use Google. No need to google, have a look at the next light bulb - the filament inside is made out of that stuff!
