Ferrari F70 Render!

So, if you are driving the front wheels with, say 75 HP and you are driving the rear wheels with, say 450 HP, do you have some form of slip differential to allow the front wheels to rotate faster than the KERS is driving them?

 

I have an engineering question, Do 50 or 100 HP back wheel KERS systems top out under braking... what I mean is...Under braking are they running at full capacity or less...

I ask because it seems to me, that the braking power of race/supercars is so much greater then the KERS power, that the back generators easaly top out under braking, and if it's toped out it doesn't matter if more energy is generated on front wheels, since you can only recover energy at a set maximum rate....usually the same maximum power the KERS system is rated...

I assume the breaking power needed to stop one of these supercars is more then a 1000 KW, so even under a 80/20 distribution front/back , the back wheels can still generete 200KWs of energy and if you have a punny 80KW generator, it doesn't matter where you stick it as even the lightest braking will top it out.... These are my assumptions based on my understanding of how the system works, and my understanding of Electrical engendering. While I do have a digree in that, I don't have one in mechanics, and I'd love to hear where I got it wrong...

 

Brakes convert kinetic energy into heat. KERS converts Kinetic energy into stored electrical energy in batteries or stored mechanical energy in a flywheel. These flywheel/battery systems each have their advantages. One issue is where the car is driving/racing. On the street there is relatively little braking so KERS is mostly topped off by petrol. It becomes a boost reservoir/afterburner/NOS like system that can bring on boost. On the Ring there is a LOT of braking. At Le Mans there is less. The balance issue is separate and having the KERS unit hanging off of the rear of the gear box isn't ideal. There is also the issue of the benefit of applying extra power to the front wheels in various conditions. Basically for all of the above Audi, Toyota LMP1 are front KERS.

The entire system is a very complex engineering problem. The problem with battery KERS is the heat generated by very quickly charging and discharging them. This is the limiting factor at The Ring not the ability to get enough Kinetic recapture through braking and you're right in that we downsize the KERS generator to the capacity of the battery cooling. The development is trying to cool the battery pack better and computer programing that understands the complexities of what the driver wants to do, the application of brakes, ABS, TC, and engine management to produce Torque that works with the KERS in the most efficient way over an 8:15 second lap which is where we will be next year. Flywheel KERS has advantages but on road cars are almost impossible to package.

There are some things I can't go into at this stage but when we're done racing we'll publish all of our engineering and you can read it and argue with our engineers but there is no question that hanging a heavy KERS unit off of the rear of the gearbox isn't the best solution and engineering these systems to be in the front is better. Just by increasing battery cooling we can capture a lot more energy and reduce the size of the unit we're hanging off of our gearbox to the point where it is still able to capture all that can be produced. KERS units for road cars are oversized because they also capture petrol energy but in our car we also do that in traffic and under yellows so the size of the KERS Generator we need is effected by that. That Petrol is a complex balance in that if we use too much we get less range and require more frequent pitstops and generally KERS enables us to have fewer pit stops which makes a huge difference. We've come into the pit with just a half a liter of petrol which is edgy.

At night when it's cooler our KERS generates and stores a lot more energy and even using softer night tires we can extend range without running our of tire.

 

Thanks for the in depth answer, I can't wait for those engineering articles...

so to summarize the weight distribution is the key factor why front is better then rear, since both system are more limited by the (size of generator, heating of the system) rather then the actual energy recovered from back/front wheels...

The thing I love about engineering, and the reason I am one, is because there are as many answers to the same engineering problem as there are engenders solving it. There is almost never a 100% right way to do something, that satisfy every aspect of the problem, there is always loads and loads of compromises to be made. Each part of the team want's to use the solution that fits their department the best, (others be damed)

Examples, Toyota uses super caps and back wheel drive, Audi uses flywheels and front wheel drive. It has to be said, both systems are completely unusable for street use ... Both teams have enormous engendering resources behind them and yet they both found different solutions to the same question... Which is right, only time will tell, as it's way to soon to tell anything, since Le Mans was Toyotas first race, while Audi have been reigning there for a decade. (it is said it takes 3 years to win at Le Mans) so lets give Toyota the benefit of the doubt for the time being...

Same for Ferrari and Porsche, although it seems that the question in this case was different between Ferrari and Porsche...While the first wants to use it's Kers as a NOS, turbo device, the latter is truly committed to the fuel consumption, etc..... While the porsche will no doubt have an easier time with weight distribution ,since they have like 700lbs of it to move where thy please, it must be said that ferrari much lighter car should still come out ahead... not to mention, that it needs far less cooling, less things that can go wrong etc....

 

You mean the harvesting of the energy or the packaging of the system? Cause the application of the power is at the rear wheels in Toyota's case.

 

both harvesting and application is on the rear wheels on the toyota, it makes no sense to use the generators only as generators cause from an electrical standpoint they are identical to motors, it just depends if you are pumpin current into them (motor) or sinking it out (generator)...

This is somewhat more complicated of course, but the El engines used on KERS are two way, it would make no sense other way, unless someone makes up a rule preventing it...

 

Another render:
http://showautoreviews.com/caught-on-camera-the-new-ferrari-f70/
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/report-ferrari-readies-enzo-replacement-to-pack-920-hp-124873.html

I quite like it. However I find the back is little 'heavy' (Can also be caused by 3D rendering that is missing some depth )

 

The one that one the 24 Hours of LeMans this year was AWD. Toyota went back and forth and used RWD this year but they neither won nor finished.

Toyota developed both RWD and AWD but due to a last minute rule change went with RWD.

"Known as the 'TS030 Hybrid', the new Toyota was launched early in 2012. At that time, the engineers were assessing two distinct versions of the hybrid system; one with a front-mounted electric motor and the other with the electric motor mounted in unit with the engine. The former offered the advantage of all-wheel drive but a late adjustment to the regulations, reportedly on the insistence of Peugeot, limited the use of the front motor to speeds of over 120 km/h. As a result most of the advantages of driven front wheels were eliminated, so it was decided to use the rear-mounted option."

The fact remains that the AWD Audi car was faster and won.

 

Not an issue.

Squat down.

Raise to standing as fast as you can using your legs.

Have someone time you.

Squat down near a horizontal bar you can reach with you hands.

Raise to standing as fast as you can using your legs and arms.

Have someone time you.

Your legs and arms are producing different force but together they are faster.

 

One of our engineers found a system that can embed a super cap into CF. Think about storing recaptured energy in structure/chassis/body panels that you have to have anyway.

It's a bit pricey and we're not sure how the FIA will react to the idea of storing energy in your fenders.

 

I have not seen this on this thread yet.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

IMO the Road and Track one is closer especially hood radiator exit.

 

Just wanted to make these renderings easier to find (I had to hunt them down in this thread).

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/report-ferrari-readies-enzo-replacement-to-pack-920-hp-124873.html

http://www.roadandtrack.com/future-cars/first/r-t-exclusive-the-next-ferrari-enzo/
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Looks like someone photoshopped (poorly) an F12, a 458 and an Enzo. I don't view it as credible at all.

 

Even better, I think one of those (above) was influenced by a photoshop I did in another thread.. if not both.

This one just started with Jim's P 4/5 and kept layering it on. How lame is that?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The front of the rendering I posted yesterday:

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/227/2/5/f70_burnout_by_wizzoo7-d5b6tu0.png

Too much Enzo for me. But it is a million times better than the CarPassion rendering.

The designer said that this is not a rendering of the Enzo successor. It's a concept inspired on the Enzo. We can't say that it isn't well done. Simply, it looks like a modern day Enzo.

 

Excellent illustration. Thanks.

 

Lame? You could be the guy trying to sell a 918!
I am reminded by Jim's car that the Porsche 918 has the exhaust exiting in the top of the V on the engine and the PDK is mounted upside down. Beyond that it has little to offer compared to the F70. The Porsche carrying an extra 750 pounds before the driver even gets in is pure folly. Precipitated by all this pandering to real and imagined 'green' influences that needlessly drain consumer dollars. This being done in the name of 'technology advances' that offer little in return for astronomical cost. Basically double the cost of a CGT? Good Luck promoting that concept...
Especially after Ferrari already has a lock on the 'big wallets' out there.
CH

 

+1

The Enzo replacement will likely look far more radical.

Look at the Enzo today - 10 years on - and what was being done at the time by Ferrari.

The photoshop looks like a heavily modified 458 - I can't see that happening. There are bound to be radical ideas which will show Ferrari's design thinking for the next 10 years.

Please, please don't tell me that we'll now face FF, F12, Cali, 458 & Enzo replacement all with the same face!!

 

Sorry but the 458 facia looks nothing like the Cali, FF, or F12. The FF and F12 do have a very similar front.


Onno

 

I made this sketch in 3 minutes. Is not very acurate, but is the basic idea I have of the front of the car.

http://i.imgbox.com/actq2Jro.jpg

 

I appreciate that you took time to draw that. However, I certainly don't hope that the front will look similar to the F12 and the FF.

Nice sketch though.

 

Don't worry, I won't lokk similar to the actual Ferrari GTs. There are some interesting master lines in the front (judging from the spliter) very similar to Jason Castriiota's designs. Looks like a "triple front".

http://i.imgbox.com/acegaPyB.png

 

True. I noticed that as well on some of the earlier spy photos. It looks very much like a 599/Aventador-style front. I hope that is not going to be the case.

The front-end of the Enzo prototype looked vastly different from the final car. It might be the same case with this car.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Love the Countach wheels!


Image Unavailable, Please Login