[Tech Issue] KERS - all over already?

[ukaskew]

Originally Posted by Glen

A potential that is mostly diminished if the car you are trying to overtake is also fitted with KERS.

Which is where the strategy element comes in from having time-limited boost. Having essentially 'unnlimited' KERS would effectively cancel itself out.

[Glen]

I realise that, but the idea is flawed there too. The basic use is for getting lap-time each and every lap, by using it in the same place every time. If the driver keeps the KERS in-hand for a coming overtake or defence they will therefore lose lap-time.

Unlike other design features in racing, having the performance regulated means that it will ultimately cancel-out the benefit and be a very expensive white elephant. Bear in mind that the teams have each spent tens of millions on KERS, for almost no gain - and the target for total budget for the entire team next year is only £30m. A feature that, by regulation, can only give you the same benefit as any other team that costs ten of millions is not sensible. Mind you F1 is not about being sensible!

[crmalcolm]

I think it might be more beneficial to the KERS rule if it could only be used once or twice a lap.

Example theoretical situation.
Car A is running quicker, and catches up with, Car B.
Car B uses KERS after turn 1 to prevent overtaking.
Car B then uses the second KERS after turn 5 to prevent overtaking.
Car A late brakes into turn 8, and uses KERS on the exit to make the move stick.
Car B has no KERS left this lap, and so a succesful overtake has been made by the quicker car on track.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Glen

I realise that, but the idea is flawed there too. The basic use is for getting lap-time each and every lap, by using it in the same place every time. If the driver keeps the KERS in-hand for a coming overtake or defence they will therefore lose lap-time.

Unlike other design features in racing, having the performance regulated means that it will ultimately cancel-out the benefit and be a very expensive white elephant. Bear in mind that the teams have each spent tens of millions on KERS, for almost no gain - and the target for total budget for the entire team next year is only £30m. A feature that, by regulation, can only give you the same benefit as any other team that costs ten of millions is not sensible. Mind you F1 is not about being sensible!

Most of these tens of millions is one off development cost that they will not have to spend again. I tend to agree that regulating it tends to reduce it's effect on the racing but this is an argument for reducing the regulation not getting rid of KERS and this is indeed the plan.

Don't forget that even if you remove the time limit per lap you still have to manage the energy stored in the system, driver A elects to use his KERS for best lap time while driver B 'saves up' the energy from a couple of big stops and still mabages to stay close then he uses his KERS to help pass driver A whose KERS is nearly empty.

[TFHarv]

By those arguments the teams that have already developed KERS are quids in next season as they have already paid there money out to get it on the car this season so wont have to spend silly money out of their £30 million cap for next year.

That to me says anyone who manages to produce a system successfully this year is going to have 80bhp 6.5 seconds per lap over those that didn't or couldn't develop this year.

Maybe those that have done it already have done a brawn on the other teams for next year when they all have working double diffusers but only a few with KERS?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by TFHarv

By those arguments the teams that have already developed KERS are quids in next season as they have already paid there money out to get it on the car this season so wont have to spend silly money out of their £30 million cap for next year.

That to me says anyone who manages to produce a system successfully this year is going to have 80bhp 6.5 seconds per lap over those that didn't or couldn't develop this year.

Maybe those that have done it already have done a brawn on the other teams for next year when they all have working double diffusers but only a few with KERS?

If the FIA stick to the plan next year KERS will be allowed to have either more than 80hp or more than 6.5 seconds or both, which should make it even more useful.

[F1Pete]

This kinda reminds me of the turbo era. Renault (I think?) was the first to develop it and they were left on the starting grid in the beginning. Once it worked itself out, everyone had to have it. Hopefully it will be the same with KERS.

[Glen]

Well Ferrari have managed to make theirs catch fire quite well - so that's pretty similar to early Renault turbos.

[Marbot]

The FIA aren't too keen on KERS being a 'performance differentiator' because they are just like the engines really-where will it all end,and will it actually still be road relevant,if indeed the current (ouch) systems are anyway.

Indeed,there is talk that the electrical systems will be banned in favour of a single mechanical/hydraulic system.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The FIA aren't too keen on KERS being a 'performance differentiator' because they are just like the engines really-where will it all end,and will it actually still be road relevant,if indeed the current (ouch) systems are anyway.

Indeed,there is talk that the electrical systems will be banned in favour of a single mechanical/hydraulic system.

I hadn't picked up on getting rid of the electrical systems but I think the real innovations will come from mechanical KERS anyway, as indeed some already have. On that basis it might not be a bad idea.

I think there is a tendency to get too pedantic about road relevancy. F1 is road relevant and has contributed to road car development if an engineering challenge in F1 drives an engineer to come up with a concept that is picked up by road car designers. Some seem to expect a much closer coupling of F1 car to road car before they give F1 credit for making a contribution. Not a dig at anyone in particular, just a general comment.

[Pingguest]

Formula 1 is not only relevant for the road car industry. As pointed out yesterday at CNN other industries, from health care to aviation, have benefitted as well. A very good example was the introduction of carbon fiber wheelchairs.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The FIA aren't too keen on KERS being a 'performance differentiator' because they are just like the engines really-where will it all end,and will it actually still be road relevant,if indeed the current (ouch) systems are anyway.

No, they are more keen on the tyres being the performance differentiator. From that point of view I can't understand why Mosley so much opposed the tyre war.

[the.cosmic.pope]

KERS isn't really road relevant. Can you imagine a car where you only get to use the motor in bursts after long braking zones? Whilst it is a hybrid, the F1 version isn't really any use on the road. Now if you want the Peugeot 908 hybrid system where it is a constant charge/discharge system, then you have a more realistic system for road use.

KERS is just a marketing tool for F1. "Hey look, we have hybrids, we're green! Just like the green stripe on the tyre says!" Yeah, sure.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope

KERS isn't really road relevant. Can you imagine a car where you only get to use the motor in bursts after long braking zones? Whilst it is a hybrid, the F1 version isn't really any use on the road. Now if you want the Peugeot 908 hybrid system where it is a constant charge/discharge system, then you have a more realistic system for road use.

KERS is just a marketing tool for F1. "Hey look, we have hybrids, we're green! Just like the green stripe on the tyre says!" Yeah, sure.

Of course F1 isn't green. nothing about F1 is green in a direct sense to suggest so is plain silly. And of course the KERS systems in F1 will never find there way onto road cars, they are totally inappropriate, but that is not and never has been the point.

F1 is an arena where there are hugely talented engineers focused on the problems they are set by the rule makers, they will come up with innovative engineering solutions and some of these will find applications in the real world well before they would ever have existed without that intensity of development, especially if the rules are written to ask the right questions.

We have new devlopments in low friction vacuum sealed bearings and new ways of using toroidal CVT systems as a direct result of KERS being introduced into F1, there is probably more to come but if we don't continue to challenge the engineers it won't happen. As has been said earlier in this thread it is not just about road relevancy, it is engineering relevancy in a wider sense.

In fact there is scope for cars to make use of a KERS system very similar to a scaled down version of the F1 system and that is in stop start traffic in town. Why do cars use more fuel in town than on the motorway even though aerodynamic drag losses are much lower? because every time the queue moves forward you burn fuel and then turn the energy you've just paid for into heat by applying the brakes, KERS would allow you to recycle that energy and use much less fuel in stop start driving. This application needs a much smaller lower energy system than F1 but the mode of operation is exactly the same.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope

KERS isn't really road relevant. Can you imagine a car where you only get to use the motor in bursts after long braking zones?

Yes. Every red light or stopsign in town seems to me like it could be favourable to have a "turn braking power back into speed in 1 burst" motor. Highly road relevant IMO.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Yes. Every red light or stopsign in town seems to me like it could be favourable to have a "turn braking power back into speed in 1 burst" motor. Highly road relevant IMO.

It sounds like KERS could be everyones excuse to drive like a complete Moron.

[Oldtony]

The idea behind KERS has always been aimed at urban/suburban cycle driving, and that is what most of us do most of the time.
Right now maybe F1 could use it to achieve what NASCAR or V8 Supercar would call a parity adjustment. Just change the regs to allow recycling of about twice the amount of energy that is allowed at present. Maintain the present output and extend the time period to say 15 secs. My guess is that McMerc, BMW, Renault and Ferrari wouldimmediately become competitive again.
The only thing wrong with KERS is the dumb restriction on it's use.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It sounds like KERS could be everyones excuse to drive like a complete Moron.

Well, partially yes Normally one would be engine breaking of course, but you still need to get up to speed again afterwards which a Kers system would do "for free". A Kers type of system also make start/stop technology for the engine better.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by stedevil

but you still need to get up to speed again afterwards which a Kers system would do "for free".

Nothing is ever for free.

How much will the average system cost on top of a 'normal' vehicle? Will it 'pay for itself' over the ownership period? Will it be reliable? What will be the 'real cost' in terms of production,emissions and transport?

Will it negate the effect of a few million or so Tata Nano's that are at this moment being unleashed on an unsuspecting world?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Will it negate the effect of a few million or so Tata Nano's that are at this moment being unleashed on an unsuspecting world?

Not nearly as much as if we all got Tata Nano's when we replace our cars. Small simple and cheap cars are a good thing.

[Oldtony]

Mabo, this 70 plus moron and his missus have always manged to get around 80 to 100k out of a set of front pads, but I still recon we do enough braking in urban driving to keep a KERS system charged. It would take very little in the way of change in driving style even for the most cautious to gain a huge benefit.
Initial production would probably go into things like Taxis, Courier and delivery vehicles etc which would rapidly recap the cost. There is a company here in Aus which has developed an aftre market hydraulic accumulator kit for urban use trucks and buses and they rekcon fitment costs would be around A$1500.00. Estimated that the fuel saving would cover cost at around 100k, not counting savings on brake a driveline maintenance. Thats based on a fuel saving of 10% and around 16% has apparently been achieved with tests run on logging trucks in forestry work.
By the way as is typical of Australian developed technology it has now gone offshore for further development and production because of lack of local venture capital. Perhaps if F1 had gone with this idea earlier, and the group involved had called it KERS that might not have been needed.
KERS could be a major energy saving breakhrough. The development of lightwieght rugged systems in F1 would certainly bring it's use forward.
In an earlier post I jokingly suggested that freeing up the regs could help to make the non diffuser teams more competitive. The more I think about it, That said in jest may prove wisdom. Now who do I have to credit for that line?

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Nothing is ever for free.

Oh crap, no more beer for me

How much will the average system cost on top of a 'normal' vehicle? Will it 'pay for itself' over the ownership period? Will it be reliable? What will be the 'real cost' in terms of production,emissions and transport?

Will it negate the effect of a few million or so Tata Nano's that are at this moment being unleashed on an unsuspecting world?

I'm reasonably confident electric systems like currently used in F1 will NOT be costeffective on a NON electric car. On an electric car this is of course already implemented since all parts needed are already there.

On non electric propulsion cars however I do see potential in the flywheel system, as it stores the force directly in inertia as opposed to a battery/electric system that converts the motion energy into electric and then back to motion, with all the efficiency loss that brings with it.

For the Nano's, if the technology gets good enough, it will eventually find it's way on board also the Nano. This is essentially a cost saving technique, not a Luxury item, and as such, if the cost/benefit ratio is beneficial it will with time turn up even on the Tata Nanos of the world.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Oh crap, no more beer for me

I'm reasonably confident electric systems like currently used in F1 will NOT be costeffective on a NON electric car. On an electric car this is of course already implemented since all parts needed are already there.

On non electric propulsion cars however I do see potential in the flywheel system, as it stores the force directly in inertia as opposed to a battery/electric system that converts the motion energy into electric and then back to motion, with all the efficiency loss that brings with it.

On the other hand it much easier to have a small generator per wheel feeding a single point of electricity storage/single motor to the drive wheels than try and get a mechanical linkage to a single flywheel storage system. Or you have multiple flywheel systems (one per wheel) with their associated losses and higher production costs.

Flywheels of course also need to be heavy and quite large to store the required energy. But then so do batteries.

Its all swings and roundabouts.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by JamesH

On the other hand it much easier to have a small generator per wheel feeding a single point of electricity storage/single motor to the drive wheels than try and get a mechanical linkage to a single flywheel storage system. Or you have multiple flywheel systems (one per wheel) with their associated losses and higher production costs.

Flywheels of course also need to be heavy and quite large to store the required energy. But then so do batteries.

Its all swings and roundabouts.

Well, a flywheel doesnt necessarily need to be very heavy in linear acceleration it just needs to have a relative high rotational mass and be able to do (very) high revs (0,5 x m x v2 makes the speed the superior factor by far).

And naturally, electric storage is a lot simpler to develop. But even now the F1 KERS is connected to the drive shaft, not the wheels directly. For road relevance, you are in any case looking at FWD which is where most of the braking should come from, so having the "interface" of the flywheel similar to the electics based KERS units makes sense as well.

But for sure it is a "swings and roundabouts" issue. But most new technical discoveries are before you find out just the right combination that works the best.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Well, a flywheel doesnt necessarily need to be very heavy in linear acceleration it just needs to have a relative high rotational mass and be able to do (very) high revs (0,5 x m x v2 makes the speed the superior factor by far).

And naturally, electric storage is a lot simpler to develop. But even now the F1 KERS is connected to the drive shaft, not the wheels directly. For road relevance, you are in any case looking at FWD which is where most of the braking should come from, so having the "interface" of the flywheel similar to the electics based KERS units makes sense as well.

But for sure it is a "swings and roundabouts" issue. But most new technical discoveries are before you find out just the right combination that works the best.

Agreed the speed is a exponential relationship, but you very quickly get to problems of flywheel materials not being strong enough to cope with the forces involved. Bigger and slower means less danger and also cheaper. But more difficult to package.

Perhaps you should have a leccy generator/motor on each wheel, and a motor/generator attached to the flywheel, which you use to store the energy. Yes, lots of losses in the conversion to leccy and back and forth, but (and I am guessing), perhaps only of the order of the friction losses of the CVT and driveshafts required to physically connect wheels to the flywheel. You capture the energy from all the wheels that way, not just the driven ones. Still, I am sure many people smarter than me have gone through all this stuff!