So here is a thought. And no, I did not stay at the Holiday Inn Express, I just drove by one. Could that 160 HP of KERS for 8 seconds a lap( or what ever) be used for fuel saving (and therefore carrying a smaller load) vs passing? Certainly we've seen slow (relatively speaking) and steady strategy pay off a few times. If teams get the math right, smaller fuel load, easier on the tires, etc.. could be food for thought? Or am I too smart for my own good?
Or maybe not. The KERS is recovering energy that has been produced by the engine from fuel, and doesn't produce any energy on its own. So it's not an extra power source, just a way of getting more out of the existing fuel. Teams do use a fuel-saving strategy at times - the simplest is a few seconds of coasting before applying the brakes, but you can tell the guys doing this, as they're the ones being passed.
I thought KERS was recovering braking energy, and the new ERS is some kind of turbine hooked to the turbo? I'm not really sure how that's supposed to work without leaching energy from the turbo pretty badly since the turbine will have a certain amount of resistance to being turned, which would reduce the turbo's effectiveness. But that aside, I think the braking energy portion would still be around somehow. Actually, I'd really like to know a lot more about those systems. I know Williams uses some kind of mechanical flywheel for energy storage rather than batteries, but I really don't know as much I'd like to. I think they sold their flywheel design to Audi for Le Mans. In any event, F1 has often been about managing some kind of resource, from engines to gearboxes, and currently tires. Next year maybe we'll get some more durable tires to offset the fuel managing? I dunno. We'll just have to see. But yeah, being too fuel conscious sounds problematic for racing cars.
Yep, but braking energy is kinetic energy which only exists because fuel was burnt to accelerate the car up to a high speed. Similarly the turbo is running at high speed because fuel was burnt, producing an energetic (hot, high speed) exhaust flow. Reduce the fuel flow and there'll be less energy to recover. And recovering much of the energy doesn't seem to be practical - things like road hybrids don't recover more than 10%. So using energy from the KERS to accelerate the car and then recovering most of that same energy back to the KERS system isn't a workable plan. It's certainly interesting to see them recover energy from the exhaust, as it's not clear to me that this is 'free' - if the exhaust turbine has to be driven, it creates back pressure to do so, which reduces mechanical power output. But maybe it's six of one and only two twos of the other? It'll be interesting to see how reliable these systems are, as doing all this at F1 weight levels, will be pretty clever. If like me you have experience of Magneti Marelli components mixed with water (in a road car), just look at where this generator sits - bang up against a glowing-red turbo: Hands up all those who thinks its life expectancy is measured in minutes, not hours.....
True, all energy to be recovered will have been generated in the first place by burning fuel, but most of the fuel's energy is wasted as heat that's normally just thrown away in the hot exhaust gas, by engine cooling, and by brake ducts trying to keep rotors from overheating. The amount of energy that can be recovered rather than lost as waste heat generated by fuel burn far outweighs any scavenging effect that might be caused by a turbo. And rather than turning the post-fuel burn kinetic energy at the wheels into waste heat via friction, some portion of that otherwise lost energy (I don't know the %age) can be recovered by a generator (regenerative braking). The trick is to come up with systems that actually work and can efficiently recover much of that wasted heat energy. This, I'm sure, is one of the reasons the new engines will be supplied at twice the cost of current engines. Here's a snip from an article on formula1blog:
I believe Williams is the only F1 team to try to develop a flywheel version. It worked but was problematic for F1 use because of weight considerations and packaging. They eventually decided to use a battery storage system. They didn't abandon the flywheel system though, they set up a company to sell them (Williams Hybrid Power) and I think you're right about it first being used in Audi LM prototypes.
I know everyone's seen Youtube vids of turbo engines with bright red glowing exhausts, but with water cooled center sections, that heat really isn't an issue for the turbo bearings and by extension the generator in the center, just like it's not an issue on our MINIs unless the cooling system fails, and if it does the engine's going to blow anyway. And the turbo cools quite quickly on the overrun, that's part of the fuel management strategy too. Still, any time you're introducing this much change in between seasons, the learning curve is huge! Those teams with the deep pockets like Big Mac, Mercedes and Red Bull will probably have a leg up on the rest, possibly for the whole first season - I don't know where Ferrari will shake out next season, but how this is a cost saving measure is sure a mystery to me. But it does accomplish one goal, that of trying to make F1 tech more relevant to street cars......at least more so than the current tiny increments from aero tweaking. I think it will be pretty much anyone's game next year, certainly in the first half season, and I'm looking forward to it.
There's audio here of an interview with Steve Matchett on the challenges faced developing the 2014 cars. Warning, it's an hour and 22min, so don't bother unless you have some time. F1B Downshift: Steve Matchett on 2014 regulations
The summer break ends with a return to Spa is this weekend! Racer.com posted a bunch of historic pics from the Spa GP. Check out the article here: PERSPECTIVE: Spa's greatest F1 races And here are a few of their pics for inspiration: 1947 - Achille Varzi leads Jean-Pierre Wimille at start in Alfa 158s. Wimille won. 1955 - Eugenio Castellotti's Lancia D50 beat the MBenzes of Fangio + Moss to pole. 1958 - Tony Brooks won for Vanwall. 1965 - This was Jimmy Clark's last of four straight wins at Spa, in a Lotus 33. 1967 - Of course, had to show it - Dan Gurney's Eagle-Weslake winner. 1968 - 1st win for McLaren, driven by Bruce himself (here chased by Ickx + Courage). 1970 - The winning BRM P153 of Pedro Rodriguez. Final GP at Spa for 13 years. 1983 - Alain Prost's Renault RE40 was first winner on the revised (halved) circuit. 1985- Ayrton Senna's first of five wins at Spa, Lotus-Renault 97T. ...the ’88 McLaren-Honda MP4/4. Senna heading to Spa victory. 1989 - Ayrton Senna McLaren-Honda MP4/5. P1 (of course). 1993 - Prost leads Williams teammate Damon Hill (winner), Senna, Alesi, Suzuki, Warwick. 2002 - 6-time Spa winner Michael Schumacher. 2009 - 4-time Spa winner Kimi Raikkonen's final win for Ferrari…for now ;-)
/\Good stuff!! Great track for the first race back for what seemed to be a loooooong break, I've missed my F1!!
I am so looking forward to this one. Weather so far looks to be in the upper 70°'s. And since it's a low downforce course, I'm betting everyone's tires will last. This is going to be full throttle fun!
This is a good read - Gerald Donaldson: DC Describes A Disastrous Belgian GP Along with a video of the race highlights [ame=http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5kt5l_spa-francorchamps-1998-belgium-gp-h_auto]Spa Francorchamps 1998 Belgium gp highlights - Vidéo Dailymotion[/ame]
Silly season is getting fun! Massa's seat is being questioned, he says it may be in jeopardy. Button says his future with McLaren isn't clear. Horner claims Raikkonen is still a contender for the RB seat. Further down the grid, Kovalainen drove a Caterham again in FP1 and is being questioned about his F1 future. Speculation running wild!
Ecclestone says 2014 Grand Prix of America is dead The United States of America will not be getting a second Formula One race next year. The troubled Grand Prix of America, which was slated to run on a street circuit on the shores of the Hudson river and in the shadow of the New York City skyline has been shelved, following the failure of the race's organizers to come up with the requisite $100 million in funds demanded by F1's tempestuous maestro, Bernie Ecclestone. The problematic Grand Prix was already pushed back once, from the 2013 season to 2014, and Ecclestone has also torn up at least one contract. At the helm of the US race is Leo Hindrey, a multi-billionaire and a managing partner at InterMedia Partners, and Chris Pook, an ally of Ecclestone's and the former boss of the CART. The two placed Swiss financier and bank UBS in charge of putting together the $100 million. While UBS has only been on the case since June, according to the CNN report, that's apparently long enough for Ecclestone, who told the news channel, "It's not on the cards for next year. They haven't got any money." Ecclestone followed up, saying the GPoA "is like Donington all over again," referring to the race at the UK's Donington Park. The UK track was meant to take the British Grand Prix from Silverstone in 2010, but was dropped before a single race could be ran, due to its failure to come up with the $210-million race fee. Despite the lack of funds, the organizers of US race remain confident that they'll still be on the finalized calendar to be released by the FIA at the end of the year. Ecclestone's decision regarding this second US race is a telling one, though, as CNN points out. Running a race with the NYC skyline has been a dream of the F1 boss for year, and while that dream may be in tatters, there's still a spot on the F1 calendar that will need to be filled. It's unclear what will happen if the US race organizers can come up with the money before the end of the year.
$100M? :eek6: That seems ludicrously high even by Bernie's standards. Maybe that's for a multi-year contract?