KERS store must between driver & engine....

[Scania]

that means Flybrid is not allowed to use....

[WhiteBlue]

I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Can you elaborate?

[Scania]

I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Can you elaborate?

because flybrid must mount on gear box

[Giblet]

Could it not also exist elsewhere in the car, like in the required place, and have the energy from the gearbox transferred hydraulically or through other means?

[Steven]

that means Flybrid is not allowed to use....

Actually, Williams's system has the flywheel positions where it is allowed to be. They put it above the fuel tank. That is generally a bit higher than where teams put their battery packs, but it is in the allowed area for 2010.

Correction, flybrid is not Williams' system of course. However, flybrid can as well be fitted ahead of the engine to the crankshaft, just like all current MGUs.

[axle]

I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Can you elaborate?

because flybrid must mount on gear box

LOL

No it doesn't...

[Scania]

Correction, flybrid is not Williams' system of course. However, flybrid can as well be fitted ahead of the engine to the crankshaft, just like all current MGUs.

but Flybrid is too big for that aera, it will waste the space for fuel tank

[safeaschuck]

I think that mounting issues are the least of the problems standing in the way of flybrid's use. I don't beleive anyone is looking to adopt Flybrid for '10 but if they were it would be quite possible to run it from the driver end of the engine. They have a collection of engine timing gears there anyway and a set of dropper ratio's could be incorporated to reduce the crank speed if necesarry, in fact as I mentioned on the Kers thread, I would have thought using a factor of crank speed would give the best results anyway due to it varying less widely than a factor of road speed.
The flybrid hardware would need adapting to suit individual gearbox's anyway so a move to the front of the engine would not be the nail in the coffin. I believe that by common concencus on the previous (big [25pages or so]) kers thread was that it seems that direct mechanical links between the engine and the CVT/flywheel make it rather difficult to balance out the collecting/storage/output of power without adding on more and more hardware. An additional clutch mechanism would be a case in point, and who knows whether a simple plate clutch would have a progressive enough feed rate, perhaps a torque converter would be more suitable, and so on and so on until someone actually puts the system on the grid.
One thing I don;t believe this is, is an attempt by anyone to make the flybrid system less competitive an option.


I could be wrong! Perhaps that was just my take on it!

[ISLAMATRON]

I dont think it precludes the use of "flybrid"(which doesnt have any team associated) or williams flywheel... like others have stated the original idea was for williams flywheel to be placed above the fuel tank anyway... the have the option of moving the MGU to the engine or the driveshaft.

With the power exactly doubled for next year it could prove even more advantageous for the flywheel if Williams ever got to running it. doubling the power effectively doubles the weight of the current battery solutions whereas I dont believe the weight of the flywheel solution would have to be increased much to accept the extra power.


I think it was a good move by the FIA to double the power output of the KERS systems... in this way the teams dont have to totally redesign the current systems, just run 2 battery packs and 2 MGU's (and possibly only 1 control unit)

[Conceptual]

Does anyone care to speculate as to why the FIA decided to police the location of the KERS in the first place? I mean, why would it's placement need to be restricted?

It looks like they went out of their way to force a rear biased weight distribution (big fuel tanks, KERS, Engine).

I wonder if they did this to keep the flywheels out of the nose of the car to prevent some sort of pitch dampening effect?

Anyone have any other ideas why they did this?

[safeaschuck]

Speculate I shall as it my favorite hobby!

They (FIA/Mosley) can already forsee the day when the Kers/electrical unit is a larger/heavier assembly than the I/C engine and they are making sure this is as painless as possible for the teams to integrate by starting the way they intend to carry on.
Example - a team develops a gearbox mounted MGU which grows and grows every year to the point where they are forced into an expensive redesign to move it between I/C engine and driver as it is compromising weight disbrubution hanging off the back. this would be particularly difficult if engines are frozen, and certainly makes it an easier sell when installing the 'world engine'.

Think about it, Kers capacity is likely to inrcease year on year and soon we will be looking at tiny turbo engines.

Speculation complete.
Also I have only just noticed that F.I.A. stands for '--- It All' and, more relevantly '--- It Again'
how lame that I haven't picked this up before!

[DaveKillens]

I scoured the regulations and there is no mention of any requirement for KERS location. However, the sheer physical size and mass required for such a system doesn't leave the engineers much room to find a place to put it.
This year we have KERS. next year it will have increased performance. I figure that soon after, KERS will be allowed to be used each corner, each acceleration opportunity. That will result in a very demanding cycle between charge and discharge. I have serious reservations if a battery is capable of doing this kind of job. But a flywheel...? hmmm

[Conceptual]

I scoured the regulations and there is no mention of any requirement for KERS location. However, the sheer physical size and mass required for such a system doesn't leave the engineers much room to find a place to put it.
This year we have KERS. next year it will have increased performance. I figure that soon after, KERS will be allowed to be used each corner, each acceleration opportunity. That will result in a very demanding cycle between charge and discharge. I have serious reservations if a battery is capable of doing this kind of job. But a flywheel...? hmmm

5.2.5 All KERS energy storage devices must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver's back when viewed in lateral projection. When establishing the front face of the engine, no parts of the fuel, oil, water or electrical systems will be considered.

So no locating the electrical flywheel horizontally in the nose to provide pitch dampening. I think that is just plain dumb, since it could move some weight forward, and possibly be changed/uninstalled with the nose.

What a shame, I was looking forward to something like this.

[Conceptual]

Does anyone know if the MGU system is DC or three phase AC? From my time with an electrical contractor, a 3 phase system would be more efficient, and require a higher gague (smaller) wire to transport the electricity between the MGU and storage system. If it is a high amperage DC system, the wires would become enormous for any distance longer than 3 feet.

Scarbs, do you happen to know anything about this?

Thanks!

[nudger]

With the power exactly doubled for next year it could prove even more advantageous for the flywheel if Williams ever got to running it. doubling the power effectively doubles the weight of the current battery solutions whereas I dont believe the weight of the flywheel solution would have to be increased much to accept the extra power.

or they could use the same battery pack and use it twice as long.



ive not seen any definative statement but its always been said its a DC system.
The cables arnt as bad as you might think...they are still a bit bulky, but the aviation aluminium power cables are incredibly light.