Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2014 rule change - electric motors not mandatory in pit lane
146 views
Skip to first unread message
Bobster
Nov 7, 2012, 6:43:23 AM11/7/12
to
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 8:09:12 AM11/7/12
to
Bobster wrote ...
>
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
able to start the engine?
Given the problems many cars have had 'harvesting' KERS power, we might
have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at the end of
the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
>
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
able to start the engine?
Given the problems many cars have had 'harvesting' KERS power, we might
have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at the end of
the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
build
Nov 7, 2012, 9:23:42 AM11/7/12
to
Think !!!
beers,
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 10:25:53 AM11/7/12
to
build wrote ...
With fuck all battery power - nowhere.
YFI
YFI
Alister
Nov 7, 2012, 11:13:43 AM11/7/12
to
for 8 seconds so it is not an invalid question.
80hp would probably hold the pit lane speed limit long enough for he car
to coast to its box, getting out again would be a problem though.
--
Try to relax and enjoy the crisis.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
Bobster
Nov 7, 2012, 11:25:38 AM11/7/12
to
It also seems that some tracks are more "KERS friendly" than others.
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 11:47:33 AM11/7/12
to
Alister wrote ...
What part of re-starting the engine and failure to harvest don't you
understand ?
At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
understand ?
At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
build
Nov 7, 2012, 12:02:51 PM11/7/12
to
A simple change to the ECU and current cars could easily cope with motorless stops. Ask Dave.
Mind you I'm not yet convinced it was a good idea but hey ...
Bigbird
Nov 7, 2012, 12:05:36 PM11/7/12
to
Think !!!
Does it matter how fast they can go or just that they can go as fast as
the PSL?
Think !!!
Let's see how good you logic is.
Drink !!!
build
Nov 7, 2012, 12:09:24 PM11/7/12
to
>
> At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
True.
> At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
And note my previous post, I like noise :-)
build
Nov 7, 2012, 12:28:58 PM11/7/12
to
Bird,
Stop, think !!!
How much power does an F1 car use entering the pits? initially it is slowing and charging ERS to full capacity The car is slowing then cruising, how much HP is required. Then it stops (which charges the ERS).
How much power was lost from the pit entry to the start of braking for the "box", how much power was gained during braking to stop in the box, quite a bit?
So even under current regs if a car comes into the pits with full (K)ERS and has an appropriate ECU then 80HP over 6 seconds will get that very light car out of the pits rather quickly.
I should point out the 2014 regs allow much more ERS than the current cars, my point is that it (pit stop) can be done even under current KERS regs with a modified ECU.
beers,
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 12:47:14 PM11/7/12
to
Bigbird wrote ...
More of the usual shite from the drunk.
Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
at 60 kph and restart the engine.
Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
at 60 kph and restart the engine.
Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
build
Nov 7, 2012, 1:18:35 PM11/7/12
to
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:47:15 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
> More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
> 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
> regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
> at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
> battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
I have to laugh. I did my calcs on 6 secs and it just worked, with 8 secs it is a shoe in.
> More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
> 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
> regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
> at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
> battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
You seem to forget the entry is braking which charges ERS, however I am presuming full KERS at pit entry. The cruising, well you know when you cruise the foot comes off the throttle as that is kindergarten stuff but you know that. Then you violently brake which charges the ERS, so you have very close to full KERS when stopped.
80HP for 8 seconds to get you out of the pits. Is that enough?
:-)
Bigbird
Nov 7, 2012, 2:34:25 PM11/7/12
to
build wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:05:37 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > WTF have the revs got to do with it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Think !!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Does it matter how fast they can go or just that they can go as
> > fast as
> >
> > the PSL?
> >
> >
> >
> > Think !!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Let's see how good you logic is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drink !!!
>
> (bugger it I'm not snipping crap)
It's okay I've done it for you.
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:05:37 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > WTF have the revs got to do with it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Think !!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Does it matter how fast they can go or just that they can go as
> > fast as
> >
> > the PSL?
> >
> >
> >
> > Think !!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Let's see how good you logic is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drink !!!
>
> (bugger it I'm not snipping crap)
>
> Bird,
> Stop, think !!!
build
Think!!!
What is the answer to the questions?
Think!!!
Why is your question a crap?
Think!!!
AC
Nov 7, 2012, 2:34:27 PM11/7/12
to
build wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:47:15 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>> More of the usual shite from the drunk.
>> Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
>> 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
>> regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
>> at 60 kph and restart the engine.
>> Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
>> battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
>> Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
>> allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
>> failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> I have to laugh. I did my calcs
Post them, or its a whole load of liar routine again.
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:47:15 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>> More of the usual shite from the drunk.
>> Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
>> 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
>> regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
>> at 60 kph and restart the engine.
>> Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
>> battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
>> Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
>> allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
>> failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> I have to laugh. I did my calcs
--
AC
AC
Nov 7, 2012, 2:35:34 PM11/7/12
to
--
AC
Bigbird
Nov 7, 2012, 2:36:18 PM11/7/12
to
build wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:47:15 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
> > More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> > Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars
> > speed by 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that
> > demand. The new regs would have required the battery to run the
> > car for up to 30 seconds at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> > Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge
> > the battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> > Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> > allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> > failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> I have to laugh. I did my calcs on 6 secs and it just worked, with 8
> secs it is a shoe in.
>
Show your working. I'll show you why it's a pile of crap.
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:47:15 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
> > More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> > Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars
> > speed by 15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that
> > demand. The new regs would have required the battery to run the
> > car for up to 30 seconds at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> > Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge
> > the battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> > Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> > allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> > failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> I have to laugh. I did my calcs on 6 secs and it just worked, with 8
> secs it is a shoe in.
>
Alister
Nov 7, 2012, 4:05:05 PM11/7/12
to
though"
--
As I currently don't have a floppy drive in my computer, I'd like to
make an `emergency cdrom' ;)
-- Eugene Crosser <cro...@average.org>
awa...@yahoo.com
Nov 7, 2012, 4:26:12 PM11/7/12
to
In article <MPG.2b04aeff2...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj
garagista outfit called Williams F1...that they used all year, won Le Mans
with that has to power the car solely on KERS the entire length of the pitlane
at 60kmh,with full set of lights, and can only harvest 500kjoules.[1]
it uses a flywheel tech which F1 doesnt like,and F1 only likes 400kJ for some
reason,
but its clearly achievable technology thats been proven in one of the
toughest motor races in the world,, Toyota have developed their own system as
well based on a different approach and sure its complicated stuff off course
but F1 isnt go-karting, its not meant to be basic stuff, they spend millions
on tiny aerodynamic improvements to wings that need floviz paint to check out,
which are totally meaningless to fans or applications to road cars or engines.
you cant see that Red Bull have made a technical gain by adding 2mm of carbon
fibre on to a front wing.
and so what if the cars break more often, you learn more about technology and
how to make it better that way.
the only reason that the "manufacturers" (proxies for the teams) dont want it,
is because they know Williams have a head start on this, and that other teams
are looking at it and the ones who havent dont want to lose the advantages
they currently have with bendy wings or whatever tricks they are currently
using.
[1] its only criticism has been it scares the hell out of people in the
pitlane because it makes no noise and you cant hear the cars coming anymore
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>More of the usual shite from the drunk.
>Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
>15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
>regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
>at 60 kph and restart the engine.
>Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
>battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
>Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
>allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
>failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
hmm so strange that Audi have a piece of KERS kit made by some back street
>More of the usual shite from the drunk.
>Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
>15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
>regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
>at 60 kph and restart the engine.
>Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
>battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
>Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
>allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
>failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
garagista outfit called Williams F1...that they used all year, won Le Mans
with that has to power the car solely on KERS the entire length of the pitlane
at 60kmh,with full set of lights, and can only harvest 500kjoules.[1]
it uses a flywheel tech which F1 doesnt like,and F1 only likes 400kJ for some
reason,
but its clearly achievable technology thats been proven in one of the
toughest motor races in the world,, Toyota have developed their own system as
well based on a different approach and sure its complicated stuff off course
but F1 isnt go-karting, its not meant to be basic stuff, they spend millions
on tiny aerodynamic improvements to wings that need floviz paint to check out,
which are totally meaningless to fans or applications to road cars or engines.
you cant see that Red Bull have made a technical gain by adding 2mm of carbon
fibre on to a front wing.
and so what if the cars break more often, you learn more about technology and
how to make it better that way.
the only reason that the "manufacturers" (proxies for the teams) dont want it,
is because they know Williams have a head start on this, and that other teams
are looking at it and the ones who havent dont want to lose the advantages
they currently have with bendy wings or whatever tricks they are currently
using.
[1] its only criticism has been it scares the hell out of people in the
pitlane because it makes no noise and you cant hear the cars coming anymore
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 4:56:35 PM11/7/12
to
awa...@yahoo.com wrote ...
>
> In article <MPG.2b04aeff2...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> >Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
> >15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
> >regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
> >at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> >Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
> >battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> >Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> >allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> >failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> hmm so strange that Audi have a piece of KERS kit made by some back street
> garagista outfit called Williams F1...that they used all year, won Le Mans
> with that has to power the car solely on KERS the entire length of the pitlane
> at 60kmh,with full set of lights, and can only harvest 500kjoules.[1]
>
> it uses a flywheel tech which F1 doesnt like,and F1 only likes 400kJ for some
> reason,
Which weighs more than the current batteries used in F1 - which isn't a
problem as Le Mans cars have a greater minimum weight (from what I can
make of their rulz - something like 200Kg)
Le Mans cars don't harvest 500kj - that's the amount of energy they are
allowed to release in the KERS zones. 100hp in 6 seconds.
>
> In article <MPG.2b04aeff2...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >More of the usual shite from the drunk.
> >Currently KERS works for 8 seconds a lap and increases the cars speed by
> >15kph. The battery they use is designed to supply that demand. The new
> >regs would have required the battery to run the car for up to 30 seconds
> >at 60 kph and restart the engine.
> >Only a fuckwitted drunk would claim it would be possible to charge the
> >battery for that usage in the last corner and entering the pits.
> >Increasing the amount of time/power that any future KERS systems is
> >allowed would still require the batteries to be larger to cover any
> >failure in harvesting the Track Kits.
>
> hmm so strange that Audi have a piece of KERS kit made by some back street
> garagista outfit called Williams F1...that they used all year, won Le Mans
> with that has to power the car solely on KERS the entire length of the pitlane
> at 60kmh,with full set of lights, and can only harvest 500kjoules.[1]
>
> it uses a flywheel tech which F1 doesnt like,and F1 only likes 400kJ for some
> reason,
problem as Le Mans cars have a greater minimum weight (from what I can
make of their rulz - something like 200Kg)
Le Mans cars don't harvest 500kj - that's the amount of energy they are
allowed to release in the KERS zones. 100hp in 6 seconds.
AC
Nov 7, 2012, 5:28:33 PM11/7/12
to
--
AC
AC
Nov 7, 2012, 5:33:21 PM11/7/12
to
can hear an F1 car. Assuming one is not blind. Ferrari seem fine with
KERS stuff, since they also use it in their road cars, well, one at least.
From what I can make out, its like the engine size thing: macho willy
waving.
--
AC
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 5:48:48 PM11/7/12
to
On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
that's going to happen. Not.)
Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed
to reduce its lap times.)
Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
Leaving no power to start the engine.
Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
#Just sayin.
--
Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'
(Oscar Wilde.)
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
that's going to happen. Not.)
Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed
to reduce its lap times.)
Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
Leaving no power to start the engine.
Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
#Just sayin.
--
Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'
(Oscar Wilde.)
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 5:52:24 PM11/7/12
to
> is because they know Williams have a head start on this, and that other teams
> are looking at it and the ones who haven't don't want to lose the advantages
> they currently have with bendy wings or whatever tricks they are currently
> using.
>
>
> [1] its only criticism has been it scares the hell out of people in the
> pit-lane because it makes no noise and you cant hear the cars coming anymore
> using.
>
>
> [1] its only criticism has been it scares the hell out of people in the
>
Brilliant. I knew Williams system was good from the get go.
The rest of you buggers in this n.g., read this and learn?
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 5:54:29 PM11/7/12
to
Semantics. Regs are variable, no?
News
Nov 7, 2012, 5:54:53 PM11/7/12
to
faint "Star Trek-like" startup/low speed warning warble. I'm trying to
replace the warble with an mp3 of a 1970s F1 DFV, Matra V12, or Can Am
Traco Chevy V8 burnout.
news.shared-secrets.com
Nov 7, 2012, 6:09:36 PM11/7/12
to
Mower Man wrote ...
>
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
> > http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> >
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed
> to reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
>
> Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
> start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
> off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
> rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
>
> #Just sayin.
#just repeating what I said several hours ago.
>
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
> > http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> >
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed
> to reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
>
> Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
> start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
> off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
> rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
>
> #Just sayin.
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 6:13:43 PM11/7/12
to
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 6:16:05 PM11/7/12
to
On 07/11/2012 11:09 PM, news.shared-secrets.com wrote:
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 6:18:27 PM11/7/12
to
Mower Man wrote ...
> >
> Where did you say that? Under which nym? Help me out here.
this one
> >
> Where did you say that? Under which nym? Help me out here.
Mower Man
Nov 7, 2012, 7:21:45 PM11/7/12
to
Noj
Nov 7, 2012, 7:26:53 PM11/7/12
to
Mower Man wrote ...
>
> On 07/11/2012 11:18 PM, Noj wrote:
> > Mower Man wrote ...
> >
> >
> >>>
> >> Where did you say that? Under which nym? Help me out here.
> >
> >
> > this one
> >
>
> No, *where*? Cannot find it in this thread...
this -
>
> On 07/11/2012 11:18 PM, Noj wrote:
> > Mower Man wrote ...
> >
> >
> >>>
> >> Where did you say that? Under which nym? Help me out here.
> >
> >
> > this one
> >
>
> No, *where*? Cannot find it in this thread...
Bobster
Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:46 PM11/7/12
to
points for the benefit of the folks who are arguing on the basis that
KERS is one thing on all cars and under all circumstances.
Dave Baker
Nov 7, 2012, 11:27:55 PM11/7/12
to
"Noj" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b046dc22...@news.aioe.org...
> Bobster wrote ...
>
>>
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
>
> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> able to start the engine?
No, given that this is complete bollocks. Currently KERS is mandated to
>
>>
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
>
> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> able to start the engine?
supply 60kW peak demand with a maximum utilisation per lap of 400kJ. That
limits the application time per lap to 400/60 = 6.67 seconds at peak power.
The peak demand in 2014 is set to rise to 120kW and the utilisation to
4000kJ per lap or 33.33 seconds at the new higher full power. Whether this
amount can be harvested each lap is another story.
To drive an F1 car at 80 kph in the pits takes about 10kW so even the
current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
issue.
More to the point it's yet another fucking stupid FIA idea which will cost a
fortune and deliver nothing in terms of safety or spectacle. McLaren spent
$100 million developing KERS in its first year. Not all teams use it even
now. They'd have to if it became mandatory in the pits.
The FIA keep saying they want to cap costs yet they change the engine regs
from V8s to 6 cylinder turbos which has cost megabucks to develop, they
introduce KERS which has cost even more, they restrict test sessions which
means new drivers can't easily become familiar with the massive complexity
of the car's control systems and hence crash more often as they are mentally
overloaded just trying to drive the car let alone manage the path through
other vehicles around them.
Trying to make F1 "green" or implement fuel saving regs is so utterly
ridiculous it beggars belief. The entire circus is so wasteful of fuel and
every other resource anyway but that's almost the entire point of it. State
of the art cars with ridiculous amounts of power using huge amounts of fuel
for no other purpose than titillating punters. Trying to turn this show
green is a bit like putting a band aid on an amputed leg and saying "There,
there, you'll be fine now. It'll grow back."
Fucking idiots the lot of them.
--
Dave Baker
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 12:05:47 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 6:28 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Noj" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2b046dc22...@news.aioe.org...
>
> > Bobster wrote ...
>
> >>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
> > They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> > as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> > able to start the engine?
>
> No, given that this is complete bollocks. Currently KERS is mandated to
> supply 60kW peak demand with a maximum utilisation per lap of 400kJ. That
> limits the application time per lap to 400/60 = 6.67 seconds at peak power.
> The peak demand in 2014 is set to rise to 120kW and the utilisation to
> 4000kJ per lap or 33.33 seconds at the new higher full power. Whether this
> amount can be harvested each lap is another story.
In 2014 they don't just harvest from the brakes. They also harvest
> "Noj" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2b046dc22...@news.aioe.org...
>
> > Bobster wrote ...
>
> >>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>
> > They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> > as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> > able to start the engine?
>
> No, given that this is complete bollocks. Currently KERS is mandated to
> supply 60kW peak demand with a maximum utilisation per lap of 400kJ. That
> limits the application time per lap to 400/60 = 6.67 seconds at peak power.
> The peak demand in 2014 is set to rise to 120kW and the utilisation to
> 4000kJ per lap or 33.33 seconds at the new higher full power. Whether this
> amount can be harvested each lap is another story.
heat energy from the turbo.
>
> To drive an F1 car at 80 kph in the pits takes about 10kW so even the
> current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
> would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
> is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
> issue.
>
> More to the point it's yet another fucking stupid FIA idea which will cost a
> fortune and deliver nothing in terms of safety or spectacle. McLaren spent
> $100 million developing KERS in its first year. Not all teams use it even
> now. They'd have to if it became mandatory in the pits.
Sure. But under the 2014 rules you'd have to be pretty stupid to NOT
> fortune and deliver nothing in terms of safety or spectacle. McLaren spent
> $100 million developing KERS in its first year. Not all teams use it even
> now. They'd have to if it became mandatory in the pits.
use the ERS systems allowed.
>
> The FIA keep saying they want to cap costs yet they change the engine regs
> from V8s to 6 cylinder turbos which has cost megabucks to develop, they
> introduce KERS which has cost even more, they restrict test sessions which
> means new drivers can't easily become familiar with the massive complexity
> of the car's control systems and hence crash more often as they are mentally
> overloaded just trying to drive the car let alone manage the path through
> other vehicles around them.
>
> Trying to make F1 "green" or implement fuel saving regs is so utterly
> ridiculous it beggars belief. The entire circus is so wasteful of fuel and
> every other resource anyway but that's almost the entire point of it.
In fact, the carbon issue is a non-issue. Mosley took care of that
> The FIA keep saying they want to cap costs yet they change the engine regs
> from V8s to 6 cylinder turbos which has cost megabucks to develop, they
> introduce KERS which has cost even more, they restrict test sessions which
> means new drivers can't easily become familiar with the massive complexity
> of the car's control systems and hence crash more often as they are mentally
> overloaded just trying to drive the car let alone manage the path through
> other vehicles around them.
>
> Trying to make F1 "green" or implement fuel saving regs is so utterly
> ridiculous it beggars belief. The entire circus is so wasteful of fuel and
> every other resource anyway but that's almost the entire point of it.
during his presidency. FIA pay into one of these carbon credit schemes
where for every so many miles in the air, every so many liters of
petrol etc you pay for a tree in a plantation. F1 is already carbon
neutral.
The real point of the engine regs, it seems to me, was to lure more
manufacturers back into the sport as engine suppliers as the new
engine would have more relevance to what they put on the road. This,
after all, is why BMW said they were quitting - F1 wasn't relevant to
their actual business.
Small turbo engines with systems that harvest, store and recycle
braking and heat energy might look more appealing to manufacturers -
not so much the Ferraris of the world, but (thumb suck examples) the
likes of Toyota, Honda, BMW and Nissan.
<snip>
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 12:15:07 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 6:28 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
<snip>
> To drive an F1 car at 80 kph in the pits takes about 10kW so even the
> current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
> would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
> is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
> issue
But there is an issue - if using electric power in the pits is
> current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
> would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
> is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
> issue
mandated. Or so it seems to me. The driver will always have to ensure
that there is enough juice available to pit. The amount won't be
constant as pit lanes differ (the exit at Yas Marina has an uphill
section). Also they don't KNOW when they're going to pit. Get a
puncture, or a sudden call from your engineer and it could be "oh
shit! Do I have enough to enter the pits, stop, start and exit?"
Or, given that I'm no engineer, is there an easy way around this under
the regs?
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 2:16:13 AM11/8/12
to
Mower Man wrote:
> Brilliant. I knew Williams system was good from the get go.
>
> The rest of you buggers in this n.g., read this and learn?
?
> Brilliant. I knew Williams system was good from the get go.
>
> The rest of you buggers in this n.g., read this and learn?
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 2:19:30 AM11/8/12
to
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 2:28:07 AM11/8/12
to
AC wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
> > Not every car has KERS. And not all KERS systems work equally well.
> > It also seems that some tracks are more "KERS friendly" than others.
> >
>
> Well, tough shit. Not all engines produce the same power.
Clearly if the rule were implemented the teams would not have the
option to not run a suitable ERS.
> Bobster wrote:
> > Not every car has KERS. And not all KERS systems work equally well.
> > It also seems that some tracks are more "KERS friendly" than others.
> >
>
> Well, tough shit. Not all engines produce the same power.
option to not run a suitable ERS.
Noj
Nov 8, 2012, 3:56:43 AM11/8/12
to
Dave Baker wrote ...
>
> "Noj" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2b046dc22...@news.aioe.org...
> > Bobster wrote ...
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> >
> >
> > They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> > as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> > able to start the engine?
>
> No, given that this is complete bollocks. Currently KERS is mandated to
> supply 60kW peak demand with a maximum utilisation per lap of 400kJ. That
> limits the application time per lap to 400/60 = 6.67 seconds at peak power.
> The peak demand in 2014 is set to rise to 120kW and the utilisation to
> 4000kJ per lap or 33.33 seconds at the new higher full power. Whether this
> amount can be harvested each lap is another story.
How large will/would the new batteries be in 2014?
> To drive an F1 car at 80 kph in the pits takes about 10kW so even the
> current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
> would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
> is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
> issue.
>
> More to the point it's yet another fucking stupid FIA idea which will cost a
> fortune and deliver nothing in terms of safety or spectacle. McLaren spent
> $100 million developing KERS in its first year. Not all teams use it even
> now. They'd have to if it became mandatory in the pits.
>
> The FIA keep saying they want to cap costs yet they change the engine regs
> from V8s to 6 cylinder turbos which has cost megabucks to develop, they
> introduce KERS which has cost even more, they restrict test sessions which
> means new drivers can't easily become familiar with the massive complexity
> of the car's control systems and hence crash more often as they are mentally
> overloaded just trying to drive the car let alone manage the path through
> other vehicles around them.
>
> Trying to make F1 "green" or implement fuel saving regs is so utterly
> ridiculous it beggars belief. The entire circus is so wasteful of fuel and
> every other resource anyway but that's almost the entire point of it. State
> of the art cars with ridiculous amounts of power using huge amounts of fuel
> for no other purpose than titillating punters. Trying to turn this show
> green is a bit like putting a band aid on an amputed leg and saying "There,
> there, you'll be fine now. It'll grow back."
>
> Fucking idiots the lot of them.
We know that. F1 is getting further away from racing all the time.
It's an example of rule makers going power mad.
"We can made rules - therefore we will make rules"
>
> "Noj" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2b046dc22...@news.aioe.org...
> > Bobster wrote ...
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> >
> >
> > They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
> > as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
> > able to start the engine?
>
> No, given that this is complete bollocks. Currently KERS is mandated to
> supply 60kW peak demand with a maximum utilisation per lap of 400kJ. That
> limits the application time per lap to 400/60 = 6.67 seconds at peak power.
> The peak demand in 2014 is set to rise to 120kW and the utilisation to
> 4000kJ per lap or 33.33 seconds at the new higher full power. Whether this
> amount can be harvested each lap is another story.
> To drive an F1 car at 80 kph in the pits takes about 10kW so even the
> current batteries would do this for 40 seconds or so. The 2014 batteries
> would do it for 10 times longer. The power required to restart a hot engine
> is minimal. A few hundred amps for a fraction of a second so this is not an
> issue.
>
> More to the point it's yet another fucking stupid FIA idea which will cost a
> fortune and deliver nothing in terms of safety or spectacle. McLaren spent
> $100 million developing KERS in its first year. Not all teams use it even
> now. They'd have to if it became mandatory in the pits.
>
> The FIA keep saying they want to cap costs yet they change the engine regs
> from V8s to 6 cylinder turbos which has cost megabucks to develop, they
> introduce KERS which has cost even more, they restrict test sessions which
> means new drivers can't easily become familiar with the massive complexity
> of the car's control systems and hence crash more often as they are mentally
> overloaded just trying to drive the car let alone manage the path through
> other vehicles around them.
>
> Trying to make F1 "green" or implement fuel saving regs is so utterly
> ridiculous it beggars belief. The entire circus is so wasteful of fuel and
> every other resource anyway but that's almost the entire point of it. State
> of the art cars with ridiculous amounts of power using huge amounts of fuel
> for no other purpose than titillating punters. Trying to turn this show
> green is a bit like putting a band aid on an amputed leg and saying "There,
> there, you'll be fine now. It'll grow back."
>
> Fucking idiots the lot of them.
It's an example of rule makers going power mad.
"We can made rules - therefore we will make rules"
AC
Nov 8, 2012, 4:18:14 AM11/8/12
to
have to have engines, wheels, brakes, etc.
--
AC
AC
Nov 8, 2012, 4:20:15 AM11/8/12
to
--
AC
AC
Nov 8, 2012, 4:26:38 AM11/8/12
to
Mower Man wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed to
> reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
Surely if the FIA mandate the power available or stored, its just a
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed to
> reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
question of the teams managing available energy to get in, accelerate
and start the engine. So if there was no power left to start the engine,
its their fault. Or the FIA didnt allow enough energy int he first
place, which again would be the teams fault for not giving the FIA the
right information to build the regs from.
>
> Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
> start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
> off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
> rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
--
AC
AC
Nov 8, 2012, 4:29:18 AM11/8/12
to
then I think that in the long term its pretty irrelevant over all.
--
AC
AC
Nov 8, 2012, 4:30:58 AM11/8/12
to
another for going out, and then the engine start. Also no reason for not
having energy reserved for the process.
--
AC
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 4:40:42 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 12:33 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> The sound thing is bullshit. If you can hear a Prius or what ever, you
> can hear an F1 car. Assuming one is not blind.
Plus the mechanics are only allowed onto the pit apron when their car
> The sound thing is bullshit. If you can hear a Prius or what ever, you
> can hear an F1 car. Assuming one is not blind.
is coming in. So anybody in "danger" is either waiting for their car,
working on their car or waving their car goodbye.
As it is and with all the noise the drivers give the impression that
they don't know where other cars anyway. And everybody in the pit lane
has got something in or over their ears.
AND the cars are idling at 60mph whilst other vehicles are going full
whack down the straight just a few yards away.
Yes. I think the sound thing is a red herring.
>
> From what I can make out, its like the engine size thing: macho willy
> waving.
Presumably the high value guests who actually get into the pits or the
> From what I can make out, its like the engine size thing: macho willy
> waving.
boxes just above them find it more exciting to be deafened than to be
able to have some kind of conversation.
Maybe that's the real problem. They're worried that without the engine
noise the mics might pick up Russell Brand or somebody saying
something rude that would distress the sensitive souls exposed to
motor racing on television.
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 4:43:39 AM11/8/12
to
insist that the driver and only the driver is to control the release
of energy.
I don't think it's impossible or even difficult to do, but what can be
done and what the regs allow are not always the same.
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 4:46:49 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 11:29 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> The only criticism I can see that is legitimate is the cost issue. Even
> then I think that in the long term its pretty irrelevant over all.
Already Haug has said that he expects the cost over five years to be
> The only criticism I can see that is legitimate is the cost issue. Even
> then I think that in the long term its pretty irrelevant over all.
the same as present, as the engines will have to last more races.
Trouble is that there's a big financial hit in year 1. And, of course,
non-trivial development costs to be borne by the engine suppliers.
Captain Obvious
Nov 8, 2012, 5:07:07 AM11/8/12
to
AC wrote:
> Bigbird wrote:
> > AC wrote:
> >
> > > Bobster wrote:
> > > > Not every car has KERS. And not all KERS systems work equally
> > > > well. It also seems that some tracks are more "KERS friendly"
> > > > than others.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, tough shit. Not all engines produce the same power.
> >
> > Clearly if the rule were implemented the teams would not have the
> > option to not run a suitable ERS.
> >
>
> So what?
So they would...
> Bigbird wrote:
> > AC wrote:
> >
> > > Bobster wrote:
> > > > Not every car has KERS. And not all KERS systems work equally
> > > > well. It also seems that some tracks are more "KERS friendly"
> > > > than others.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, tough shit. Not all engines produce the same power.
> >
> > Clearly if the rule were implemented the teams would not have the
> > option to not run a suitable ERS.
> >
>
> So what?
...obviously.
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 5:20:38 AM11/8/12
to
(he probably had a clio 1.2 with a 6" pipe when he was a lad)
;)
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 5:24:16 AM11/8/12
to
enough charge for at least one pitstop? Not very green.
Noj
Nov 8, 2012, 5:39:40 AM11/8/12
to
Bigbird wrote ...
>
> Effectively carrying a fully charged battery just for pitting with
> enough charge for at least one pitstop? Not very green.
The battery might have to be large enough to pit/restart up to 4 times
in a race, should there be a failure in harvesting.
>
> Effectively carrying a fully charged battery just for pitting with
> enough charge for at least one pitstop? Not very green.
in a race, should there be a failure in harvesting.
News
Nov 8, 2012, 5:57:42 AM11/8/12
to
News
Nov 8, 2012, 5:59:07 AM11/8/12
to
John Briggs
Nov 8, 2012, 6:13:34 AM11/8/12
to
On 07/11/2012 22:28, AC wrote:
> Alister wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:47:33 +0000, Noj wrote:
>>
>>> Alister wrote ...
>>> understand ?
>>>
>>> At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
>>
>> I think that is why I suggested "getting out again may be a problem
>> though"
>
> If Mansell can push his car....
He couldn't!
--
John Briggs
> Alister wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:47:33 +0000, Noj wrote:
>>
>>> Alister wrote ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:25:53 +0000, Noj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> build wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:09:13 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:25:53 +0000, Noj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> build wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:09:13 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>>>>>>> Bobster wrote ...
>>>>>>>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>>>>>> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery
>>>>>>> as big as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds
>>>>>>> and still be able to start the engine?
>>>>>>>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>>>>>> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery
>>>>>>> as big as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds
>>>>>>> and still be able to start the engine?
>>>>>>> Given the problems many cars have had 'harvesting' KERS power, we
>>>>>>> might have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at
>>>>>>> the end of the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How fast could the current cars go in pit lane using "only" the
>>>>>> current KERS power? Lets see how good your math brain is. 80HP at
>>>>>> what revs driving how many kilos?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> With fuck all battery power - nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YFI
>>>>
>>>> The current KERS systems have sufficient battery power to provide 80HP
>>>> for 8 seconds so it is not an invalid question.
>>>>
>>>> 80hp would probably hold the pit lane speed limit long enough for he
>>>> car to coast to its box, getting out again would be a problem though.
>>>
>>>
>>> What part of re-starting the engine and failure to harvest don't you
>>>>>>> might have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at
>>>>>>> the end of the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How fast could the current cars go in pit lane using "only" the
>>>>>> current KERS power? Lets see how good your math brain is. 80HP at
>>>>>> what revs driving how many kilos?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> With fuck all battery power - nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YFI
>>>>
>>>> The current KERS systems have sufficient battery power to provide 80HP
>>>> for 8 seconds so it is not an invalid question.
>>>>
>>>> 80hp would probably hold the pit lane speed limit long enough for he
>>>> car to coast to its box, getting out again would be a problem though.
>>>
>>>
>>> understand ?
>>>
>>> At least one team isn't running KERS atm.
>>
>> I think that is why I suggested "getting out again may be a problem
>> though"
>
> If Mansell can push his car....
He couldn't!
--
John Briggs
Bobster
Nov 8, 2012, 6:35:07 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 11:31 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
somebody's ERS goes tits up or temporarily overheats during the race
and he doesn't have enough stored energy to cruise down the pit lane,
stop and set off again? He could still be running and able to stay in
the race, but not be able to change tyres or take a time penalty.
Mower Man
Nov 8, 2012, 7:05:44 AM11/8/12
to
--
Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'
(Oscar Wilde.)
Bigbird
Nov 8, 2012, 12:28:03 PM11/8/12
to
Noj
Nov 8, 2012, 1:55:11 PM11/8/12
to
Bigbird wrote ...
Ah - proper racing. 27 starters, 8 finishers and only 2 cars did the
whole distance.
Ah - proper racing. 27 starters, 8 finishers and only 2 cars did the
whole distance.
News
Nov 8, 2012, 2:45:11 PM11/8/12
to
after the prior day's Can Am event failed, and Dr. Jonathan Palmer was
apparently crafty enough to be credited with finishing twice.
Noj
Nov 8, 2012, 3:22:48 PM11/8/12
to
News wrote ...
... or not finishing twice!
How did Debbie do ?
How did Debbie do ?
News
Nov 8, 2012, 3:38:29 PM11/8/12
to
> How did Debbie do ?
>
Noj
Nov 8, 2012, 3:46:16 PM11/8/12
to
News wrote ...
>
> > How did Debbie do ?
> >
>
> For starters, she never finished...
Still at it ?
Only another million to go...
>
> > How did Debbie do ?
> >
>
> For starters, she never finished...
Only another million to go...
News
Nov 8, 2012, 3:56:10 PM11/8/12
to
bugalugs
Nov 8, 2012, 6:37:41 PM11/8/12
to
On 8/11/2012 11:48 a.m., Mower Man wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed to
> reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
>
Don't need to have power to restart the engine to re-enter the race.
> On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>>
>
> It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> that's going to happen. Not.)
>
> Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment to
> get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice. (How
> many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a constant
> 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the amount needed to
> reduce its lap times.)
>
> Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to accelerate
> to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low weight of an F1
> car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
>
> Leaving no power to start the engine.
>
The car will be moving at the end of the pit straight so just use that
old technology of put 'er in third and drop the clutch. :>)
> Problem - even if the battery had sufficient power to enable in, out,
> start engine - is that KERS in its current incarnation is either on or
> off - like a scalextric controller. Not like a throttle pedal or a
> rheostat. Horridly unsophisticated.
>
>
--
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Bigbird
Nov 9, 2012, 2:53:33 AM11/9/12
to
bugalugs wrote:
> On 8/11/2012 11:48 a.m., Mower Man wrote:
> > On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
> > > http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> > >
> >
> > It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> > potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> > that's going to happen. Not.)
> >
> > Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment
> > to get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice.
> > (How many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a
> > constant 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the
> > amount needed to reduce its lap times.)
> >
> > Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to
> > accelerate to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low
> > weight of an F1 car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
> >
> > Leaving no power to start the engine.
> >
>
> Don't need to have power to restart the engine to re-enter the race.
> The car will be moving at the end of the pit straight so just use
> that old technology of put 'er in third and drop the clutch. :>)
>
Hardly a foolproof solution from a $100m budgets.
> On 8/11/2012 11:48 a.m., Mower Man wrote:
> > On 07/11/2012 11:43 AM, Bobster wrote:
> > > http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
> > >
> >
> > It would appear that many here are having problems vis-a-vis the
> > potential of current KERS to get in and out of the pit lane. (As if
> > that's going to happen. Not.)
> >
> > Firstly, it certainly wouldn't take 6 or 8 seconds full deployment
> > to get to the box. I think that about 5 horse power would suffice.
> > (How many kw/hrs joules/sec would be needed to keep an F1 car at a
> > constant 100kph for a couple of hundred metres? Nowhere near the
> > amount needed to reduce its lap times.)
> >
> > Leaving the box, on the other hand, there's a requirement to
> > accelerate to the pit lane speed limit asap. Even given the low
> > weight of an F1 car, I think that would gobble up the rest.
> >
> > Leaving no power to start the engine.
> >
>
> Don't need to have power to restart the engine to re-enter the race.
> The car will be moving at the end of the pit straight so just use
> that old technology of put 'er in third and drop the clutch. :>)
>
Sir Tim
Nov 10, 2012, 6:21:59 AM11/10/12
to
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:09:13 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>> Bobster wrote ...
>>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
>> as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
>> able to start the engine?
>> Given the problems many cars have had 'harvesting' KERS power, we might
>> have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at the end of
>> the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
>
> How fast could the current cars go in pit lane using "only" the current
> KERS power? Lets see how good your math brain is. 80HP at what revs driving how many kilos?
>
> Think !!!
>
> beers,
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:09:13 AM UTC+11, Noj wrote:
>> Bobster wrote ...
>>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090
>> They finally realised it would be necessary to install a battery as big
>> as the fuel tank to enable the cars to run for 30 seconds and still be
>> able to start the engine?
>> Given the problems many cars have had 'harvesting' KERS power, we might
>> have been seeing cars running on bald tyres or parked up at the end of
>> the pit lane by the end of some GPs.
>
> How fast could the current cars go in pit lane using "only" the current
> KERS power? Lets see how good your math brain is. 80HP at what revs driving how many kilos?
>
> Think !!!
>
SHAN'T (stamps feet) !
Patronising berk.
--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
Noj
Nov 10, 2012, 7:23:06 AM11/10/12
to
Sir Tim wrote ...
The drunk never, ever backs up his claims.
Too pissed to remember the next minute.
Too pissed to remember the next minute.
build
Nov 10, 2012, 8:15:11 AM11/10/12
to
Noj
Nov 10, 2012, 10:23:47 AM11/10/12
to
build wrote ...
What maths?
Where's the working?
FOAD
Where's the working?
FOAD
Bigbird
Nov 10, 2012, 11:57:39 AM11/10/12
to
You have been called out again, and failed to show, again!
I assert that your question was crap, you don't have a clue why (even
with all the help others have given since) and if you had the gumption
to show your working this would be evident.
Put up or shut up, pussy. :)
0 new messages