EERE Hydrogen Program Issues RFI on Formation of New Centers of Excellence for R&D of Hydrogen-Storage Materials
Quallion to Provide Li-ion System to Boeing for C-17 Backup Power Supply

BMW Sauber F1 Team Rolls Out BMW Sauber F1.09 with High Power Density Electric KERS

F109
The new BMW Sauber F1.09 (left) and older F1.08 (right). The F1.09 nose is higher and much wider than before, and the three-element front wing spans the full width of the car. Click to enlarge.

The BMW Sauber F1 Team unveiled the new BMW Sauber F1.09 with its electric KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System). Starting this season, teams may use a KERS systems that stores a total of 400 kJ of energy and generates 60 kW of mechanical output for 6.5 seconds to be supplied to the driven axle under acceleration (driver-triggered by a Boost button) during the course of a race lap. The energy storage unit may only be restocked under braking. The new regulations stop short of stipulating technical approaches.

The BMW Sauber F1 Team focused its efforts on an electric solution comprising a combination of electric motor and generator, requisite power electronics, and an energy storage module. The engine cover and sidepods of the F1.09 are designed to allow space for the hybrid system, which adds about 30 kg (66 lbs) to the weight of the car. (Earlier reports had the system weight at less than 40 kg. Earlier post.)

The KERS unit designed for the BMW Sauber F1.09 is an effective, higher power density variant of brake energy regeneration technology, and is similar in the way it works to the ActiveHybrid technology developed for BMW standard production vehicles, according to Dr. Klaus Draeger, BMW’s Development Director.

...the power density of the F1 KERS technology is considerably greater than that of the systems currently used in standard production vehicles. We are standing at the threshold between a conventional package of engine and independent transmission and an integrated drive system. The development of KERS will see Formula One take on a pioneering role for series production technologies going forward.

F1 will give a baptism of fire to innovative concepts whose service life and reliability have not yet reached the level required for series production vehicles, and their development will be driven forward at full speed. At BMW we have always used the Formula One project as a technology laboratory for series production. With KERS this approach takes on a whole new dimension.

—Mario Theissen, BMW Motorsport Director

The BMW Sauber F1 team began working with engineers from BMW Forschung und Technik GmbH in mid-2007 on KERS, beginning by investigating the types of hybrid system capable of operating effectively in the extreme conditions of Formula One.

A range of different solutions were put on the table. We analysed electric, mechanical, hydraulic and even pneumatic systems. After several months of research, it was clear that only an electric system would deliver the required energy, while at the same time combining maximum safety and, above all, the lowest possible weight.

—Markus Duesmann, Head of Powertrain

The team spent the ensuing months developing the electric motor, the electric energy storage unit and the KERS control unit. The first KERS prototype was placed onto the test rig in March 2008.

In July, a mechanic received a powerful shock after touching the steering wheel and sidepod of an F1.07 fitted with the KERS prototype. After six weeks of investigation, the team determined that the shock was due to a high-frequency AC voltage between the two contact points, the cause of which was traced back to the KERS control unit and a sporadic capacitive coupling from the high-voltage network to the 12-volt network. The voltage ran through the wiring of the 12-volt network to the steering wheel and through the carbon chassis back to the control unit.

The analysis, in addition to identifying the problem and pointing to solutions, resulted in other recommendations for the development of electric KERS systems. Among the measures arrived at are changes in the design of the control unit to avoid capacitive coupling effects, extended monitoring functions for high frequencies and a conductive connection of the chassis components to avoid any electric potential. The BMW Sauber F1 Team made this safety analysis, complete with suggested measures and recommendations, available to the FIA and the other Formula One teams.

The combination of the return of slicks (treadless tires) with the possible use of KERS technology places particular importance on weight distribution in the design of the new Formula One cars. The switch to slicks means more grip, but also moves the balance of forces further forward. Consequently, said Willy Rampf, the BMW Sauber F1 Team Technical Coordinator, more weight has to be shifted toward the front of the car, and the aerodynamic balance adjusted likewise.

That task is made more challenging be KERS, as the system adds extra weight and the engineers have much less scope for juggling ballast. The KERS elements also need to be packaged in such a ways to as to minimize their negative impact on aerodynamics and at the same time ensure there is sufficient cooling for all the components.

While the energy storage units fitted compactly in the two sidepods are kept within the required temperature band by the flow of air, the KERS control unit, which is fitted in the right-hand sidepod, has an integrated cooling system.

The sidepods are high at the front and do not fall away as sharply to the rear as in previous years. As chimneys or lamellar outlet vents may no longer be used as an escape route for the exhaust air, the whole rear area of the car, including the engine cover, has to increase in volume to enable optimum airflow over this section as well.

Comments

GdB

I think the reason they choose electrical vs mech., is optimum weight distribution requires more weight in the front, so why not make it store energy (batteries). Dead weight ballast is a real waste after all.

GreenPlease

-"We analysed electric, mechanical, hydraulic and even pneumatic systems. After several months of research, it was clear that only an electric system would deliver the required energy, while at the same time combining maximum safety and, above all, the lowest possible weight."

This quote, IMO, should launch the EV revolution.

Sean Lee

"the lowest possible weight"?

Flybid, a company offering F1 mechanical(flywheel)KER has system weight of 24kg, which is significantly lighter than BMW's KERS system yet offering higher efficiency because there's no change in state of energy.

I guess GdB is right they want weight balance maybe...

clett

"yet offering higher efficiency"

Flybrid certainly claim that, but I'm sure there will be significant losses transfering 60,000 rpm of low-torque power through a CVT to the drivetrain (and back again).

More to the point, if I was a driver I'd be quite concerned about the gyroscopic effect of a 60k rpm centrifugal weight unpredictably altering the cars willingness to change direction from corner to corner, depending on how "charged up" it is.

Alain

the axis of the spinning mass certainly is vertical, so it will have no gyroscopic effect when you turn your car.
On the other hand, I think it will even stabilize your car when you would tend to turn over.

Sean Lee

To clett:

well there's power loss when changing states of energy from mechanical to electrical(90%) and save that into battery and bring it back to mechanical energy(90%) in total about 80% system efficiency which is less efficient than flywheel system

Sean Lee

To clett:

gyroscopic effect? why would there be gyroscopic effect?

Sean Lee

beside flywheel does't require no charging time whereas battery does so, most of stopping power goes into flywheel.

Sean Lee

"does't require no charging time"

i meant "does not require charging time"...I wish this dicussion board has a fix option...

Arne

I wonder what energy storage system they use. LiIon? NiMH? Ultracapacitor?

clett

@Alain,

I certainly agree that any teams running a flywheel would mount it on a vertical axis to prevent issues with gyroscopic inhibition of cornering.

However, my concern is that even if mounted in the other planes, the gyroscopic effect would still be felt in the car.

This is because F1 cars are extremely sensitive to pitch (tipping towards front or rear) and roll (tipping left side to right side). For example, the poor form of the Honda in '07 and '08 was almost entirely due to minute, but unpredictable, changes to the management of pitch in various flow conditions.

So a driver with a "full" flywheel at 60k+ rpm brakes hard into a corner, and the flywheel slows down the rate of pitch (ie the speed of the dive towards the front axle) because of gyroscopic inertia.

But on the next lap, if the flywheel is empty (not rotating) he doesn't have this effect, and the car dives harder than expected onto the front axle thus upsetting the balance.

If the flywheel affected pitch or roll in this way it would be very difficult for the driver to have confidence in the car from corner to corner, and he would almost certainly end up driving conservatively (ie slower).

clett

@ Sean Lee

To quote Jon Hilton of Flybrid, "The overall in-out efficiency of a mechanical drivetrain feeding energy into a flywheel and back out to the vehicle again via an ancillary transmission system is approximately 65-70 per cent"

A modern battery or ultracapacitor system can easily match (or probably beat) that figure.

Sean Lee

@ Clett

According to Jon Hilton of Flybrid "The overall in-out efficiency of a mechanical drivetrain feeding energy into a flywheel and back out to the vehicle again via an ancillary transmission system is approximately 65-70 per cent compared with 35-45 per cent for a hybrid battery-electric system."

Apparently you deleted some words he said. why are you trying to depend a system that is less efficient?
are you working at battery industry?

Sean Lee

no matter how hard a modern battery or ultracapacitor trying to match the efficiency of flywheel, electric KERS will less efficient.

clett

Sean, as you claimed yourself, the battery/ultracap systems can easily meet 80% in/out efficiency, which is better than the flybrid system.

Jon Hilton is quoting the observed 35-45% in/out efficiency that is currently observed in passenger vehicle hybrid systems (such as the Prius), where the main losses are in the battery (a problem with high-rate NiMH) and cheap, mass production power electronics.

However F1 would not be tied to such primitive chemistries. The in/out efficiency of lithium-titanate batteries is greater than 98%, even at very high charge/discharge rates.

As far as I'm aware, at least 7 out of the 9 F1 teams are choosing to use electic KERS. And they all tried flywheels first.

Jorge

During the 2009 season, the races of Singapore and
Abu Dhabi will be held during the night. A lot of energy will be used for illumination !!
In order to make this sport more green, the above mentioned races should be done during the day.

MG

@Alain,

Let's assume the flywheel is mounted on a vertical axis, spinning fast, and F1 car goes some uphill section of the track.

At the point where uphill section ends (or becomes flatter), the car would tend to keep the same angle of its vertical axle, front wheels would tend to get off ground, and the car may take off easier.

Am I missing something?

MG

@Sean Lee,
"Power is nothing without control", as some ad (? Pirelli) said.
In F1, for acceleration, extremely precise control is needed, and nothing can match electric systems.

Very different from applications where flywheels are used to bridge short power outage on the grid.

Mannstein

How about mounting the flywheel on a gimbal or two flywheeels spinning in opposite directions.

Multi-Modal Commuter Dude (formerly known as Bike Commuter Dude)

Perhaps the choice of electric over the flywheel was made to allow a series hybrid approach in the future. If we are to speak of efficiency, we should mention that a gearbox (even a racing transmission) is inherently inefficient. Progress would be made to eliminate it and replace it with inboard mounted electric motors, or wheel mounted units.

Multi-Modal Commuter Dude (formerly known as Bike Commuter Dude)

AWD F1 anyone?

GdB

A gearbox + diff might loose 10% or less in power, but the wheel unsprung weight will be less which is very important for handling. The wheel motor + generator car will also be heavier. F1 gearboxes and drivelines make extensive use of carbon fiber and extreme optimization reduce weight down to the bear minimum. All that while taking 700+ HP. How much does 700HP (continuous) of electric motors and generators weigh?

clett

Raser's 500 hp electric motor weighs just 67 kg. That's a higher power density than even a 19,000 rpm F1 engine.

In F1 it would be mounted inboard and low, using driveshafts (not in wheel motors) to maintain low unsprung weight.

See it here: http://www.rasertech.com/monaco.html

MG

@clett:

I don't believe anything that comes from Raser unless confirmed by some trustfull technology company. They have history of making bombastic announcements related to their 'revolutionary' motor, and making deals with some partners nobody ever heard of, during the last 3+ years.
To me the only purpose of that is to boost their share price.

If their motor was worth even a third of what they claim, major players would be working with them, as they do with AC Propulsion, Brusa etc.

They remind me of EESTOR - never trustfully demonstrate anything, always talking about extraordinary performances to be available in the future.

Raser does have some US patent for their motor, EESTOR has a patent too, but not a product.

Notice this (from your link to Raser):
Transmission: Ford MTX IV five speed transaxle from Ford Taurus SHO.

They need a 5-speed transmission for electric motor. Ridiculous.
That Taurus SHO used some Yamaha V6 engine, about 15 yrs ago, likely with output in the range of 250 HP (~180 kW).

Actually it doesn't surprise me they need such a transmission, as their motor is based on some resonance.
Usually resonance works well in a narow frequency range, and if it is the case with their motor, then they really need the transmission.

Why don't they provide torque/power vs rpm curve, like TM4 did (and other serious e-motor companies) at the link somebody posted above?

clett

There's a chart for one of their smaller motors here:

http://www.rasertech.com/media/pdfs/P-50_Slick_04.pdf

The comments to this entry are closed.