Mechanic escapes KERS scare

I missed that one while I was there.... I used to work for EMC.. Next time out, I will definately check that out!

 

Carbon Fiber sheet and moldings conduct electricity just fine.

A few years ago I watched a development project light up like a firework when it got too close to a high voltage source. There was a nice coat of paint on the carbon fiber moldings too and that didn't see to stop the electricity toasting the whole mess. We did some "hands on" testing by accident and at lower voltages things are not too bad (compared to copper etc) but when you get up there in volts it'll zap you plenty.

 

+1

and, Mike, thanks also from me for the informative posts. As you said, there's some smart guys in F1 (and the $ of course) - They'll figure it out - A "PtoP" on the wheel would be way cool!

cheers,
Ian
PS +1 on the science museum in Boston - The "lightning room" was awesome!

 

I somehow missed that question - but IIRC, one plan actually is to have such a button which releases the stored energy. But I could also imagine that constantly delivering the additional power, controlled by computer, would lead to faster lap times than a boost button system.

 

Well the earlier idea would seem more fun to me, but it probably would end up the later..

thanks mate..

 

I believe you do RC. In fact, isn't there something in the regulations thats says (something like) "the energy recovered by the KERS can only be made available "sometimes"?" Possibly it's defined as a percentage per lap? [with said percentage increasing over the next few years.]

I'm not using the correct terminology, but seem to remember reading something along these lines and my "conclusion" - probably wrong of course was that a "PtoP" button was the *intent* of the rule.

Once the brain-trusts get it worked out, I don't think we know what form it'll take, but I do think it's a good thing to push the envelope and not just a sop to the tree huggers.

As always, my 02c,
Ian

 

Video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76e_1217327934

 

Cheers for that Rob, it appears he touched the body work then the steering wheel, then bang.

 

Exactly! Looks like it is his LEFT arm that gets the shock, he touched something around the steering wheel. There's a quite a bit of metal and electronics in that area, far more plausible than getting the shock from touching the side of the car. Good find, Rob!


(btw, this wouldn't have happened with the steering wheel I designed last year, only 12 and 5 Volt in there )

 

I dont have a degree in either mechanical or electrical engineering, so I dont have any authority granted to me to throw out much of a water tight opinion. And I can also say first hand, I know absolutely nothing about KERS, because I dont care and I really dont want to. But degree's or not, ive learned first hand that electricity can do anything it damn well wants to. If you build up enough charge it can either go through glass or find a way around it through some of the lowest conducting materials known to man, carbon fiber notwithstanding. There are no non conductive materials or elements, there are only higher and lower rates. None offer zero conductivity if the potential is great enough. If you dont believe it, talk to some insurance appraisers about lightning damage. What electricity cant flow through, given enough potential energy it will burn through.

As to the statement that gasoline isnt flamable, that is true. It is the "vapor" that burns. To reach ignition the vapor needs be exposed to a temperture equal to or above its flash point. But it also needs the correct "mixture". Without an oxidizer and in the right ratio, there is no ignition. And to say a static discharge is not dangerous is also a foolish statement. Add in spontaneous combustion factors on a hot day and the weakest spark could be the only trigger you need. You can talk and discuss all day about the amount of energy needed in a static charge to ignite fuel vapors, but unfortunatly there is usually not a meter at the source to tell you if your approaching that level, so the best is to always use constant caution.

People often think that plastic fuel cans or plastic fuel tanks are non conductive, and they are correct. But to think they cannot carry static charge with enough potential voltage to set off fuel vapors could get you hurt. I have first hand evidence of an airplane that burned and injured some friends who made that mistake. When I have my head on straight and im thinking, I always touch and hold the fuel filler neck and gas nozzle as I bring the two together. All these 308's going up in flames at gas pumps on Youtube have reaffirmed the need for caution to leaks, fuel vapors and static.

Outside of all that, I know people can solve whatever problems they face, given enough time, money and effort. As for F1, I think its a dying sport. Maybe its worth its entertainment value if they can sell it to morons, but its technical value is rapidly slipping away. I just cant imagine it staying afloat if the gearheads walk away. As to Ferrari, I dont understand why they stay in it, or why they dont push harder for the sport. They ARE F1. If Ferrari were to threaten to leave, the FIA would kiss thier a$$ to keep them, so Ferrari have an edge in setting engineering parameters. Without Ferrari F1 could probably not continue for very long. But who knows? Regardless, if its going to turn into a bunch of treehugger hybrid cars they can just turn the circus into a hippie festival and I can turn to some other interest once and for all.

As to efficiency, Enzo Ferrari is often quoted with the statement "aerodynamics is for people who cant build engines", or something to the effect. If the morons running F1 were actually trying show how to save fuel, ripping all the ground effects off would be a giant step to that end. The drag thats induced to achieve the downforce they create takes enormous amounts of power, well over half. They could just as wisely be dragging slabs of concrete around behind the cars, ala tractor pulls. If they could more away from massive downforce, they could begin to use the wind tunnels to make the cars truely "aero" instead of using the technology backwards. Then they cold cut the teams back to smaller displacement engines, and working in concert with ultra slippery body work, could show us a direction F1 could have gone 35 years ago. Then perhaps regenerative braking systems would make much more sense, as they would need use more braking coming down to turns from speed, such as they did decades ago. But, I digress.

 

A "dying sport"? - It has *never* been more popular. And, as a fan, I object to being called a moron

As to the aero, they're actually generating the massive downforce of which you talk with very little drag compared to the "good old days" - All the crazy appendages are there more to "clean up the airflow" and thence reduce drag rather than increase downforce. I happened to look at the recent IRL race and their rear wings looked like barn doors compared to F1 - The rear wings on F1 cars are *tiny* compared with just a few years ago.

I also think F1 is a great place to showcase KERS - Whether it's "relevant" to road cars remains to be seen, but I for one would love to see a "push to pass" button in the sport.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Well, what do you want then? The technical value would be rapidly slipping away if F1 didn't keep up with the latest engineering trends and ideas. Constant development in all areas is what keeps F1 the most advanced racing series and, as Ian said, a showcase for technology like KERS. Freezing the technology would mean F1's death.

 

Global Warming is a global scam that is soon going away... The meeting of the minds between all the top scientists two weeks ago proved that not only had Earth experienced the warming but that all the other planets in our solar system had experience similar warming. KERS is not only a waste, it's going to get dropped. The tree huggers have all been lying and the sheeple of the world have been dumb enough to listen.

 

Sorry to say, but the above comment will kill off this thread real quick.... You *may* have a valid point, and it could certainly be discussed in one of the subscribed forums, but it's a really brutal thread hijack IMHO. [Sorry, I guess you're not subscribed - Just another reason to join ]

The debate wasn't about hugging trees, but some pretty impressive technology that hopefully we'll see in F1 next year.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I meant its a dying sport, if not dead already to the true gearhead. Electronics have infiltrated all the systems, the clutch is gone, the gearshift is gone, the engine is being controlled through telemetry feedback, both onboard as well as by data link transmission, etc., etc.. The driver could fly the damn thing from a laptop computer today with very little added to the car to make it work.

As to downforce and drag, they are, and have always been 100% interelated. You dont get pounds of lift without a corresponding opposite force in pounds of drag. Certainly there are airfoils that can generate lift with smaller percentages of induced drag, but its fractions of percents different. Consider that although modern F1 cars are pumping out nearly 900HP or more, the top speeds still arent really esceeding 200 mph. This is because they have so much drag. Those cars would go just as fast in the straights with 450HP if they had no downforce. Case in point is seeing the FXX able to gain on the FI car in the straights, even though the FXX is a much heavier car with less power and 4 times the frontal area. My main argument here is that if they really focused on wind tunnel work to reduce drag, the cars would require magnitudes less power than they have since the beginning of motor racing. Since the the teams began using tunnels in the early 70's, all research has been entirely focused on creating drag induced downforce. I would love to see what could be done with an F1 car with slippery body work and modern materials, especially if the driver were put back in command.

As to KERS, or any other oddball environmental political motive, it has no place here being mandated IMHO. Why not catalytic convertors? Why not fuel cells? If everyone is so concerned with the environment and global warming, why race at all and waste such valuable resources in such a rediculous and wasteful manner? Really, think of all the pollution from everyone driving there. But I seen this garbage coming over 20 years ago when a road rally event forced a 1969 Porsche 911 to run a catalytic convertor so as to be less polluting, when race tracks began restricting sound, when tracks like BIR up here in Minnesota became off limits to road racing and more or less died. Treehuggers have fought to restrict access to hunting, fishing, laboratory research, food production, nuclear energy and nuclear waste disposal, oil production and refining, the list goes on. And the rest of us are paying higher and higher prices because of thier endless BS. Sorry, but to see those nitwits getting thier mitts into F1 racing regulations has got to be a sign this old ball of dirt is near its end.

 

Here's why I like KERS....

There is a given amount of potential energy in a gallon of gasoline. Some of that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy in the motion of the pistons and ultimately the motion of the car. Much of that potential energy is wasted in the form of heat. Imagine if we could harness that heat output from the engine for additional energy, rather than trying (hopelessly, sometimes) to vent it to ambient?

In addition, a ton of energy is wasted during braking - almost all of it in the form of heat. This heat is dumped into the rotors and some of it goes into the tires through friction from deceleration.

On a macro level, let's say 30% (a WAG) of the total energy in gasoline gets used for propulsion, and of that 10%, 100% of the energy not used to overcome friction and inertia ultimately gets wasted through the brakes.

Imagine if we could capture even a quarter of that wasted energy? It would bring tremendous benefits to road cars and fuel efficiency for the general public. It would be a major breakthrough.

Think what fuel efficiency was like in the 40's... then look at it today. We digitally control the combustion process. We know a lot about cylinder design. We know how to re-route the combustion byproducts through the engine to decrease emissions. We have learned a lot... but we're hitting the wall of diminishing returns. Internal combustion engines are already so efficient that there are limited gains to be made. If they are operating at 90% of the theoretical maximum, then even if we remove 50% of the inefficiency, that's only 5% total more efficiency... not great.

But if we can capture some of the energy we're pissing away in other areas, that could prove very beneficial for energy savings in the future.

Yeah - big deal right? We watch to see RACES, not displays of efficiency... and I agree. So how great would a push-to-pass button be? F1 drastically needs more overtaking. And if we focus less on aero (which makes cars virtually impossible to pass one another) then overall we will have a great spectacle.

Just my .02 and why I think KERS is one of the very few good things to come to F1 in recent years.

 

Ermm yes, the push to pass button seems a way of killing 2 birds with 1 stone I suppose, if developed in this way.

So as I envisage it, it would be X amount of attempts to overtake over a race, and it would place it in the drivers hands where and when to use the extra boost for X amount of time, enough to make a move past a evenly paced car.

I would imagine they all would use it at the start, if they have enough charge in it. So the combinations of uses of KERS on the outside seem a interesting addition, as a spectacle for us the watching fans, and one for the tree huggers, in that the sport is trying to do something in the techno department to help the enviroment.

Qualifying could be interesting also.