Landracing Forum

Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 10:35:33 AM

Title: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 10:35:33 AM

Suppose if a few hundred pounds of ballast added to a car were instead of inert dead weight a flywheel? Suppose before leaving the starting line the driver stored energy in the flywheel by using the engine to spin it up to 8,000 or 10,000 rpm. It wouldn't change the cubic inches, or the induction method, or the type of fuel. The current rules say nothing about it.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sanger351 on July 08, 2008, 12:13:56 PM
I am new to LSR but not mechanical things.  A flywheel is a very good tool to smooth out loads and power pulses with all of its inertia.  I believe that the required additional drive devices, both power up and power to the wheels, not to mention the emergency braking system would make this concept unfessiable in an accelerating car.  It would need some sort of CVT trans that would allow higher car speeds as flywheel rpm decreases and would have to apply the power without blowing the tires off the track. Without a power source it would quickly become a drag on the system.  Lastly can one imagin the saftey concerns of a flywheel failiure of a flywheel large enough to do what is suggested.  Assuming the sharpnel is contained the car would be tossed about like a rag doll.

Now I have thought about using this idea for an ultimate mileage car contest held locally.  The flywheel could help accelerate the car from a stop and then maintain the desired speed from deviations in the track, wind, etc. thus improving mileage.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 12:55:39 PM
Kenetic energy recovery systems are being added to F1 cars next year. However, as usual in Formula One, a standardized system is being used that's so pasteurized and homogenized it's not going to be the power boosting "passing gear" many people first envisioned.

One alternative method for LSR would be a small onboard air compressor that charges a storage tank. Gearing a compressed air motor to the drivetrain might be easier than coupling a large flywheel.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sanger351 on July 08, 2008, 01:45:41 PM
Or someone could have the engine wind a huge clockspring and unleash it at speed.  Maybe Swatch or Rolex could  sponsor the car.  The downside is that the car would be required to have a large wind up tab on its decklid or roof reducing the areodynamics of the car.



The F1 kenetic energy recovery unit is intended for use on sharp road courses with lots of slowing and accelerating.  Hopefully with the benifit of increased brake life and quicker acceleration off the corner.  The unit would have no benifit on a highspeed oval or susstained straight line acceleration.  However I bet the main benifit is to ease the pressure of treehuggers on F1 racing.  Some experimental medium duty delivery trucks use a hydrostatic regenerative type braking/accelerating system to increase fuel mileage and reduce noise in city enviroments which IMO is a contructive good use of the technology.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on July 08, 2008, 02:23:29 PM
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I think we've already discussed flywheels and such things for LSR - and we came up with the feeling that anything of the ilk would be considered another power source -- just like adding a second engine -- and therefore not allowed.  Compressed air turning a wheel, flywheel, clockwork -- whatever, it's a second source of power.  Someone care to check the archives for this?  One - two - three  NOT ME!
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 03:16:31 PM
Since there are aleady classes for electric cars, it seems to me the most sensible approach under the existing rules structure would be to use energy recovery systems as a supplement to or replacement for batteries. For example, an electric car could use an air compressor while braking then during the next run use the energy recovered as compressed air to drive a generator. Since electric cars don't have the horsepower of piston engine cars, this could also be where an energy recovery system would be of most benefit.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: RichFox on July 08, 2008, 03:45:17 PM
Braking has not been a big part of my Bonneville experiance
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sockjohn on July 08, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Since there are aleady classes for electric cars, it seems to me the most sensible approach under the existing rules structure would be to use energy recovery systems as a supplement to or replacement for batteries. For example, an electric car could use an air compressor while braking then during the next run use the energy recovered as compressed air to drive a generator. Since electric cars don't have the horsepower of piston engine cars, this could also be where an energy recovery system would be of most benefit.

The energy density of Li Ion batteries is better than compressed air storage energy density's, especially when you factor in the motor/generator needed.

I bet somebody would throw down their $100 pretty quick, even if a high rpm flywheel or high psi air storage made it through tech.  That and a rule change request would be submitted pretty quick.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 04:41:30 PM
Since there are aleady classes for electric cars, it seems to me the most sensible approach under the existing rules structure would be to use energy recovery systems as a supplement to or replacement for batteries. For example, an electric car could use an air compressor while braking then during the next run use the energy recovered as compressed air to drive a generator. Since electric cars don't have the horsepower of piston engine cars, this could also be where an energy recovery system would be of most benefit.

The energy density of Li Ion batteries is better than compressed air storage energy density's, especially when you factor in the motor/generator needed.

I bet somebody would throw down their $100 pretty quick, even if a high rpm flywheel or high psi air storage made it through tech.  That and a rule change request would be submitted pretty quick.

Batteries are energy storage devices, not energy generation devices. As long as stored energy is converted into electricity that turns an electric motor, it's hard to see any fundamental difference between batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels, compressed air, or some other method of storing energy.

One question in land speed with batteries versus compressed air for energy recovery during deceleration is, which method can recover the most energy in the time available?

Given that fuel cells generate electricity rather than store it, how are the Buckeye Bullet II streamliner and Ford Fusion classed versus battery electrics?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: tortoise on July 08, 2008, 05:27:29 PM
Given that fuel cells generate electricity rather than store it, how are the Buckeye Bullet II streamliner and Ford Fusion classed versus battery electrics?
Batteries do not store electricity. They convert chemical energy into electricity, same as fuel cells.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 05:38:12 PM
Given that fuel cells generate electricity rather than store it, how are the Buckeye Bullet II streamliner and Ford Fusion classed versus battery electrics?
Batteries do not store electricity. They convert chemical energy into electricity, same as fuel cells.

Fuel cells are not capable of storing a charge. They are a device that consumes chemicals to generate electricity.

Batteries are not capable of generating electricity. They require an external system to generate the stored charge.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: tortoise on July 08, 2008, 05:57:33 PM
Fuel cells are not capable of storing a charge. Batteries are not capable of generating electricity. They require an external system to generate the stored charge.
I said, Frankie, that batteries, like, fuel cells, do not store electricity. The fuel cell, in conjunction with the externally stored fuel, makes electricity. A battery's chemical energy is stored within the battery, but the chemical energy in a battery is not necessarily generated by charging the battery electrically. Did you ever make a potato battery? Did you have to put it on a charger first?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 06:05:36 PM
Fuel cells are not capable of storing a charge. Batteries are not capable of generating electricity. They require an external system to generate the stored charge.
I said, Frankie, that batteries, like, fuel cells, do not store electricity. The fuel cell, in conjunction with the externally stored fuel, makes electricity. A battery's chemical energy is stored within the battery, but the chemical energy in a battery is not necessarily generated by charging the battery electrically. Did you ever make a potato battery? Did you have to put it on a charger first?

A fuel cell vehicle has an exhaust pipe. Battery vehicles don't. A battery can go from a full charge to dead with no loss of the chemicals inside. Anytime a fuel cell vehicle is generating electricity it's getting lighter because vapors are going out the exhaust pipe.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: tortoise on July 08, 2008, 06:06:24 PM
Speaking of kinetic energy recovery systems, I seem to remember reading about a much simpler method of same on this site, at El Mirage, I think, involving the push car pushing the race vehicle to a speed much greater than the race vehicle was capable of, and using the race vehicle's motor to merely retard the rate of deceleration. As I recall, the "nothing in the rulebook against it" argument didn't fly.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: tortoise on July 08, 2008, 06:27:11 PM
A fuel cell vehicle has an exhaust pipe. Battery vehicles don't. A battery can go from a full charge to dead with no loss of the chemicals inside. Anytime a fuel cell vehicle is generating electricity it's getting lighter because vapors are going out the exhaust pipe.
How does any of this bear on my simple statement that batteries do not store electricity?

Electrically powered vehicles, whether the electicity is supplied by fuel cell or battery, are still electrically powered. If you wanted a sort of "vintage" class, I guess you could restrict it to lead-acid batteries, but this seems premature, given the state of LSR electric vehicle competition.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sheribuchta on July 08, 2008, 06:38:39 PM
in 07 there was an electric motorcycle at el mirage called re-volt at the may race --i havent seen any this year --to bad with the price of gas and all   willie buchta


and there are no records at bonneville or el mirage for the electric motorcycle  classes
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: 1212FBGS on July 08, 2008, 08:12:22 PM
not yet!
kr
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 09:33:32 PM
A fuel cell vehicle has an exhaust pipe. Battery vehicles don't. A battery can go from a full charge to dead with no loss of the chemicals inside. Anytime a fuel cell vehicle is generating electricity it's getting lighter because vapors are going out the exhaust pipe.
How does any of this bear on my simple statement that batteries do not store electricity?

Electrically powered vehicles, whether the electicity is supplied by fuel cell or battery, are still electrically powered. If you wanted a sort of "vintage" class, I guess you could restrict it to lead-acid batteries, but this seems premature, given the state of LSR electric vehicle competition.

When going for an FIA record, existing battery technology doesn't allow the car to come back within the hour at full power. Fuel cell cars can.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on July 08, 2008, 09:35:39 PM
"anything of the ilk would be considered another power source -- just like adding a second engine -- and therefore not allowed"

.....

I raised that very point - that a large battery, compressed air tank, etc. is already accepted without question by every sanctioning body, and that this is (of course) energy not supplied by or subtracted from the displacement, and not monitored or regulated in any way...

...and was completely ignored. I should be used to it by now.

Except for space considerations, running the legal engine for 5 minutes before the timed contest while it spins up an internal 40" flywheel to high RPM through a gear box would be just like another engine. And right now there's nothing to stop it.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: tortoise on July 08, 2008, 09:40:54 PM
When going for an FIA record, existing battery technology doesn't allow the car to come back within the hour at full power. Fuel cell cars can.
I hadn't heard about the rule disallowing swapping out battery packs. Would you care to cite it?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 09:59:32 PM
When going for an FIA record, existing battery technology doesn't allow the car to come back within the hour at full power. Fuel cell cars can.
I hadn't heard about the rule disallowing swapping out battery packs. Would you care to cite it?

That's why the Buckeye Bullet I doesn't hold an over 300 mph FIA record.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Malcolm UK on July 09, 2008, 08:17:28 AM
FIA Sterwards in the USA permitted e=motion to use this 'refuelling' method - battery pack changes in about 20 minutes.

UIM and FIM do not allow battery changes but do allow re-charging (boats - 20 minutes between runs, bikes - 120 minutes between runs).

The Buckeye Bullet did not to my knowledge ever attempt an FIA record.  Glen - was the best effort made on a two way Bonneville International?

How can we recover Kinetic energy from a parachute??

Malcolm UK
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on July 09, 2008, 10:05:27 AM
So I picture Costella running with a 40 foot trailer loaded with batteries and a 7 mile extension cord.

That doesn't violate any rules, does it?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Stainless1 on July 09, 2008, 10:24:41 AM
Dean, Jack would only need a 2.75 mile cord, he would park the trailer on the access road past the 2 1/4 and just rig a cord release in the parachute system...  :-D  Starting to get easier all the time  :roll:
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Glen on July 09, 2008, 12:37:57 PM
Naw, that ain't gonna work, his cord would drag across our timing sensors and we would have a delay before the next car or bike could run. :?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Super Kaz on July 09, 2008, 12:46:15 PM
not yet!
kr

or V-ROD'S :evil:!
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Blue on July 09, 2008, 09:17:40 PM

Suppose if a few hundred pounds of ballast added to a car were instead of inert dead weight a flywheel? Suppose before leaving the starting line the driver stored energy in the flywheel by using the engine to spin it up to 8,000 or 10,000 rpm. It wouldn't change the cubic inches, or the induction method, or the type of fuel. The current rules say nothing about it.
Such ideas are fine for transient applications and are, in fact, critical to improving mph on city driven vehicles where stopping and starting consume massive amounts of fuel and create lots of waste energy in the brakes.

LSR, by nature, is a constant power output over a long distance (at least at Bonneville).  Any secondary or stored power source would be transient, ineffective, and justifiably protested.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: comp on July 09, 2008, 10:01:24 PM
Speaking of kinetic energy recovery systems, I seem to remember reading about a much simpler method of same on this site, at El Mirage, I think, involving the push car pushing the race vehicle to a speed much greater than the race vehicle was capable of, and using the race vehicle's motor to merely retard the rate of deceleration. As I recall, the "nothing in the rulebook against it" argument didn't fly.

 hmmmmm doesn't seam right
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 09, 2008, 10:24:03 PM

Suppose if a few hundred pounds of ballast added to a car were instead of inert dead weight a flywheel? Suppose before leaving the starting line the driver stored energy in the flywheel by using the engine to spin it up to 8,000 or 10,000 rpm. It wouldn't change the cubic inches, or the induction method, or the type of fuel. The current rules say nothing about it.
Such ideas are fine for transient applications and are, in fact, critical to improving mph on city driven vehicles where stopping and starting consume massive amounts of fuel and create lots of waste energy in the brakes.

LSR, by nature, is a constant power output over a long distance (at least at Bonneville).  Any secondary or stored power source would be transient, ineffective, and justifiably protested.

LSR is not spec car cookie cutter clone homogenized pasteurized road racing.

If LSR is not moving forward with new ideas it's moving backwards.

And have you ever really sat down and thought about the amount of ballast some of these cars carry? There are cars out there with a thousand pounds of just dead weight. Why not actually do something with that?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Rex Schimmer on July 09, 2008, 11:41:41 PM
If you really want to recover some of the lost energy from an engine, like the heat energy that is going out the exhaust, I would think that building a compound engine would probably be legal and not a big technical challenge.  Use a big belt driven centrifugal blower and the hot wheel from a really big turbo connect the two with a shaft that has a simple "sprag form" one way clutch. The motor turns the blower the exhaust gasses turn the turbine once the turbine speed reaches the speed of the blower it will start to drive it and if you use a big enough turbine it will then over come the power required to drive the blower (so now you have effectively a turbo charged car) but if the turbine is big enough it will develop more hp than is required to drive the blower and that horse power will be feed into the engine crank thru the blower drive gears and belt. Bingo!! compound motor!! Don't laugh this set up was used on the B29's engines. Remember at 60,000 rpm every inch pound of torque thru the connecting shaft is one horse power so if you could make a couple of hundred more inch pounds of torque than is required to drive the blower that would be an extra 200 hps!!

This is also one of the ideas that the FIA is considering for the next F1 engines.



Rex
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: RichFox on July 10, 2008, 12:14:40 AM
When I started at UA we had DC-7 aircraft wit5h 3350 turbo-compound Wrights on them. As I remember the turbins drove into the crankshaft. No particular conection to the supercharger.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: jl222 on July 10, 2008, 12:57:25 AM
When I started at UA we had DC-7 aircraft wit5h 3350 turbo-compound Wrights on them. As I remember the turbins drove into the crankshaft. No particular conection to the supercharger.

 Thats right Rich, the 3350 had 3 exhaust turbines on them each driven by the exhaust from 6 cylinders geared back to the crank by shafts with hydraulic couplings.My aero books say each turbine made 200 hp.or 600 more total. Wish i could take photos and post.
 From what i understand the late Bruce Johnson was the person responsible for inserting '' This will include systems such as turbo compounding'' in the rulebook under SUPERCHARGED.
 Either Cummins or Detroit is turbo compounding their new diesel engine but using the excess exhaust energy after using the turbos in the normal way but still picking up 50 hp.

            JL222
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 10, 2008, 09:19:00 AM
If you really want to recover some of the lost energy from an engine, like the heat energy that is going out the exhaust, I would think that building a compound engine would probably be legal and not a big technical challenge.  Use a big belt driven centrifugal blower and the hot wheel from a really big turbo connect the two with a shaft that has a simple "sprag form" one way clutch. The motor turns the blower the exhaust gasses turn the turbine once the turbine speed reaches the speed of the blower it will start to drive it and if you use a big enough turbine it will then over come the power required to drive the blower (so now you have effectively a turbo charged car) but if the turbine is big enough it will develop more hp than is required to drive the blower and that horse power will be feed into the engine crank thru the blower drive gears and belt. Bingo!! compound motor!! Don't laugh this set up was used on the B29's engines. Remember at 60,000 rpm every inch pound of torque thru the connecting shaft is one horse power so if you could make a couple of hundred more inch pounds of torque than is required to drive the blower that would be an extra 200 hps!!

This is also one of the ideas that the FIA is considering for the next F1 engines.



Rex

I wonder with turbocompounding how much additional gain might be made by injecting water and/or additional fuel into the engine exhaust?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Blue on July 15, 2008, 09:15:51 PM
When I started at UA we had DC-7 aircraft wit5h 3350 turbo-compound Wrights on them. As I remember the turbins drove into the crankshaft. No particular conection to the supercharger.
Actually, this is a DIRECT connection to the supercharger in that the turbo and supercharger shafts are fixed at all times through the accessory gear case.

A typical turbocharger installation is considered a "free turbocharger engine" as opposed to a 3350 PRT which is a "fixed turbo-compounded engine".

For a fixed output and altitude (LSR) linking the turbo to the crank (compounding), allows a larger expansion ratio and much higher specific power.  This was limited in aircraft due to the need for variable altitude and power.  On the DC-7 and super-Connie, the altitude was fixed by pressurization limits and there was no such thing as enough power.  So compounding made sense.

There is MUCH more power available in the turbine of a typical turbo than is used to compress the intake charge.  Harnessing this excess power and coupling it to the crank is a good idea for LSR, although the cost in mechanical complexity may be high.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Rex Schimmer on July 16, 2008, 01:17:09 AM
Blue,
Didn't the DC-7 and the Super Connie run PW4360s? I was not aware that they componded the 4360. Going along with what you were saying about additional power in the turbine section of a turbocharger the line of progress is: turbocharged motor, turbocharged motor with compounding, turbocharged motor with all power coming from the turbine, gas turbine. Vesco new where the real hp is.

Much of the mechanical complexity of my approach is already done by using a fairly standard engine driven centrifugal super charger, the step up/down gear box and connection to the crank is already there. The challenge is doing the shaft between the turbine and the blower, should have a sprag type one way clutch and needs to be able to carry enough torque to make some usable hps and do it at 60000 rpm!

Rex

Rex
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dr Goggles on July 16, 2008, 08:45:29 AM
Ok Franklin , seeings how you have suggested the flywheel idea maybe we should ask you to expand on the idea for us the unenlightened( excuse the pun please).Give us some figures, how do you suggest it be powered up ? What mass , what diameter. What sort of clutch would you use , how do you deal with the issue of the declining speed of the flywheel , the requirement for peak power at top speed , how do we get a small frontal area, I don't want to seem dubious but , and but , and but............................ I'm struggling to devote the brain power to really think about this but in an event that doesn't consider fuel consumption , doesn't brake and considers only terminal speed I'm betting it is irrelevant , any comment?

Maybe I've missed something but what is the relevance of the F1 connection?

Compounding ? now that's a whole different, interesting and plausible process to achieve higher speeds from a given motor................

Now,below I found a great design for a perpetual energy machine , frankly with this little beauty the sky's the limit.....

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EthM_Qbgvf3kOM:http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/uploaded_images/WaterScrewPerpetualMotion-747060.png)
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 16, 2008, 09:21:09 AM
Ok Franklin , seeings how you have suggested the flywheel idea maybe we should ask you to expand on the idea for us the unenlightened( excuse the pun please).Give us some figures, how do you suggest it be powered up ? What mass , what diameter. What sort of clutch would you use , how do you deal with the issue of the declining speed of the flywheel , the requirement for peak power at top speed , how do we get a small frontal area, I don't want to seem dubious but , and but , and but............................ I'm struggling to devote the brain power to really think about this but in an event that doesn't consider fuel consumption , doesn't brake and considers only terminal speed I'm betting it is irrelevant , any comment?

Maybe I've missed something but what is the relevance of the F1 connection?

Compounding ? now that's a whole different, interesting and plausible process to achieve higher speeds from a given motor................

Now,below I found a great design for a perpetual energy machine , frankly with this little beauty the sky's the limit.....

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EthM_Qbgvf3kOM:http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/uploaded_images/WaterScrewPerpetualMotion-747060.png)


LSR cars come in all weights and sizes. Why do you expect an answer that only involves one size flywheel?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: RichFox on July 16, 2008, 09:32:29 AM
The only 4360s UAL ever had were on the Stratocruisers. No turbo-compounding. They were gone before I got there. The 7s had 3350s. Our Convair 240 at that time had "Exhaust augmented thrust" Which was a cool set of headers on the 2800 and a recess in the engine faring so that the collectors pointed aft and added a little push to the deal.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dr Goggles on July 16, 2008, 05:58:34 PM
LSR cars come in all weights and sizes. Why do you expect an answer that only involves one size flywheel?
I'm not fussy , choose a weight between an ounce and ten tons.

Am I the only one Franklin who thinks that for an expert you're all questions and no answers?Is it because you're not interested in answers?

LSR is not spec car cookie cutter clone homogenized pasteurized road racing.

If LSR is not moving forward with new ideas it's moving backwards.

And have you ever really sat down and thought about the amount of ballast some of these cars carry? There are cars out there with a thousand pounds of just dead weight. Why not actually do something with that?

1./ Spec car cookie cutter homogenized pasteurized road racing is like that so it is competitive, otherwise it would be like the Wacky Racers, ...........I think I see a connection here :roll:

2./ You have missed the possibilty that it may be neither of the above , it may also be chasing it's tail obsessing about " kEnetic energy storage systems"

3./By jingoes this is a biggie....it's an enundrum wrapped in a conigma cloaked in a streamlined body :|
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ratliff on July 16, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
LSR cars come in all weights and sizes. Why do you expect an answer that only involves one size flywheel?
I'm not fussy , choose a weight between an ounce and ten tons.

Am I the only one Franklin who thinks that for an expert you're all questions and no answers?Is it because you're not interested in answers?

LSR is not spec car cookie cutter clone homogenized pasteurized road racing.

If LSR is not moving forward with new ideas it's moving backwards.

And have you ever really sat down and thought about the amount of ballast some of these cars carry? There are cars out there with a thousand pounds of just dead weight. Why not actually do something with that?

1./ Spec car cookie cutter homogenized pasteurized road racing is like that so it is competitive, otherwise it would be like the Wacky Racers, ...........I think I see a connection here :roll:

2./ You have missed the possibilty that it may be neither of the above , it may also be chasing it's tail obsessing about " kEnetic energy storage systems"

3./By jingoes this is a biggie....it's an enundrum wrapped in a conigma cloaked in a streamlined body :|

"otherwise it would be like the Wacky Racers..." INCORRECT. Otherwise it would be late sixties/early seventies CAN-AM.

Spec car cookie cutter clone homogenized pasteurized road racing is like that NOT so it is competitive, but (A) so that privateer racers can still afford it [even if they still have to be millionaires] and (B) so that the 99% who can't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag don't wake up one morning and find themselves made obsolete by the 1% who can.

It wasn't Tony George's rules that cut costs in Indy car racing. It was Tony George killing the television audience and driving away all the sponsors that cut costs in Indy car racing.

And while we're on the subject, if Formula One really wants to freshen up the show they need to stop looking down their noses at American racing and put a couple of high banked turns in each of their tracks.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: STUTZ on May 02, 2009, 10:37:38 AM
I wanted to bring up the subject of KERS so i thought i better have a look first.  It's been over a year since this was brought up here and it's interesting to read all the different thoughts related to this technology before the rest of the world was to learn thanks to the rules changes in F1 racing. Results this year have found the cars using KERS have a 1/2 second a lap advantage over those cars not running with it and this is with a system that is regulated. Some here think KERS to be useless in landspeed racing but i am of the opposite belief. Nothing is mentioned in the rulebook prohibiting it's use. My question is this:
If i was to enter a vehicle with KERS and beat an existing record/records, would i be protested against?

Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Tzoom on May 02, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
I would think so.  Although there is nothing in the rules restricting its use you would be violating the spirit of the rules in a gas or fuel class.  It would be like adding one of Ratliff's propellers to the back of your car and driving it off the crankshaft.   
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: STUTZ on May 02, 2009, 10:59:00 AM
Where in the rulebook does it mention anything about the violation of the "spirit of rules"? That would be like prohibiting the use of a screw supercharger over an outdated roots style. Or are you saying those who run with KERS will be highly frowned upon?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: SPARKY on May 02, 2009, 11:10:00 AM
you put a KERS on a Roadster and I can  :evil: "ALMOST GURANTEE" you will be protested!!!!!!!!  :-D
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: STUTZ on May 02, 2009, 11:15:18 AM
And the reason being?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on May 02, 2009, 12:22:37 PM
Ah, grasshopper! The ancient ones do not respect the rule of the book. The ancient ones (read - SCTA/BNI) believe in the altruistic form of racing. "Because we said so."

There are many areas not covered by the rules that would never be allowed. Save your time, money, and hours and stick to "normal".

Running oxygen isn't in the rule book. Wanna give it a try?

Oh, and if you think you can just sneak it by and argue later, the ancient ones are sadistic, mean and cruel when it comes to slamming down on violaters.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Stan Back on May 02, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
The "spirit of the rule" comes into play in the SCTA.  If you've seen the Rule Book, it doesn't cover every eventuality, nor tell you how to build your vehicle.  The "coots" in the SCTA wield a great deal of power, and it's not always foreseeible.  But they built the field and layed out the bases and pretty much run the game. 
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: RichFox on May 02, 2009, 02:47:53 PM
Judging from your location maybe you should inquire of the DLRA if they would allow it. If it works as well as you hope then go to the FIA. SCTA rules are good for the SCTA. But it's not the only game in town. If you don't like them go where you do like them.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: McRat on May 02, 2009, 03:45:01 PM
IMO (as a new LSR racer):

If you use locomotive power that comes from something other than the engine at the given displacement, then in essence the "single engine" rule is violated, IMO.

Put a BIG arse generator/motor assy on the car, and 500lb of batteries for "ballast".  When you get rolling, then flip the field switch and turn your generator into a motor, and pick up >10HP.  Next step, run 5 "generators" on a tooth accessory belt, and 2000lb of batteries.  Even if the engine is what generated the electricity, it would still be violating the spirit of the rules.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 02, 2009, 07:42:58 PM
Does no one else see the absurdity of "spirit of the rules"?
Getting close to self-contradiction.
The entire purpose of rules is so that the spirit is not subject to invocation as a deterrent - the rules ARE the interpretation.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: willieworld on May 02, 2009, 08:14:37 PM
ive heard of the "spirit of the rules" and the secret handshake but if it isnt in the rule book it doesnt count and i pay it no mind  --i would like nothing better than for someone to explain it to me ---i dont think anyone will or can  --if its in the "spirit of the rules" then it should be in the rule book --or maybe the   "spirit of the rules" are the "unwritten rules" that ive heard about also    willie buchta
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: maguromic on May 02, 2009, 08:40:57 PM
ive heard of the "spirit of the rules" and the secret handshake but if it isnt in the rule book it doesnt count and i pay it no mind  --i would like nothing better than for someone to explain it to me ---i dont think anyone will or can  --if its in the "spirit of the rules" then it should be in the rule book --or maybe the   "spirit of the rules" are the "unwritten rules" that ive heard about also    willie buchta

Well said Willie.

Racers are racers and if its not in the rule book someone will eventually will find something to exploit.  :evil:

In the 2007 rule book Rule 2.A was modified ("For any engine to be considered for cubic inch (cc) requirements, the engine shall have contributed to the propulsion of the vehicle") because of such an issue of "spirit of the rules".  There is a new rear engine roadster that is requiring the rules committee to redefine and rewrite the headrest and parachute pack faring rule for next year. As Willie mentioned how do you define the spirit of the rule? It just cant be done unless its written.

With all due respect I don't think many young and old would know a KERS unit if they seen one.  The Bosch unit is very small and the Magneti unit is even smaller.  The big problem with KERS is the shock that some mechanics have gotten.  In preseason testing a few mechanics were taken to the hospital from the shock. If you look at the teams now they all have big rubber gloves when they work on the cars and all the safety workers carry rubber gloves for an emergency. I would be more worried about the safety workers than a record falling because of KERS.  If you don't want to see KERS put in the rule book or I am sure this technology will show up on the salt soon.  Tony

Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Tzoom on May 02, 2009, 08:43:17 PM
Section 2 of the rules has no provision for electric assist motors.  If someone wants to use KERS and run in a gas/fuel class that would violate the "spirit of the rules" that dictate an engine be fueled by gas or other fuels.  I could care less if someone wants to build a car that incorporates KERS.  And as soon as a hybrid class is created then they could go grab all the records they can.      
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Buickguy3 on May 02, 2009, 08:53:10 PM
      They could eliminate a lot of these problems by stating on the first page of the rule book: If these rules don't say that you can do something, YOU CAN'T. Period. End of discussion. Then you can petition for a change. I know that this is SCTA, but that's how many of the problems were solved in that other organization.[NHRA].  :cheers:
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: interested bystander on May 02, 2009, 09:54:04 PM
These comments bring up the Catch 22 in the SCTA/BNI rules.

You can enter in a class,that you think you're legal and then get busted  and lose a red hat maybe.

Its' happend more than once.

Conversely, the rule system safety-wise, is better than most others.

Having the category chairperson(s) ALSO competing in your chosen category is a "Fox watching the chicken coop" thing sometimes. I got no better solution, though.

Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: STUTZ on May 02, 2009, 10:32:08 PM
With all due respect to the SCTA, this is an orginisation with a very basic rulebook , i for one  would argue one with very archaic rules. But i fully understand this. With all American motorsports, rules are written for one basic reason and that is to keep costs down so anyone can have a shot. KERS has been introduced to F1 but soon road cars will have this technology.What will happen when someone rolls up in a few years from now with a factory car fitted with KERS? Who will police it? Will the guy or girl who set a record in their late model today protest the competitor with a car fitted with KERS, who ,in a few years from now breaks the existing record. I think the SCTA coudn't do a thing? Maybe it's time for a rules revision.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: willieworld on May 02, 2009, 11:20:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPrOloikVE&NR=1                  willie buchta
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 03, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
If these rules don't say that you can do something, YOU CAN'T. Period. End of discussion.

And, the end of racing.

Which is why no sanctioning body has ever, ever done that.

I just love rule discussions, they're almost as helpful as banging my head against the wall.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: McRat on May 03, 2009, 12:04:58 PM
If these rules don't say that you can do something, YOU CAN'T. Period. End of discussion.

And, the end of racing.

Which is why no sanctioning body has ever, ever done that.

I just love rule discussions, they're almost as helpful as banging my head against the wall.

Last time I raced with "no exceptions" rules was SCCA Solo2 racing.  In stock classes, if it doesn't say you can do it specifically, you can't.

A gentleman (I'm not going to name him) won the Nationals, someone noticed he had some welding done on the front suspension because of an accident in a previous race.  He lost the championship over it.  It didn't say you couldn't do welding repair, but it didn't say you can either. 

Most rulebooks have some "no exceptions" rules, but yeah, few are like Solo2 type rulebooks.
It appears to me the SCTA book has very little "no exceptions" content.  Probably because there are no true stock classes. 
IIRC, NHRA Top Fuel has numerous "no exceptions" sections in their book as does NASCAR.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 03, 2009, 03:05:15 PM
if it doesn't say you can do it specifically, you can't

Really?
They've anticipated where each individual molecule of metal must be?
Every valve spring rate?
Every port shape?
Every fuel droplet?

See, that's the problem with attempting to suppress innovation: when you're right (you have anticipated all forms of evil), all progress stops, and you have IROC revisited.
Happily, this conceit (although popular) is a complete fiction, much like 1st Amendment law.
Let's dispense with moralizing for a brief moment: any "official" who thinks he knows everything that can be done has a very poor grasp of the subject, and an ego in inverse proportion.
Smokey made those people look pretty stupid for 30 years (found something they thought was off the table, and used it), didn't he (and to a lesser extent, Garlits, Moss, Widmer, Robinson, Taglioni)?
And they were sooooo p*ssed off every single time they thought "now, we're done - no wiggle room here", and he did it again.

I invite those who disagree to search prior posts for comments I made that (although may prove impractical, or not cost-effective) were outside the current rules - and were instantly met with "don't be ridiculous, everyone knows what that means", "no one would ever do that", "what would be the point", etc.

The problems remain:

1. the level of interest (both official and informal) in actually making rules that do whatever is believed necessary (exactly what they do is another question) is rather low.

2. the ability (as demonstrated by the existing rules) to form the intent into language suitable to make the rules both understandable (remove all but the 10th percentile of "is this legal" questions) and enforceable (same effect every time, no exceptions, no subjective interpretation) is even worse.

Don't be depressed - Congress can't do it, and the Supreme Court is only slightly better.
SCTA rules could be dramatically improved with only minor changes of language with no effect on current records - if the will be present.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Harold Bettes on May 03, 2009, 04:00:18 PM
Personally I just love anything that fundamentally violates the second law. :roll: :-o

Perpetual motion is an oft wished for result when there is little or no understanding of basic mechanisms. :lol:

The only thing that might be free is advice such as this. Everything else comes at a cost that one must be willing to pay for in either emotional or financial capital. :wink:

OK. That's my rant for the moment. :cheers:

Regards to All,
HB2 :-)
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on May 03, 2009, 04:46:21 PM
There is no question that the trend of this conversation is correct.

Here's the problem. Nobody has control of the rule book. It is a nebulous connection between 12 clubs and the SCTA board. A proposed rule change is chewed on, mixed up, and spit out by all of the above.

I sent in a proposed rule change that didn't change anything, just put the motorcycle rules in a far easier to read fashion. Totally ignored.

I submitted a modified Bonneville pdf entry form that allowed you to type on the form. Since the entry codes are well established, I put them in a pull down menu with the full entry description instead of plowing through the rule book. Seen it? I didn't think so.

I, and every one else I have run across has had a tough time even figuring out how to get started at El Mirage. I wrote down every step and put it in a new racers information sheet. I sent it to Dan.

Quote
From: Roy Creel <cree@antelecom.net>
Subject: the racer "primer"
To: "dan warner" <dwarner230@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 3:58 PM

dan, been thinking about that guy who wrote up all those instructions about how to start racing.
 
I think that he should make a deal with John, and post it somewhere on LR.com under his own authorship.
It is of value, I just don't think we should undertake  the chore (right now) .
 Actually, I kinda think that "learning the ropes" is part of the fun.

Yeah, good luck with the SCTA.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sockjohn on May 03, 2009, 05:27:54 PM
I submitted a modified Bonneville pdf entry form that allowed you to type on the form. Since the entry codes are well established, I put them in a pull down menu with the full entry description instead of plowing through the rule book. Seen it? I didn't think so.

I bet there are some people who would like to see it, myself included.  Just because it's not adopted doesn't mean it isn't useful!

See, that's the problem with attempting to suppress innovation: when you're right (you have anticipated all forms of evil), all progress stops, and you have IROC revisited.

The problems remain:

1. the level of interest (both official and informal) in actually making rules that do whatever is believed necessary (exactly what they do is another question) is rather low.

2. the ability (as demonstrated by the existing rules) to form the intent into language suitable to make the rules both understandable (remove all but the 10th percentile of "is this legal" questions) and enforceable (same effect every time, no exceptions, no subjective interpretation) is even worse.

Panic,
the original post and the KERS is essentially a NEW class or a way to cheat depending on where you stand.  Do we really need a new class?

I could put a 50 HP electric motor on a 50cc bike and call the electric motor a starter motor... 
or I could run in a 500cc car class and start the motor the moment I leave tech, and run up a flywheel for three days before making a run...

We don't want to dictate battery technology (after all, lead acid batteries could get banned by the EPA eventually) or starter size (what is the size of a starter on some of the diesel trucks?) and do we want rules dictating when and how long you can start your entry? 

There are safety rules and their are class rules, and making KERS a new class is probably valid in some peoples minds, but it is probably going to be a tough sell.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: interested bystander on May 03, 2009, 05:40:34 PM
Bored on a Sunday afternoon, back to the subject that started the thread.

KERS is a Kinetic Energy RECOVERY system  In LSR you'd have to make a pass to recover any KINETIC energy. By regenerative braking, or something similar.
By definition , KERS has no application in Landspeed racing.

Fact is since day one ANYBODY that gets pushed off the line has gotten a Kinetic assist.

Back in the '80s a local drag race Super Stock racer and I discussed using the starter to help launch the car as well as using electric oil and H20 pumps. The starter would give a kinetic ASSIST, like McRat described
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on May 03, 2009, 05:45:22 PM
Bonneville entry form
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/SpeedWeek%202009%20Entry%20Blank.pdf (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/SpeedWeek%202009%20Entry%20Blank.pdf)
El Mirage New Participant Check Sheet
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/New%20Participant.doc (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/New%20Participant.doc)
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sabat on May 03, 2009, 07:34:00 PM
if it doesn't say you can do it specifically, you can't

Really?
They've anticipated where each individual molecule of metal must be?
Every valve spring rate?
Every port shape?
Every fuel droplet?

See, that's the problem with attempting to suppress innovation: when you're right (you have anticipated all forms of evil), all progress stops, and you have IROC revisited.
Happily, this conceit (although popular) is a complete fiction, much like 1st Amendment law.
Let's dispense with moralizing for a brief moment: any "official" who thinks he knows everything that can be done has a very poor grasp of the subject, and an ego in inverse proportion.
Smokey made those people look pretty stupid for 30 years (found something they thought was off the table, and used it), didn't he (and to a lesser extent, Garlits, Moss, Widmer, Robinson, Taglioni)?
And they were sooooo p*ssed off every single time they thought "now, we're done - no wiggle room here", and he did it again.

I invite those who disagree to search prior posts for comments I made that (although may prove impractical, or not cost-effective) were outside the current rules - and were instantly met with "don't be ridiculous, everyone knows what that means", "no one would ever do that", "what would be the point", etc.

The problems remain:

1. the level of interest (both official and informal) in actually making rules that do whatever is believed necessary (exactly what they do is another question) is rather low.

2. the ability (as demonstrated by the existing rules) to form the intent into language suitable to make the rules both understandable (remove all but the 10th percentile of "is this legal" questions) and enforceable (same effect every time, no exceptions, no subjective interpretation) is even worse.

Don't be depressed - Congress can't do it, and the Supreme Court is only slightly better.
SCTA rules could be dramatically improved with only minor changes of language with no effect on current records - if the will be present.

For posterity.

It seems simple to me that the source of power to the wheels should be limited to the engine displacement class. Nothing else.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Stan Back on May 03, 2009, 08:51:01 PM
Dean --

As one who see every SW entry form, I beg to differ.  About 20% can't fill them out by hand, and getting them to have to type them in or use pop-up menus wouldn't help the ones that can't use a computer or type. I've seen thousands of them and we've revised the form a time or two.  Seems easy to us that have seen it year ofter year -- we just can't seem to make it better for the oldies and the newbies.

Stan Back
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Rex Schimmer on May 04, 2009, 12:20:09 AM
The first KERS system that I ever saw, didn't call it KERS at the time, was Pete Robinson's "jack" car. Many of you "older" guys may have remembered seeing it at Lions back in the early 60s. Pete would come to the line and had a pair of air jacks that would lift the rear tires clear of the ground. He would let out the clutch rev the engine to the sky and drop the jacks. As I remember CJ Hart let him do it one time and that was it. He then lowered the jacks a little and would use it to clean the slicks. Just never occured to me to call it a Kinetic Energy Recovery System! Of course Pete was not really recovering energy he was storing it in the wheels and slicks. Probaby would have been a KESS, Kinetic Energy Storage System!

Rex

Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: 1194 on May 04, 2009, 01:15:21 AM
Hey, how about a M/C with a "heavy" rear wheel
for LSR?????  Been tested in Europe.....it worked
......picked up 5mph...........no other changes except the rear wheel........would it be SCTA/BNI
legal????

PS. It takes a fairly long run in order to get the
"fly-wheel " effect.........................................................
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Blue on May 06, 2009, 04:29:16 AM
D--- I love this site.  It is incredible how many active participants in this sport can intelligently and forcefully disagree on a subject and still get along.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 06, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
It seems simple to me that the source of power to the wheels should be limited to the engine displacement class.

I agree, no form of on-board energy storage should be permitted:
1. no compressed gas of any kind, including fire systems, shifters or pressurized fuel tanks
2. no hydraulics unless the accumulator is dumped
2. no batteries or capacitors for any purpose - crank or remote start only

That will disqualify 99% of the cars.

Returning to planet Earth for a brief instant:
Obviously, a 3,000 hp 300 mph streamliner needs a charging system and a big battery just for ignition, and a 50cc does not - any battery at all completely frees it from parasitic charging load. Rather than try to force a trade-off (how much weight vs. hp) just allow a free battery.
Simply agree to pardon by exclusion conventional batteries up to X amp hours and compressed gas for all purposes up to Y cubic inches at Z psi. How big is X? As large as the largest battery in a current record holder, so all existing are legal.

Exceptions for safety and special purpose? Apply for waiver.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: sabat on May 06, 2009, 12:59:41 PM
It seems simple to me that the source of power to the wheels should be limited to the engine displacement class.

I agree, no form of on-board energy storage should be permitted:
1. no compressed gas of any kind, including fire systems, shifters or pressurized fuel tanks
2. no hydraulics unless the accumulator is dumped
2. no batteries or capacitors for any purpose - crank or remote start only

That will disqualify 99% of the cars.

If any other these sources of energy directed power to the wheels, then they should be disqualified IMHO. I imagine the incidence would be considerably less than 99%. Impound inspectors would need to be sensitive to the possibility, but that's true for all class restrictions.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: DallasV on May 06, 2009, 01:49:01 PM
using a combustion engine and kenitic energy to drive the wheels makes the vehicle a hybrid. I don't believe there are any classes for hybrids.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Blue on May 06, 2009, 02:55:17 PM
About 25 years ago in either Trans Am or GTO, some team put a second engine in the back to run the alternator, water pumps, FI, etc.  It took them a year to ban it.  This will be a bigger issue as hybrid technology becomes available to flip a switch and get the batteries to discharge through the alternator (motor-generator) and back-drive that system into the power train.  I just don't think this will be a big issue though.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, it seems to me that Bonneville is much more of a traction and aero-drag problem than a pure power one.  People who have asked my advice seem to have plenty of power left over when they hit their respective aero vs. traction limits and spin the tires.  Most vehicles seem to be limited by acceleration and wheel spin so a little extra boost for the few seconds of the timed mile wouldn't seem to be a major advantage.

HB- What? YOU'VE never invented a perpetual motion device???   :roll: All aspiring engineers have...

Then they took the pacifier out of our mouths and taught us the 2nd law.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: interested bystander on May 07, 2009, 12:04:18 AM
Blue - The second paragraph of your last post should be etched in stone and put at the El Mirage, Maxton, DLRA, Salt Flats, etc. entrances. (And maybe somehow embedded in the brains of all Landspeed participants).

Figure a way around THOSE monumental problems,then go after the trick stuff!

Your statement probably messes up a few people's plans to "Rule the Landspeed World".
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: desotoman on May 07, 2009, 12:48:06 AM

Figure a way around THOSE monumental problems,then go after the trick stuff!


These two have figured it out. Here is their record in G/Blown Gas Streamliner at Bonneville.

Entry name: Costella & Yacoucci  352.525  08/06

Tom G.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: interested bystander on May 07, 2009, 01:40:21 AM
So they've solved CdA and F=MA.

Maybe you know something the rest don't know.

They're adding KERS?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Dr Goggles on May 07, 2009, 03:14:46 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, it seems to me that Bonneville is much more of a traction and aero-drag problem than a pure power one.  People who have asked my advice seem to have plenty of power left over when they hit their respective aero vs. traction limits and spin the tires.  Most vehicles seem to be limited by acceleration and wheel spin so a little extra boost for the few seconds of the timed mile wouldn't seem to be a major advantage.
It really seems like a no-brainer....there is no limit on how much power you are allowed to use.....so er why would we want KERS????

Blue - The second paragraph of your last post should be etched in stone and put at the El Mirage, Maxton, DLRA, Salt Flats, etc. entrances. (And maybe somehow embedded in the brains of all Landspeed participants).

hear hear!!!!

I am a firm believer that very few people "go the whole hog" with their aero design........power is easy to get.....aero and traction ????? well, there's sixty years of salt experience that we can look back at :roll: :roll: I can't quite articulate it but there is something about this whole discussion that is pushing my ..."so?" button.......... F1 yep, tick, but what has it got to do with LSR?............

I put this up recently .................
This game is a battle between power and drag, you need to convince traction to be your friend. Power you can get at the shop,most people have more than enough.Drag is something your design will dictate and your design is prey to thousands of different factors.Keep it simple , have a reason for everything you do, not a hunch.

The rules. There are very specific minimum requirements related to safety, learn them off by heart and begin your design there. They dictate the smallest possible area you can sit in.

Learn the basics of aerodynamics, it's not likely you'll ever get to a wind tunnel  so apply the knowns, the unknowns are bad science .


anyway, as Bystander said it seems that Yaccouci and Costella have it kinda down
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 07, 2009, 11:14:31 AM
Anyone remember the similar problem Jim Hall had 40 years ago?
His car developed down-force as a result of the on-board JLO snowmobile engine providing vacuum (reverse of a hovercraft).
Until it worked, no one said anything (like the true sportsmen they were: "I don't care if it's legal - until it hurts me").
Then he sorted t out, and they all vapor-locked.
Their first idea to "level the playing field" (only cars like we already have can win) was to add the blower engine's displacement to his engine size (even though this had no connection to the wheels, provided no motive force, added weight, etc.) and in general showing themselves to be poor sports and even worse engineers.
That wasn't enough, since the engine was only 17", so they simply outlawed the very basis for all modern race cars (traction is not limited to mass × tire contact patch × gravity) by fiat.
"Cheating" means "you did something I could have done, and did so openly and honestly, but I didn't think of it - so it must be wrong".

Remember the underlying principle of our ancestor sport: horse racing?
The purpose of racing is to improve the breed.

Any rule that punishes innovation requires careful scrutiny, and should be adopted only after less restrictive measures have been unsuccessful.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: jl222 on May 07, 2009, 02:34:17 PM
  Panic
 It seems a lot of racers have forgotten Jim Hall, the Chaparral racers and all their inventions for downforce.
 Or they may of never heard of him as this happend before some were born.
 Their adjustable spoiler design can still be used and the so can the sucker [on streamliners[ might get clogged fast though :-P
 This is why I post articles about WW11 supercharging and water injection because it can be forgotten or never realized information
is out there.
 
      JL222


 
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Blue on May 09, 2009, 03:27:17 AM
  Panic
 It seems a lot of racers have forgotten Jim Hall, the Chaparral racers and all their inventions for downforce.
 Or they may of never heard of him as this happend before some were born.
 Their adjustable spoiler design can still be used and the so can the sucker [on streamliners[ might get clogged fast though :-P
 This is why I post articles about WW11 supercharging and water injection because it can be forgotten or never realized information
is out there.
The two absolutely awesome car aerodynamic inventions of the past half century (wings are older) are moveable aero and powered aero.  Both were outlawed and both are good ideas that belong in modern vehicle design.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Buickguy3 on May 09, 2009, 08:50:42 AM
   Years ago,I believe in Hot Rod, There was an article dealing with the lack of traction in Funny Car. The premise was that since the cars were putting out so much extra horsepower and a little extra weight wouldn't hurt they proposed to put a short skirt around the lower edge of the body like a hovercraft and put a pair of huge turbos on the engine with the intake side of the compressor ducted under the car and the outlet side ducted out the rear of the body. The theory was that the faster the car went , the more air was removed from underneath and vented out the back. Never caught on. Probably too many: What if's? If something went wrong, What would keep it from flying? Would the driver be operating in a vacuum?
Too much imagination. :cheers: Doug
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: manta22 on May 09, 2009, 08:28:39 PM
Doug;

That sounds like Jim Hall's Can- Am "sucker" car. Two big fans were powered by a snowmobile engine. It went like hell but the SCCA outlawed it.

REgards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: Ron Gibson on May 09, 2009, 10:06:14 PM
Amazing how the memory fades. I think I remember that a rail tried it with a snout off the roots to the ground. IIRC  worked too well. I think that was before carbon, slipper clutches and sticky tires. YMMV

Ron
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: interested bystander on May 09, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
See Pete Robinson- now deceased.

Maybe Pete augered in because of air suction device off blower creating havoc.

Recently deceased (from living, not racing )Don Arivett took a non-mechanical approach and used body shape -ALA Jocko Johnson 1957 efforts -for downforce. Arivett's design legislated out years ago.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: desotoman on May 10, 2009, 01:15:41 AM
Photo by Dave Wallace.

Pete crashed the car on this run. The downforce worked too good.

Tom G.
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: panic on May 10, 2009, 10:58:38 AM
That sounds like Jim Hall


........


really?
Title: Re: Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems
Post by: manta22 on May 10, 2009, 02:36:10 PM
OK-- got me. I should have read the previous posts.  :roll:

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ