Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lithium-Ion batteries and F1


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 2,827 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 15:14

Lithium-Ion batteries have caused Boeing's 787 Dreamliner to be grounded pending further investigation. The A.L.P.A. don't want to carry it at all as there is no fail safe method of protection. Dieter Rencken's exceptional piece on the ramifications can be found here.

There has been constant speculation that the fire in the Williams' pit at Catalunya last year was Li-ion related, this Williams deny, albeit only recently. Can we be sure of that, I'm not.

It is a well known fact, that Bernie does not want KERS nor the 2014 engines. The paddock, generally speaking, are not in the slightest enthusiastic about Li-Ion batteries,especially when bang for buck is taken into consideration.

The A.L.P.A. could very easily refuse to carry Li-Ion batteries in the near future, that being the case, where will that leave F1. At the moment, approx 600kg of Li-Ion batteries will be shipped around the world, reluctantly, next year, that figure will be something in excess of 3 Tonnes. Without these batteries for 2014, the projected lap time loss will be an average of 15 seconds. GP2 becomes the new F1.

Edited by milestone 11, 12 February 2013 - 15:18.


Advertisement

#2 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,616 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 15:21

Supercapacitors? Flywheel energy storage? They seem to work in KERS systems on LMP1 cars without catching fire. ;)

#3 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 February 2013 - 15:26

The fact that Williams uses them despite having its own in-house flywheel energy storage system means that unless they are outlawed in the rules, Li-ion batteries will be with us until a better performing energy storage system is found.

I cannot access the article, but given Li-ion's ubiquity in consumer devices, surely there won't be ban on carrying them on board aircraft?

#4 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,538 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 February 2013 - 15:37

Supercapacitors? Flywheel energy storage? They seem to work in KERS systems on LMP1 cars without catching fire.;)


Flux Capacitors?

This is serious....the dangers of Lithium Ion batteries have been known for years....why are the authorities putting drivers in even MORE harms way?

#5 PilgrimsDrop

PilgrimsDrop
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:11

Lithium-Ion batteries have caused Boeing's 787 Dreamliner to be grounded pending further investigation. The A.L.P.A. don't want to carry it at all as there is no fail safe method of protection. Dieter Rencken's exceptional piece on the ramifications can be found here.

There has been constant speculation that the fire in the Williams' pit at Catalunya last year was Li-ion related, this Williams deny, albeit only recently. Can we be sure of that, I'm not.

It is a well known fact, that Bernie does not want KERS nor the 2014 engines. The paddock, generally speaking, are not in the slightest enthusiastic about Li-Ion batteries,especially when bang for buck is taken into consideration.

The A.L.P.A. could very easily refuse to carry Li-Ion batteries in the near future, that being the case, where will that leave F1. At the moment, approx 600kg of Li-Ion batteries will be shipped around the world, reluctantly, next year, that figure will be something in excess of 3 Tonnes. Without these batteries for 2014, the projected lap time loss will be an average of 15 seconds. GP2 becomes the new F1.


Ok... so should the airlines ban passengers as well due to the fact they all bring on a couple of hundred kilos of Li-Ion batteries in their smartphones/tablets/cameras/computers/games etc etc???

Edited by PilgrimsDrop, 12 February 2013 - 16:12.


#6 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 2,827 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:14

Ok... so should the airlines ban passengers as well due to the fact they all bring on a couple of hundred kilos of Li-Ion batteries in their smartphones/tablets/cameras/computers/games etc etc???

Cathay Pacific and British Airways are talking of doing precisely that!.


#7 PilgrimsDrop

PilgrimsDrop
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:15

Cathay Pacific and British Airways are talking of doing precisely that!.

Cool... they'll be out of business very soon then...

#8 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 2,827 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:18

Supercapacitors?

Supercapacitors are not efficient enough to produce sufficient energy for the 2014 requirement. At least that's how I understand it.

#9 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:20

Lithium-Ion batteries have caused Boeing's 787 Dreamliner to be grounded pending further investigation. The A.L.P.A. don't want to carry it at all as there is no fail safe method of protection. Dieter Rencken's exceptional piece on the ramifications can be found here.

There has been constant speculation that the fire in the Williams' pit at Catalunya last year was Li-ion related, this Williams deny, albeit only recently. Can we be sure of that, I'm not.

It is a well known fact, that Bernie does not want KERS nor the 2014 engines. The paddock, generally speaking, are not in the slightest enthusiastic about Li-Ion batteries,especially when bang for buck is taken into consideration.

The A.L.P.A. could very easily refuse to carry Li-Ion batteries in the near future, that being the case, where will that leave F1. At the moment, approx 600kg of Li-Ion batteries will be shipped around the world, reluctantly, next year, that figure will be something in excess of 3 Tonnes. Without these batteries for 2014, the projected lap time loss will be an average of 15 seconds. GP2 becomes the new F1.


Last I heard, cars would be around 5 seconds slower... Where did the 15 seconds come from? I highly doubt that.

#10 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,532 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:24

Li-Ion batteries are basically everywhere. It is def not going to be prohibited, banned, etc. Steps will be taken in the direction of safer freighting. It will make costs rise, that much can be expected. Huge efforts are made to come up with a breakthrough substitution in everyday energy storage, but until that happens, there is no alternative, so Li-Ion is here to stay until then. The amounts freighted During an F1 season are basically minuscule compared to what industrial consumers and production requires. Saing all that, it IS a real problem, and a global one at that.

#11 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,475 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:25

15 seconds comes from 2014 engines without any KERS/ERS or whatever.

The only reason I'm not worried is because F1 has escaped more often than not the doomsday predictions, even if Renken did have valid points and all.

#12 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 2,820 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:30


Only fools ship f1 cars with li-ion battery fully charged.

also arent those new Airbus planes equipped with li-ion as well?

Maybe airlines, regulators as well as industries could do better in terms of fail safe scheme tho.


#13 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 821 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:31

Last I heard, cars would be around 5 seconds slower... Where did the 15 seconds come from? I highly doubt that.


The 5 seconds is how slower theyre going to be with all the new rules. They wont have downforce or much in the way of power for most of the lap.

If they cant put the batteries in the cars they will lose a further 10secs per lap. Though as I type that that figure seems off. Maybe at Monza.

#14 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:33

Rencken regularly writes doom and gloom prediction articles about F1. They rarely come to pass.

#15 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 832 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:33

If planes are not available I would try other means of transportation (for the batteries/have them stored in advance around the globe would mean extra $$$ but F1 saved puh :cool:

Ships, trains, trucks, cars, Ape's (the Italian ones), tuk tuks, motorbikes, horse carriage, horses, donkeys, cycle messengers, sherpas, country folks, city slickers...

what did I foget?

Edited by SealTheDiffuser, 12 February 2013 - 16:38.


#16 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,458 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:40

funny how batteries are scary but petrol isnt, and one is actually intended to explode :p

li-po batteries that modellers use are abit scary though

#17 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,475 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:41

If planes are not available I would try other means of transportation (for the batteries/have them stored in advance around the globe would mean extra $$$ but F1 saved puh :cool:

Ships, trains, trucks, cars, Ape's (the Italian ones), tuk tuks, motorbikes, horse carriage, horses, donkeys, cycle messengers, sherpas, country folks, city slickers...

what did I foget?



Whipped slaves.

#18 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:43

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but how is a lack of batteries going to make them 10 seconds slower? Marussia aren't 10 seconds of the pace without KERS.

Also, do you really think the FiA would sit around and let F1 slow down 15 seconds and be slower than GP2?

#19 SRK

SRK
  • Member

  • 176 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:46

15 seconds comes from 2014 engines without any KERS/ERS or whatever.

The only reason I'm not worried is because F1 has escaped more often than not the doomsday predictions, even if Renken did have valid points and all.

Highly doubtful. Even without ERS engines will generate around 600 PS so similar to present Mecachrome GP2's engine. GP2 car weighs 688 kilos and are slower around 9 second (for example Catalunya Circuit- Pole positions 2012:James Calado 1:30,655 and Lewis Hamilton 1:21,707) so what where in GP2 car is the advantage worth 6 second over F1 car? Better brakes, aerodynamics? :drunk: Beyond the details, aerodynamic rules will not change in 2014.

edit. 530 PS 615 kg
FR 3.5 2012
Pole position: Jules Bianchi (Tech 1 Racing) - 1:29,986

280(!) PS 630 kg
GP3
Antonio Felix da Costa (Carlin) - 1:38,642 (16,9 second slower than today F1)

So 2014 600 PS F1 car will be as fast as GP3 2012 with 280 PS engine. Great calculation mr Rencken.


Edited by SRK, 12 February 2013 - 17:11.


Advertisement

#20 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 2,827 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:48

Last I heard, cars would be around 5 seconds slower... Where did the 15 seconds come from? I highly doubt that.

It's madness that this story isn't available to all. I hope that I'm not breaking the rules by posting a couple of select clips.

Dieter Rencken-"Under the new formula, recovery runs to 2mJ (a factor of five), while the percentage of power boost is far greater (120kW for 30 seconds versus an estimated 380kW) – even without the benefit of unlimited secondary recovery systems.Thus lap times would increase by around 15 seconds, or substantially above GP2 levels at most circuits – surely unacceptable, particularly as there would be no 'green' element to parade to sponsors, promoters or even car companies


If planes are not available I would try other means of transportation (for the batteries/have them stored in advance around the globe would mean extra $$$ but F1 saved puh :cool:
Ships...

Given that Li-ion is sensitive to saline air, sea freight is not an option



#21 Rentta

Rentta
  • Member

  • 285 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:52

Good thing that they are not using lithium-polymer batteries. Those are much more unstable.

#22 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,458 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 16:57

surely you could put the batteries in a air tight container, problem solved?:)

#23 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,034 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 17:22

Rencken regularly writes doom and gloom prediction articles about F1. They rarely come to pass.


I can't find a source for it so its not 100% credible yet but a Williams Engineer tweeted this morning that the CAA are going to carry out a probe into the transportation of KERS/ERS batteries.

I can't find anything on the interweb about it so its not definite.

#24 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,475 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 17:30

Slightly related, Microscopic fibers may be culprit in 787 battery failure, NTSB says.
http://www.nbcnews.c...-says-1C8340259

#25 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 12 February 2013 - 18:02

The A.L.P.A. could very easily refuse to carry Li-Ion batteries in the near future, that being the case, where will that leave F1. At the moment, approx 600kg of Li-Ion batteries will be shipped around the world, reluctantly, next year, that figure will be something in excess of 3 Tonnes. Without these batteries for 2014, the projected lap time loss will be an average of 15 seconds. GP2 becomes the new F1.


you forget one massive floor in your claim about Li-ion batteries.
when they are in a discharged state they are safe as safe as carrying a brick.
So F1 could simply send them in a discharged state :)

There is no valid reason why any airline would ban li-ion battries (being carried as cargo) but there are very good reasons why they would never ban them as no airline would want to risk being put out of business because no passengers would use them if they could not take their phones, camcorders, laptops and many many other things that use li-ion batteries and are used by billions of people each day without catching fire.

Edited by itsademo, 12 February 2013 - 18:05.


#26 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,242 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 19:53

Rencken regularly writes doom and gloom prediction articles about F1. They rarely come to pass.


With every Dieter Rencken column I wonder how Bernie stays so healthy and active, despite all the things Rencken thinks he ought to be worrying about.

#27 bogi

bogi
  • Member

  • 2,880 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 February 2013 - 20:05

Can lithium ignite in vacuum?



#28 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 821 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 12 February 2013 - 20:15

Er...

#29 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 21:07

Lithium-Ion batteries have caused Boeing's 787 Dreamliner to be grounded pending further investigation. The A.L.P.A. don't want to carry it at all as there is no fail safe method of protection. Dieter Rencken's exceptional piece on the ramifications can be found here.

There has been constant speculation that the fire in the Williams' pit at Catalunya last year was Li-ion related, this Williams deny, albeit only recently. Can we be sure of that, I'm not.

It is a well known fact, that Bernie does not want KERS nor the 2014 engines. The paddock, generally speaking, are not in the slightest enthusiastic about Li-Ion batteries,especially when bang for buck is taken into consideration.

The A.L.P.A. could very easily refuse to carry Li-Ion batteries in the near future, that being the case, where will that leave F1. At the moment, approx 600kg of Li-Ion batteries will be shipped around the world, reluctantly, next year, that figure will be something in excess of 3 Tonnes. Without these batteries for 2014, the projected lap time loss will be an average of 15 seconds. GP2 becomes the new F1.


I have it on good authority the Williams pit fire was caused by the team changing the metal earthing wheels on their fuel containers with felt ones, as the metal ones damaged their garage floor. This let to a static buildup which ignited the fuel. Had nothing to do with batteries or electrics at all.

Also, in general Lithium-ion batteries are very good, they're basically used in every portable electronics device in the world.

#30 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 February 2013 - 21:55


As already written we are surrouned by that kind of batteries. Much ado about little.

#31 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,034 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 22:19

As already written we are surrouned by that kind of batteries. Much ado about little.


Well the International Civil Aviation seems to think otherwise.

http://www.usnews.co...ttery-exemption



#32 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,222 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 12 February 2013 - 22:49

Can lithium ignite in vacuum?


Is that a serious question?

#33 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 23:21

Well the International Civil Aviation seems to think otherwise.

http://www.usnews.co...ttery-exemption

But that report is about ending an exemption that allows aircraft lithium-ion batteries heavier than 11 pounds to be carried as cargo on passenger aircraft. F1 equipment, including the lithium-ion batteries used in KERS devices, is transported on pure cargo aircraft chartered by FOM. The transport of lithium-ion batteries on cargo aircraft is already subject to strict safety regulations and there is no suggestion that the ICAO is planning to prohibit such batteries being transported by air. Not surprising - given the fact that most of the laptops, tablets etc on which we are reading this forum contain lithium-ion batteries and were shipped by air from China.

#34 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 23:27

The batteries used by those planes and ERS/KERS/whatever are much bigger than the ones used in laptops and cellphones. You cannot compare them.

#35 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 23:37

The batteries used by those planes and ERS/KERS/whatever are much bigger than the ones used in laptops and cellphones. You cannot compare them.

True - but when Dell or Apple ship laptops and tablets from China to Europe or the USA by air, they do so by the thousand. The combined weight of the lithium-ion batteries in a cargo plane load of laptops must be many times higher than the weight of the batteries in a plane load of F1 equipment.

#36 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 February 2013 - 23:59

True - but when Dell or Apple ship laptops and tablets from China to Europe or the USA by air, they do so by the thousand. The combined weight of the lithium-ion batteries in a cargo plane load of laptops must be many times higher than the weight of the batteries in a plane load of F1 equipment.


True, but I'm guessing that the instability of the battery increases with size, otherwise this wouldn't be issue.

#37 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 00:01

Can lithium ignite in vacuum?

In theory yes, they can. In a thermal runaway situation the heat build up will produce ethane, methane and eventually oxygen to drive the self sustaining lithium fire. It does require an extreme set of circumstances though.

I race radio controlled cars, and we use lithium polymer batteries in those for the large capacity and energy discharge. The precautions we have are that you must charge them in a fireproof container, and if one does catch fire the only way of dealing with it is to cover it with a bucket of sand and leave it to burn itself out as you can't put the fire out.

#38 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,222 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 February 2013 - 00:03

A little look at the inside of a lithium battery!

Edited by Wander, 13 February 2013 - 00:04.


#39 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,242 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 13 February 2013 - 00:05

In theory yes, they can. In a thermal runaway situation the heat build up will produce ethane, methane and eventually oxygen to drive the self sustaining lithium fire. It does require an extreme set of circumstances though.


:up:

Advertisement

#40 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 13 February 2013 - 00:16

Well the International Civil Aviation seems to think otherwise.

http://www.usnews.co...ttery-exemption

no they dont read the whole story not the headlines and you will see
Over the past few days, the members of the International Civil Aviation Organization's dangerous goods committee have proposed revoking an exemption that permitted lithium ion aircraft batteries as heavy as 77 pounds to be shipped on passenger planes
that clearly says nothing about cargo planes!

Edited by itsademo, 13 February 2013 - 00:24.


#41 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,239 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:56

li-po batteries that modellers use are abit scary though

Really?

Well you do hope they have been wired correctly as they carry a decent amount of current.

#42 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:29

Supercapacitors? Flywheel energy storage? They seem to work in KERS systems on LMP1 cars without catching fire.;)


Might be a late bit for those now. Unless the teams secretely started developing the a while ago, they'll only be ready in two years minimum.

#43 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,034 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:30

But that report is about ending an exemption that allows aircraft lithium-ion batteries heavier than 11 pounds to be carried as cargo on passenger aircraft. F1 equipment, including the lithium-ion batteries used in KERS devices, is transported on pure cargo aircraft chartered by FOM. The transport of lithium-ion batteries on cargo aircraft is already subject to strict safety regulations and there is no suggestion that the ICAO is planning to prohibit such batteries being transported by air. Not surprising - given the fact that most of the laptops, tablets etc on which we are reading this forum contain lithium-ion batteries and were shipped by air from China.



no they dont read the whole story not the headlines and you will see
Over the past few days, the members of the International Civil Aviation Organization's dangerous goods committee have proposed revoking an exemption that permitted lithium ion aircraft batteries as heavy as 77 pounds to be shipped on passenger planes
that clearly says nothing about cargo planes!


The point i was making wasn't wether or not it was on cargo planes or passenger planes etc but the fact that a major aviation agency deems Li-Ion batteries potentially unsafe, this was in response to a post suggesting the fuss over Li-Ion batteries was "much ado about nothing".

Clearly they pose some sort hazard otherwise there wouldn't be moves to end the Li-Ion battery exemption on planes, regardless of what form. If they're are deemed a danger on passenger planes its not a big leap to suggest there may be some ramifications for cargo planes at some point.

I do agree with others that Recken's posts can be all doom and gloom apparently for the sake of it but this one at least as the potential to hold some water.

#44 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,646 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:55

Is that a serious question?


Some compounds do not need to be in oxygen to burn - they can provide their own.



#45 bogi

bogi
  • Member

  • 2,880 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:56

Is that a serious question?


Of course.


In theory yes, they can. In a thermal runaway situation the heat build up will produce ethane, methane and eventually oxygen to drive the self sustaining lithium fire. It does require an extreme set of circumstances though.

I race radio controlled cars, and we use lithium polymer batteries in those for the large capacity and energy discharge. The precautions we have are that you must charge them in a fireproof container, and if one does catch fire the only way of dealing with it is to cover it with a bucket of sand and leave it to burn itself out as you can't put the fire out.



:up: thanks for the clarification

#46 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,420 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:39

Yes, I was under the impression that the concerns and possible new regulation / policies were all to do with passenger carrying aircraft. Of course, even if this is so, it does put the cargo side under further scrutiny, and bigger prices /insurance covers etc.

#47 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:59

I fail to see why a battery *system* failing in the 787 has anything to do with "lithium ion batteries in general".

Are the lithium ions conspiring against us?


The real story should be why didn't they adequately test the system before putting people in harm's way?

Given the systems used in F1 have already proven themselves under very harsh conditions, unless someone is *pushing the limit* on their system there is no reason to think, suddenly, "something is different with li-ion batteries". A non-issue, unless one has a reason to want petrol to trump electric power, perhaps...? "them battrih's ain't safe Imuh tellin ya rit now!"







#48 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 13:24

Every time I fly I see masses of Lithium batteries. What's worse is that they're not subject to any safety or health checks as aircraft equipment is. They are also brought on to the plane by largely unregulated people, and aren't stored securely, but are allowed to sit on surfaces without being secured. There's nothing to stop one being overcharged or struck hard or pierced by someone.


They're called laptops, mobiles phones, games consoles, cameras, MP3 players, active heaphones, Kindles and tablets. There are even facilities to charge them during the flight.

#49 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:54

Bosch was, at one stage, offering modular flywheel storage devices.

http://www.autoracin...icle.asp?id=831

I wonder if they still do?

Each modular unit was capable of storing 750kJ, so 4 of them would give 3MJ. Don't know how big and heavy they were.

They would be used in pairs so that any gyroscopic effects would be cancelled.

The advantage of the flywheel storage is that it should last the whole season.

#50 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:57

Also, would the flywheel system require as much cooling?