Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lithium-Ion batteries and F1


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#51 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,693 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:13

Also, would the flywheel system require as much cooling?


Not much. The only part that will get hot are the bearings and the CVT. I've not seen one that had its own cooling jacket.



Advertisement

#52 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:41

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.


First of all, lithium battery fires in consumer devices on airplanes are not exactly unheard of, and the airlines do look into counter measures:

Lithium Batteries
These are the type of batteries which most often feature in on-aircraft incidents. Often overheating, which is what eventually triggers ignition, occurs in equipment which, unknown to the user, is faulty in some way. However, various origins of overheating have been identified during investigations.

http://www.skybrary....thium_Batteries

Batteries used in mobile phones and laptop computers, which can spontaneously combust, will destroy an average of one U.S.-registered cargo jet every other year, a government analysis has concluded.

http://www.bloomberg...other-year.html

I'm no lithium battery expert, but it seems conceivable that the likelihood of fire increases with the number of individual cells inside a battery, and that fire containment becomes more difficult with size as well. A laptop battery usually has 6 or 9, the battery of a Tesla car has 6,831 lithium ion cells. Not sure about F1 batteries, but a cargo jet carrying a grid's worth of F1 ERS units certainly will carry many thousands.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 February 2013 - 11:42.


#53 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:32

Not much. The only part that will get hot are the bearings and the CVT. I've not seen one that had its own cooling jacket.


The ones I was thinking about do not use CVTs. They operate sort of like a motor generator. To store energy it acts like a motor, spinning up the rotor, and to extract energy it acts like a genarator.

#54 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,901 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 14 February 2013 - 17:11

These things are only going to get safer if IT, Aero on Motor industries are collectively pushing the technology forwards. This is how the world works.

Anyone suggesting Lithium Ion batteries should be banned from F1 but not F1 itself, hasn't really thought their argument through!

#55 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 17:27

These things are only going to get safer if IT, Aero on Motor industries are collectively pushing the technology forwards. This is how the world works.

Anyone suggesting Lithium Ion batteries should be banned from F1 but not F1 itself, hasn't really thought their argument through!


Maybe I missed it but I don't think anyone has suggested that. The thread is about the airlines and the possibility that they could ban the transportation of the batteries.

#56 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,089 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 February 2013 - 14:38

It's not unreasonable to think they'd start restricting large volumes of batteries. Ie too many on a single flight.

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

This specifically talks about cargo.

http://www.usatoday....teries/1917259/

This might be good risk planning, this might be anticipating changes.

http://www.reuters.c...N0BF1S720130215

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 16 February 2013 - 14:43.


#57 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 16 February 2013 - 14:52

A rather simple solution would be to give these gutless hoovers of an excuse for a new engine fuel to play with instead of relying on technology that is just isn't moving forward.

#58 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:19

It's not unreasonable to think they'd start restricting large volumes of batteries. Ie too many on a single flight.

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

This specifically talks about cargo.

http://www.usatoday....teries/1917259/

This might be good risk planning, this might be anticipating changes.

http://www.reuters.c...N0BF1S720130215

Both the USA Today articles are referring to controls on the weight of li-ion batteries that can be carried as cargo on passenger flights. There has been no suggestion of restricting the weight or numbers of li-ion batteries that can be carried on cargo planes. Given our reliance on IT and communications devices that use li-ion batteries, the global economy could not afford a ban or severe limitation on transporting them by air. The UPS 747 cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in 2010, following a fire in the cargo hold was carrying more than 81,000 li-ion batteries. Although that led the Obama administration to propose tougher fire safety precautions for US cargo aircraft, the move was vetoed by Congress following heavy lobbying by the airlines, Boeing, Apple and others.

#59 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:39


The UPS 747 cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in 2010, following a fire in the cargo hold was carrying more than 81,000 li-ion batteries.

I guess you mean cells - and all it took was one to go bad.

Advertisement

#60 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:54


The UPS 747 cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in 2010, following a fire in the cargo hold was carrying more than 81,000 li-ion batteries.

I guess you mean cells - and all it took was one to go bad.

No, I mean batteries - and the cause of the fire has never been officially determined.

#61 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 16:01

the cause of the fire has never been officially determined...

....save that it happened in the cargo hold of an aircraft carrying 81 000 Li-ion battery cells of a type increasingly accepted as being unstable as per a news report on the crash:

http://www.thenation...bai-plane-crash

rather illuminating, no pun intended.

Edited by Felix, 16 February 2013 - 16:16.


#62 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 16:24

the cause of the fire has never been officially determined...

....save that it happened in the cargo hold of an aircraft carrying 81 000 Li-ion battery cells.

They were industrial batteries, each one of which would have contained multiple cells - so if you want to count cells it is a lot more than 81,000. The initial cause of the fire has never been determined - it could have been a bad cell in one of the batteries or it could have been a short in the aircraft's wiring. However, the fact that the cargo was li-ion batteries made the resulting fire catastrophic - both because the freight containers used were themselves flammable and because the halon fire extinguisher system fitted to the 747 was not able to contain (much less extinguish) the fire.

Make no mistake, I am not claiming that charged li-ion batteries are not a potential hazard - they clearly are and packaging and fire safety precautions on cargo aircraft should be improved and more rigorously enforced. However, the transport of large quantities of these batteries by air cargo is not going to be banned so FOM chartered flights will still be able to transport the teams' KERS units.

#63 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,469 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 23:22

Btw Airbus dropped Li-ion batteries from the new A-350. They say will continue to have a program to upgrade later if things change.

#64 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,229 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 17 February 2013 - 00:35

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

The calculation wasn't Mr Rencken's doing.

And the problem will sort itself out anyway in some way or other, unless they discover huge amounts of new raw material. If they don't or not find other powerful batteries, it's over with Li batteries at some point.

#65 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:19

Both the USA Today articles are referring to controls on the weight of li-ion batteries that can be carried as cargo on passenger flights. There has been no suggestion of restricting the weight or numbers of li-ion batteries that can be carried on cargo planes. Given our reliance on IT and communications devices that use li-ion batteries, the global economy could not afford a ban or severe limitation on transporting them by air. The UPS 747 cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in 2010, following a fire in the cargo hold was carrying more than 81,000 li-ion batteries. Although that led the Obama administration to propose tougher fire safety precautions for US cargo aircraft, the move was vetoed by Congress following heavy lobbying by the airlines, Boeing, Apple and others.


But my Bloomberg link above was about cargo planes: "Batteries used in mobile phones and laptop computers, which can spontaneously combust, will destroy an average of one U.S.-registered cargo jet every other year, a government analysis has concluded."

Assuming that is remotely true, it won't take many cargo planes destruction events before there will be restrictions.

#66 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 February 2013 - 13:49

But my Bloomberg link above was about cargo planes: "Batteries used in mobile phones and laptop computers, which can spontaneously combust, will destroy an average of one U.S.-registered cargo jet every other year, a government analysis has concluded."

Assuming that is remotely true, it won't take many cargo planes destruction events before there will be restrictions.


The restrictions will come even quicker if the event cause the plane to come down in a populated area.


#67 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2013 - 15:16

But my Bloomberg link above was about cargo planes: "Batteries used in mobile phones and laptop computers, which can spontaneously combust, will destroy an average of one U.S.-registered cargo jet every other year, a government analysis has concluded."

Assuming that is remotely true, it won't take many cargo planes destruction events before there will be restrictions.

Just skimmed through the report Bloomberg quotes. It really does say that their statistical model suggests 4.5 accidents related to cargo fires caused by batteries from 2011 to 2020. But the dataset they're working with is pretty small: 5 fire accidents over almost 40 years, only two of which could be related to lithium batteries. 'Could' as in: The actual cause of the fires has not been determined, but both aircraft (the Dubai 747 and a UPS DC8 that suffered damage because of a cargo fire in 2006) were transporting lithium batteries. Btw, 'accident' doesn't necessarily mean crash, it just means the aircraft has at least suffered substantial damage that "would normally require major repair or replacement". In all but two of the cases, the planes were able to land safely.

The report also does not account for the introduction of fire-suppression systems or "any other means [...] to mitigate fires." The introduction of fire-suppression systems and the use of fire-resistant containers for hazardous cargo such as batteries were among the NTSB's recommendations after the DC8 accident at Philadelphia. Neither has been implemented by the FAA yet as far as i'm aware. The NTSB also identified inadequate early fire detection systems as a key factor for cargo-related accidents.

All in all, there are lots of measures that can be introduced other than a ban on lithium batteries and it's not a decision between either cargo restrictions or losing an aircraft every other year on average.

Edited by dau, 17 February 2013 - 15:24.


#68 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:57

Just skimmed through the report Bloomberg quotes. It really does say that their statistical model suggests 4.5 accidents related to cargo fires caused by batteries from 2011 to 2020. But the dataset they're working with is pretty small: 5 fire accidents over almost 40 years, only two of which could be related to lithium batteries. 'Could' as in: The actual cause of the fires has not been determined, but both aircraft (the Dubai 747 and a UPS DC8 that suffered damage because of a cargo fire in 2006) were transporting lithium batteries. Btw, 'accident' doesn't necessarily mean crash, it just means the aircraft has at least suffered substantial damage that "would normally require major repair or replacement". In all but two of the cases, the planes were able to land safely.

The report also does not account for the introduction of fire-suppression systems or "any other means [...] to mitigate fires." The introduction of fire-suppression systems and the use of fire-resistant containers for hazardous cargo such as batteries were among the NTSB's recommendations after the DC8 accident at Philadelphia. Neither has been implemented by the FAA yet as far as i'm aware. The NTSB also identified inadequate early fire detection systems as a key factor for cargo-related accidents.

All in all, there are lots of measures that can be introduced other than a ban on lithium batteries and it's not a decision between either cargo restrictions or losing an aircraft every other year on average.


My guess is they haven't been introduced yet because they cost too much. I would say a ban is probably cheaper for everyone rather than introducing these measures.

#69 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 22:51

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.

That is the story. Airbus are NOT going to use the lithium batterys in their planes. As Boeing have had to ground theirs with them.
As for phones, cameras etc they are only a problem when being charged when the do short out and catch fire on very few occasions. I have seen it myself.
Though as a battery for hybrid racing cars they are being charged. Road going hybrids have a far bigger fire risk. Small but considerably more than a Non Hybrid. That is fact. Ask any emergency worker, they have all been trained of the dangers.
And F1 cars are involved in a lot more crashes than than eco box hybrid cars.
Yours truly does not like even a simple alternator in a racecar, I have had them short and catch the wiring on fire. As do more than a few modern efi racecars. A couple have burnt to the ground luckily without damage to the driver.

#70 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:46

Really?

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




your ment to charge em in a airtight bag, outside :o


#71 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:17

There are thousands of those videos all over Youtube, that's what happens when you deliberately overcharge a lipo battery so you can film it burning up. Do exactly the same with any other type or battery and you will also get an explosion or fire. They are fairly safe if you don't abuse them, but we charge them in fireproof lipo sacks to give us a minute or so to deal with it before it gets out of control.

your ment to charge em in a airtight bag, outside :o

There are no gases involved, so being in an airtight bag or being outside will make no difference to a lipo or li-ion battery. If it did you wouldn't be able to charge your laptop or phone indoors.

#72 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:23

There are many types of lithium ion batteries, and these are normally classified based on the cathode material while the anode is typically graphitic carbon. During charging and discharging lithium ions will pass through the electrolyte between the anode and the cathode while the electrons go through the external circuit. The electrolyte is typically a lithium salt in an organic solvent or a organic polymer, batteries using polymer electrolyte is typically referred to as lithium polymer batteries which give packaging advantages in certain applications (typically used in prismatic and pouch cells).

The most common cathode material is lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2) which offers a very high energy density (about 200 Wh/kg. Unfortunately this battery chemistry is also prone to thermal runaway, particularly at high cell voltages forcing every battery to be fitted with a protection circuit. As I understand it, LiCoO2 batteries is what Boeing have used in the 787, this is also the type of lithium ion battery first released by Sony 1991. Aside from Tesla, many car manufacturers have selected other chemistries. GM is using lithium manganese spinel for the Volt while the Fisker Karma is using lithium iron phosphate, a type of battery popular in high power applications like power tools. These batteries are safer, but also offer a significantly lower energy density.

Most current aircraft use NiCd batteries, introduced in the 1960'ties. Aside from 787 also the F-35 uses lithium ion batteries, but from the French manufacturer Saft (which also have been supplying Renault with batteries for KERS).

#73 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,486 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:07

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


There is some truth in what you say.. :lol: