Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 10 votes

The RB10 - Red Bull Racing's challenger for 2014


  • Please log in to reply
1683 replies to this topic

#351 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:08

Adrian Newey Interview to Italian newspaper http://autosprint.co...nascosti/13080/

 

 

 

-Warning about dangerous runaway hot batteries like with Boeing Dreamliner due to ts placement and the problem of stopping a fire.

 

-First 6 month will be an Engine Formula. Aero will make the difference only when the engines reach maturity.



Advertisement

#352 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:18

Aero will make the difference only when the engines reach maturity.

This is where I think the initial problems may be set against a payback.



#353 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:20

That battery comment is very telling, pretty much confirms they have put theirs in a dodgy place and are buggered.

#354 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:21

Could someone post the recent Amus article with Marko and Newey comments?  Pretty interesting. 



#355 icecream_man

icecream_man
  • Member

  • 1,031 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:24

That battery comment is very telling, pretty much confirms they have put theirs in a dodgy place and are buggered.

I thought they were all supposed to put the battery in the same place ?



#356 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:30

I thought they were all supposed to put the battery in the same place ?


Ah good point, forgot about that. Still, bit of a coincidence that the RB suffered from such overheating issues and Newey has these comments...

#357 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:35

http://www.motorspor...t-14020513.html



#358 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:37

To be fair Newey voiced his concerns about it from the day1 (before testing started).

 

Jan 28, 2014  8:24am EST, http://www.reuters.c...EA0R0XM20140128

 

Newey also questioned the repositioning of batteries for the new ERS energy recovery systems which he said could overheat and trigger uncontrollable blazes with consequent danger for those in the pitlane. Batteries now have to be positioned in front of the engine and under the fuel tank.
 
"It was done on safety grounds but I'm not quite sure why putting a battery under the fuel tank is safer than putting it behind the engine but that's where we are. These batteries can suffer thermal runaway through impacts, through causes which are difficult to predict. Once they go into such a big battery pack then it's very difficult to control that fire. Frankly, put it in the pitlane and watch it burn.", "For the whole of the pitlane, safety is a big challenge with these cars."


#359 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:47

 

To be fair Newey voiced his concerns about it from the day1 (before testing started).

 

Jan 28, 2014  8:24am EST, http://www.reuters.c...EA0R0XM20140128

 

Newey also questioned the repositioning of batteries for the new ERS energy recovery systems which he said could overheat and trigger uncontrollable blazes with consequent danger for those in the pitlane. Batteries now have to be positioned in front of the engine and under the fuel tank.
 
"It was done on safety grounds but I'm not quite sure why putting a battery under the fuel tank is safer than putting it behind the engine but that's where we are. These batteries can suffer thermal runaway through impacts, through causes which are difficult to predict. Once they go into such a big battery pack then it's very difficult to control that fire. Frankly, put it in the pitlane and watch it burn.", "For the whole of the pitlane, safety is a big challenge with these cars."

 

Good thing he was so careful with the cooling then.



Advertisement

#360 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:50

http://www.motorspor...t-14020513.html

You could have guessed that in a way.  
 
http://www.infiniti-...e/months-making
Ricciardo "Believe it or not, this morning(Launch day) is the first time I'd seen it with all the bodywork."
Horner "When you think that we only started our crash testing 10 days ago,"
 

Now come to think of it, it probably wasn't just a coincidence that McLaren whose situations weren't too different were also forced to waste the first day due to installation issues.

 

Good thing he was so careful with the cooling then.

Who knows if it was his conservative version?  ;)


Edited by plumtree, 05 February 2014 - 22:57.


#361 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 05 February 2014 - 22:54

Good thing he was so careful with the cooling then.

:rotfl:



#362 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 February 2014 - 23:25

Interesting comments about batteries, no mention of crankshafts.

 

http://www1.skysport...e-drawing-board



#363 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:30

 

To be fair Newey voiced his concerns about it from the day1 (before testing started).

 

Jan 28, 2014  8:24am EST, http://www.reuters.c...EA0R0XM20140128

 

Newey also questioned the repositioning of batteries for the new ERS energy recovery systems which he said could overheat and trigger uncontrollable blazes with consequent danger for those in the pitlane. Batteries now have to be positioned in front of the engine and under the fuel tank.
 
"It was done on safety grounds but I'm not quite sure why putting a battery under the fuel tank is safer than putting it behind the engine but that's where we are. These batteries can suffer thermal runaway through impacts, through causes which are difficult to predict. Once they go into such a big battery pack then it's very difficult to control that fire. Frankly, put it in the pitlane and watch it burn.", "For the whole of the pitlane, safety is a big challenge with these cars."

 

 

The sidpods and body do not have to be so tight and skinny to choke all the internal cooling.  Nice spin of poor cooling design into batteries being a "safety issue"



#364 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:03

The sidpods and body do not have to be so tight and skinny to choke all the internal cooling.  Nice spin of poor cooling design into batteries being a "safety issue"

Let me tell you one thing that i absolutely hate... coming here and finding out someone passed away in an accident. Just because you think that it may not happen to an engineer working for the team you back, doesn't mean it may not happen. I'm sure Newey knows a fair bit more about it than you, or all of us here put together. Or, would you disagree?


Edited by garagetinkerer, 06 February 2014 - 03:05.


#365 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:32

Maybe what he was trying to say was that if cooling/heat is such a major issue, then it should maybe have played a bigger part in the thinking of people who have an influence over the safety of the engineers.

 

In his own clumsy way.



#366 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:52

He criticizes the location of batteries under the fuel tank. he says they should be behind the engine.



#367 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,809 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:03

Let me tell you one thing that i absolutely hate... coming here and finding out someone passed away in an accident. Just because you think that it may not happen to an engineer working for the team you back, doesn't mean it may not happen. I'm sure Newey knows a fair bit more about it than you, or all of us here put together. Or, would you disagree?

 

 

I disagree, the Mercedes and Ferrari do not appear dangerous.



#368 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:34

I disagree, the Mercedes and Ferrari do not appear dangerous.

 

Make way people, we have a scientist coming through!



#369 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:40

How is it not an issue for Merc and Ferrari?  Just because it hasn't creap up as he clearly stated it can happen without warning.  The cars haven't come close to full operating temperatures, let alone race simulations let alone with 110+ ambiant temperatures like seen at some tracks..

 

Learning from other industries mishaps is very wise of Newey.. not to engineer in a vacuum..


Edited by Paco, 06 February 2014 - 04:41.


#370 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,809 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:48

Make way people, we have a scientist coming through!

 

It's Mercedes and Ferrari they are competing against, not forumers..  i disagree cause it seems they know more then newey about these ers systems. The cars looks safe except that Newey furnace.  :rotfl:



#371 wonk123

wonk123
  • Member

  • 926 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:01

I disagree, the Mercedes and Ferrari do not appear dangerous.

So a thermal runaway in a battery pack won't cause their fuel cell to catch fire?



#372 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:26

I disagree, the Mercedes and Ferrari do not appear dangerous.

By the by, would you also share with us plebeians how many f1 cars you have designed, so we will take your word over Newey's.

#373 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:30

Btw i found interesting that he talks about other manufacturers in last paragraph. Maybe they are considering all options for the future if Renault will be behind all year.



#374 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:42

It's Mercedes and Ferrari they are competing against, not forumers..  i disagree cause it seems they know more then newey about these ers systems. The cars looks safe except that Newey furnace.  :rotfl:

 

Free+Hugs.+Seems+Legit_204747_3348884.jp

 

I have worked in the auto industry... what looks safe, isn't always safe. Why do you think we have NCAP (both in Europe and USA etc.) who perform crash tests and publish results for all who care? May be they could employ you instead and save a bunch of time and a fortune they spend on such tests and research? I'm sorry if i'm a bit harsh, but seriously, you just can't muck about safety.

 

There were concerns about people getting electrocuted last year... With more energy stored in recovery systems, of course it will give rise to obvious safety concerns. Cutting corners may not bite on your rear end today, but in F1 (and other forms of motorsport), several have paid the ultimate price. F1 has a better record, because Mosley (like him or loathe him) was quite particular about it, and didn't even hesitate passing some regulations which most teams frowned upon.


Edited by garagetinkerer, 06 February 2014 - 05:45.


#375 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,306 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:34

Ironically, under Mosley they used to race in heavy wet conditions.. and now they don't.. despite no major accidents or fatalities.  The biggest accidents I can remember happened in the dry, like Grosjean at Spa for example..



#376 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:48

There were both electric shock and runaway fire incidents starting back from when KERS was first introduced. These hazards were already major danger factors associated to this tech (including garage fires and a full scale Renault battery explosion during a race in 2011). So for 2014 we have vastly increased li-ion arrays, now positioned under the fuel tank (!?!?) as well as 2 generators/engines, one of which runs at ridiculous rpm, less fuel and more heat.

 

And instead of showing any interest in the serious safety ramifications of comments here, the trolls are in force, getting wet in the panties over the possibility that their team won't have to fight Red Bull.



#377 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:57

Good thing he was so careful with the cooling then.

Thermal runaway isn't so much cooling related. It's faulty battery.

#378 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,899 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:06

Here is the thing.. Newey had been working with the same engine for many years . 

Not true. 2009 saw the introduction of Kers and homologated long life engines and gearboxes. 

If I recall correctly, Red Bull had more problems than most with their KERS....



#379 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:31

Thermal runaway isn't so much cooling related. It's faulty battery.

I thought i was when a reaction got out of control because of insufficient cooling? More heat generated than can be removed, speeding up the reaction and causing more excess heat, etc, etc? 

 

Which could be due to faults in a manufactured item, or a poor installation. No?

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong.



Advertisement

#380 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:11

There were both electric shock and runaway fire incidents starting back from when KERS was first introduced. These hazards were already major danger factors associated to this tech (including garage fires and a full scale Renault battery explosion during a race in 2011). So for 2014 we have vastly increased li-ion arrays, now positioned under the fuel tank (!?!?) as well as 2 generators/engines, one of which runs at ridiculous rpm, less fuel and more heat.

 

And instead of showing any interest in the serious safety ramifications of comments here, the trolls are in force, getting wet in the panties over the possibility that their team won't have to fight Red Bull.

It seems odd that the only team, to my knowledge, to voice such safety concerns are the team that are struggling most with their cooling. There may well be safety concerns, but I really feel Newey is hiding behind them as an excuse as he can't package everything as tightly as he wants. I'm sure the FIA/teams MUST have took safety into consideration when they decided to put the batteries under the fuel tank? This is the same organisation who have knocked another 10kph off the pit lane speed limit for this season!



#381 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:17

I thought i was when a reaction got out of control because of insufficient cooling? More heat generated than can be removed, speeding up the reaction and causing more excess heat, etc, etc? 
 
Which could be due to faults in a manufactured item, or a poor installation. No?
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong.


In the LiPo model aircraft world, a thermal runaway can happen on a punctured battery, or on an already faulty battery under charging. It's not caused by insufficient cooling. I'm not sure what technology they're using on F1, and I'm sure they charge their cells at much higher amps, but LiPo batteries are stone cold on charging, even at higher than normal rates.

The phrase as I've known it used isn't much to do with a healthy battery getting hot, but a punctured one catching fire after an impact. As happened with a Tesla when a pole went through the floor of one. As can be seen in some high energy model aircraft crashes on Youtube.

Having the batteries as part of the rear crash structure or gearbox is putting them in a place much more likely to be punctured or ruptured. Right in the middle of the car, between an engine block and a firewall and survival cell is putting them somewhere less likely for them to be punctured.

However, it's good practice even with known healthy LiPo batteries to charge them in a fireproof LiPo bag. Just in case they were damaged in transit, or something were to strike them when charging.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 06 February 2014 - 10:22.


#382 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:19

I thought i was when a reaction got out of control because of insufficient cooling? More heat generated than can be removed, speeding up the reaction and causing more excess heat, etc, etc? 

 

Which could be due to faults in a manufactured item, or a poor installation. No?

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

http://spectrum.ieee...s-battery-blues



#383 balmybaldwin

balmybaldwin
  • Member

  • 135 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:29

Which is why for safety reasons the battery is under the fuel tank - the most heavily shielded area (apart from the driver) to provide it the best chance of not being punctured.

 

Newey has said a lot about these latest rule changes in an early interview, in particular about the noses possibly submarining in an impact, but he also mentioned this battery placement concern.  I think the press (and forums) are just making more of it because its the one thing they can latch on to...mainly because RBR are quite good at keeping quiet (hardly heard a peep out of them all winter)



#384 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 826 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:35

The Newey comments can be read in many ways.

 

1.  It is clear Red Bull have issues and these may be partly due to overheating/lack of cooling.  Newey's comments may be due to design calculations being too optimistic with regard to cooling requirements.

 

2.  High voltage batteries can be very dangerous.  I am sure they are VERY well protected in order to reduce any puncturing.  After all it has been some time since we last saw a fuel tank punctured and I am sure the batteries will be better protected.  They will also be built to very exacting standards and designed to operate at precise temperatures.  Falling outside of these...

 

3.  The ERS side of the powertrain appears to be a Renault weakness.  Mercedes have always been rumoured to have the best KERS so there is no reason to think that their ERS is not also class leading.  Newey may be keen to make up for this with advantageous packaging.  It looks like he got it wrong this time.  

 

4.  Newey (or at least his team) have got away with bending the rules to their advantage for YEARS.  Despite the pressure he is obviously mounting to turn the tide in his favour it is highly likely the solution(s) to the Red Bull problems will in all likelihood make his car design compromised.  I am sure this frustration is manifesting itself in some of his comments.



#385 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:35

Thanks to RoutariEnjinu and EthanM, you've both obviously looked into this more than me. From the two explanations you've offered, it looks like the risk from puncture/impact is lessened by the positioning but the risk from high ambient temperature remains (along with the ever-present danger of faulty manufacture and poor installation). Is that about right?

 

If so, I really hope no team takes massive risks with the cooling requirements for the batteries. From the comments on that article about the Dreamliner failures it seems a real risk.



#386 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:23

Thanks to RoutariEnjinu and EthanM, you've both obviously looked into this more than me. From the two explanations you've offered, it looks like the risk from puncture/impact is lessened by the positioning but the risk from high ambient temperature remains (along with the ever-present danger of faulty manufacture and poor installation). Is that about right?
 
If so, I really hope no team takes massive risks with the cooling requirements for the batteries. From the comments on that article about the Dreamliner failures it seems a real risk.


I was only talking about my experience with Lithium Polymer. Lithium Ion is a different animal. Lithium Ion batteries do get hot under charging, like in laptops and mobile phones. LiPo doesn't seem to. There are also LiFe batteries now, which I think are a kind of Li-ion battery that are safer and have higher discharge rates too. LiFe are starting to make their way into model aircraft now too.

These kinds of batteries are also funny beasts in that you can never let them fully discharge, and overcharging them is also dangerous. If you let a battery fully discharge you should throw it out.

Back in the NiCd days you HAD to fully discharge them or they'd lose capacity, and so people got into the habit of completely flattening something before charging it. The same thing with Lithium will destroy it. People that let laptops run all the way down on battery to try and keep them healthy end up doing more damage to their life.

It all depends on what chemistry the teams are using. I've not seen any information except for 'like laptop batteries'. One of the benefits of LiPo is that they can be shaped into anything, where as Li-ion cannot. So for packaging they might take on some marginal weight to slim them down and go LiPo. Or even LiFe.

'Like laptop batteries' doesn't really tell us anything about how dangerous they are.


Boeing used an older Li-ion battery chemistry due to what was available during design and because of costs.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 06 February 2014 - 11:41.


#387 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:08

I was only talking about my experience with Lithium Polymer. Lithium Ion is a different animal. Lithium Ion batteries do get hot under charging, like in laptops and mobile phones. LiPo doesn't seem to. There are also LiFe batteries now, which I think are a kind of Li-ion battery that are safer and have higher discharge rates too. LiFe are starting to make their way into model aircraft now too.

These kinds of batteries are also funny beasts in that you can never let them fully discharge, and overcharging them is also dangerous. If you let a battery fully discharge you should throw it out.

Back in the NiCd days you HAD to fully discharge them or they'd lose capacity, and so people got into the habit of completely flattening something before charging it. The same thing with Lithium will destroy it. People that let laptops run all the way down on battery to try and keep them healthy end up doing more damage to their life.

It all depends on what chemistry the teams are using. I've not seen any information except for 'like laptop batteries'. One of the benefits of LiPo is that they can be shaped into anything, where as Li-ion cannot. So for packaging they might take on some marginal weight to slim them down and go LiPo. Or even LiFe.

'Like laptop batteries' doesn't really tell us anything about how dangerous they are.


Boeing used an older Li-ion battery chemistry due to what was available during design and because of costs.

Ha, I used (many, many moons ago) to race RC cars, and I remember the obsessive attention to draining Ni-Cd batteries, and years later finding out the hard way that doing the same to Li-Ion ones in my laptop was a mistake  :blush:

 

I've had a reasonably quiet morning so did a bit of digging on this and can't find any real info on it, beyond Niki Lauda saying in AMuS

 

 "Battery consists of 170 cells, if it is not assembled correctly, the same thing as with the Boeing Dreamliner could happen,".

 

and rumours that Red Bull may be using a combination of capacitors and batteries (and may have been last year too). Nobody's telling and nobody's really making a confident guess either.

 

Maybe we'll never know. Or not for a few years, anyway.



#388 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:36

I've not heard about Red Bull using a combination of batteries and capacitors. Maybe they were using the capacitors to go along with a battery type that wasn't so good at high discharge rate, but had benefits in weight/packaging/thermal areas that really made up for it. When you can only discharge for 6.7 seconds per lap, you can spend the rest of that time having a battery topping up a capacitor, ready for its next hit.

If Red Bull were running something so complex, then it only shows again to me that they had no magic bullet or big secret, but it was again about a million small things adding up, along with capitalising on their early starts in what became the way to go aero-wise.

#389 danstheman

danstheman
  • Member

  • 164 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:45

On Jean Eric Vergne's twitter he posted a photo of him jumping out of the stopped car whilst the marshalls approach with a caption along the lines of "can't believe I can jump that high" and with reference to being scared by the high voltage.

 

Maybe this suggests that he knew Renault have big issues with the battery and that if it was overheating/failing, that was the reason for stopping and jumping out of the car??

 

I mean drivers don't exactly jump out like that in normal circumstances



#390 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:58

Well, it looks like the Mercedes uses Li-Ion

 

Energy Store: Lithium-Ion battery solution, between 20 and 25 kg.

 

so that would explain Lauda referencing the Dreamliner problems.



#391 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 06 February 2014 - 13:01

Let me tell you one thing that i absolutely hate... coming here and finding out someone passed away in an accident. Just because you think that it may not happen to an engineer working for the team you back, doesn't mean it may not happen. I'm sure Newey knows a fair bit more about it than you, or all of us here put together. Or, would you disagree?

This may very well be true, however it should also be remembered that Red Bull are particularly adept at using any pretence they can to loby against something that they feel is compromising their performance. In light of the posts since you made this I'm getting the impression that maybe its just more Red Bull lobying because they don't wont to change something that would potentially compromise their performance.



#392 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 13:04

Well, it looks like the Mercedes uses Li-Ion
 
Energy Store: Lithium-Ion battery solution, between 20 and 25 kg.[/size]
 
so that would explain Lauda referencing the Dreamliner problems.

All it really does it narrow it down though.

Within the the Lithium-Ion family, there are different chemistries, with different applications and levels of safety.
 

Handheld electronics mostly use LIBs based on lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), which offers high energy density, but presents safety risks, especially when damaged. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium manganese oxide (LMO) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) offer lower energy density, but longer lives and inherent safety. Such batteries are widely used for electric tools, medical equipment and other roles. NMC in particular is a leading contender for automotive applications. Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and lithium titanate (LTO) are specialty designs aimed at particular niche roles.

The Dreamliner famously used the older and cheaper LiCoO2 chemistry from what I've read, and it does present more significant safety risks. In particular NMC as mentioned above is used in the automotive industry and has inherent safety.

Not to mention NCA and LTO, which I know nothing about, but are made for niche roles. I seem to remember when KERS first came in, it being mentioned that the batteries were very niche and expensive and not likely to be used anywhere else, making the whole exercise pointless.

Remember, all of these fall under the category of Lithium-Ion. Or as the BBC or Sky would put it "the same kinds of batteries you'd find in your laptop".

Also, I can't remember where I saw or heard it, but the energy density in the Energy Storeā„¢ of a Formula 1 car is staggering, so it might not be the older LiCoO2 that Boeing used. They really might be the niche chemistry.

Niki also alluded to manufacturing defect as being a cause, rather than heat management.

Personally, on the grounds of safety, I think if the technology has been tested and is being used correctly, with appropriate safety measures built in, the location they are in is the safest place for them now.

I think all Lithium batteries are under pressure and vulnerable to puncture, but not all of them have equal thermal properties or vulnerabilities. The FIA must know more than us about it as they're the ones that said they should be moved there, and on grounds of safety no less.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 06 February 2014 - 13:14.


#393 OneAndOnly

OneAndOnly
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 13:15

From what I've understood here is that Newey is raising his concern because of RBR implementation being unsafe!? He's not asking for better batteries, but for rules change. Battery can explode or overheat no matter where you pit in the car if cooling is not sufficient. If others can make car safe enough with this position of batteries, then Newey and RBR should stfu and do their homework. Comparing this with Boeing Dreamliner problems is ridiculous. Airplane which carries more than 100 people against all laws of physics and sports car designed by guy obsessed with aerodynamics... so much in common. Designers of Dreamliner cannot change rules, so they change their design. Newey shouldn't be allowed to change rules, but his design. For the sake of the sport.



#394 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 13:43

The FIA must know more than us about it as they're the ones that said they should be moved there, and on grounds of safety no less.

Yeah, that's about where I'm at with it  :)

 

I've read some discussion on the possibilities and it does seem a highly complex niche technology. One of the most interesting things is that the consensus is that the high number of charge cycles will noticeably impact battery performance towards the end of the mandatory component life. Renault were discussing the possibility of using new ICE and old batteries somewhere like Monza and new batteries and old ICE somewhere like Monaco to maximise the effectiveness of the most relevant parts of the powertrain at various circuits. Although they did then say they probably wouldn't...

 

The whole power unit is so massively complex, I don't think anyone should be surprised if one or all manufacturers hit major problems in the early days. With the energy store or anything else.



#395 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 13:48

I wish all the little details and secrets were more accessible to the fan. Peter Windsor said recently that it's one of the downfalls of F1, in that, if you knew the effort and solutions that Red Bull had come up with to dominate the last few years, perhaps you wouldn't be so bored or think they've just run away with it.

Of course that could never happen, or there'd be no way to get an advantage.

However, as they give us time delayed radio messages, to keep us in the loop while some arbitrary decision is made, or to explain why someone is falling behind, it would be cool if after a season, or a number of seasons, we could see huge level of detail specs on the cars, and why they were so dominant.

Again, never going to happen, but it would be great.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 06 February 2014 - 13:49.


#396 toofast

toofast
  • Member

  • 463 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 06 February 2014 - 14:00

From what I've understood here is that Newey is raising his concern because of RBR implementation being unsafe!? He's not asking for better batteries, but for rules change. Battery can explode or overheat no matter where you pit in the car if cooling is not sufficient. If others can make car safe enough with this position of batteries, then Newey and RBR should stfu and do their homework. Comparing this with Boeing Dreamliner problems is ridiculous. Airplane which carries more than 100 people against all laws of physics and sports car designed by guy obsessed with aerodynamics... so much in common. Designers of Dreamliner cannot change rules, so they change their design. Newey shouldn't be allowed to change rules, but his design. For the sake of the sport.

 

Sports car?  :lol:. A guy obsess with aerodynamics in a field where aerodynamic held an utmost importance. Not a bad thing I'd say.

 

Believe it or not Dreamliner guys have so much more freedom for their design compare to F1 guys, yet they still found trouble.


Edited by toofast, 06 February 2014 - 14:01.


#397 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 14:04

Completely agree RE, it would be fascinating.

 

There's some interesting outline stuff from the Renault folk here about how the power demands will be managed - interviews are way down the bottom of the page.



#398 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 February 2014 - 14:21

Dreamliner guys have so much more freedom for their design compare to F1 guys, yet they still found trouble.


The battery choice was down to costs. They're making a "mass produced" product to sell and make a profit.

A Formula 1 car isn't really for sale, is an ongoing prototype, and spends extraordinary amounts of money on the smallest of details on them. I bet F1 battery tech will be the best that is available. No matter how dangerous or niche.

It just happened to coincide with the Dreamliner designers that the cheapest Li-ion technology also presented significant safety concerns.

Airline designers aren't constrained by arbitrary restricted areas for creating lift or reducing drag, they can theoretically go flat out and go for best performance. But they are limited on budget more so than an F1 team. A tiny gain for 5x the price is a no-go for an airline designer, yet something an F1 designer would snap your wrist off to accept.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 06 February 2014 - 14:23.


#399 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 06 February 2014 - 14:24

From what I've understood here is that Newey is raising his concern because of RBR implementation being unsafe!? He's not asking for better batteries, but for rules change. Battery can explode or overheat no matter where you pit in the car if cooling is not sufficient. If others can make car safe enough with this position of batteries, then Newey and RBR should stfu and do their homework. Comparing this with Boeing Dreamliner problems is ridiculous. Airplane which carries more than 100 people against all laws of physics and sports car designed by guy obsessed with aerodynamics... so much in common. Designers of Dreamliner cannot change rules, so they change their design. Newey shouldn't be allowed to change rules, but his design. For the sake of the sport.

All Newey's saying is that he doesn't understand how putting the batteries in an unreachable place (put away under the fuel tank) can be considered more safe than their solution from last year: on side of the gearbox, which is quite easily reachable in case of emergency. With the current location, their is basically nothing you can do if the pack goes kaboom but watch your car burn down completely.

Advertisement

#400 Bartonz20let

Bartonz20let
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 06 February 2014 - 14:25

I have to say, its as likely that Newey's comments are political as they are genuine. 


Edited by Bartonz20let, 06 February 2014 - 14:30.