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.
Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:13
Also, would the flywheel system require as much cooling?
Advertisement
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.
http://www.skybrary....thium_BatteriesLithium 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.bloomberg...other-year.htmlBatteries 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.
Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 February 2013 - 11:42.
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.
Posted 14 February 2013 - 17:11
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!
Posted 16 February 2013 - 14:38
Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 16 February 2013 - 14:43.
Posted 16 February 2013 - 14:52
Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:19
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.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
Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:39
Advertisement
Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:54
No, I mean batteries - and the cause of the fire has never been officially determined.
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.
Posted 16 February 2013 - 16:01
Edited by Felix, 16 February 2013 - 16:16.
Posted 16 February 2013 - 16:24
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.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.
Posted 16 February 2013 - 23:22
Posted 17 February 2013 - 00:35
The calculation wasn't Mr Rencken's doing.So 2014 600 PS F1 car will be as fast as GP3 2012 with 280 PS engine. Great calculation mr Rencken.
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.
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.
Posted 17 February 2013 - 15:16
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.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.
Edited by dau, 17 February 2013 - 15:24.
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.
Posted 17 February 2013 - 22:51
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.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.
Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:46
Really?
Well you do hope they have been wired correctly as they carry a decent amount of current.
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.
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.your ment to charge em in a airtight bag, outside
Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:23
Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:07
Rencken regularly writes doom and gloom prediction articles about F1. They rarely come to pass.