The London Underground used a kinetic energy recovery system 150 years ago, they raised the stations up from the natural track level, breaking effort was reduced as the incoming train climbed the incline into the station, and acceleration effort was reduced as the down hill exit from the station reduced acceleration power.
The system that was occasionally used it trolley buses was also a good one. Sometimes they would need to switch between circuits or there were areas where there was no power. At the last stop they would power up a flywheel of the mains and when the gap in power was encountered the flywheel would return power to the motor to keep the bus mobile for up to 5 miles. But that wasn't as old as the trains system that was only 50~60 years ago.
There's a large railyard near Chicago iirc built on a low hill, as each car reaches the top and is decoupled, and the rails switched to the proper route, it rolls downhill without any power to its destination.
Do you plan on making a video about McLaren's hydraulic KERS used in 1998's MP4-13? Though it was only used in one race, it was arguably a marvel of engineering and would have been highly influential were it not banned by the FIA after protests from, whom else, Ferrari. And as a pioneering piece of technology, it almost demands more recognition.
Ferrari has so much control in the FIA, it's sad. People continue to spout "Mercedes bad", whilst Ferrari got the FIA to give them an exclusive bonus as a "historical team".
@@cooltwittertag Well, Mercedes, Red Bull & Williams all also have their own unique bonuses for various things (though not as much as Ferrari's 'long-standing team' bonus).
The problem with their system was that it also ended up as a part of a manual traction control device. I mean it stop stop McLaren in 1999 no built a more simpler version which required the driver to operate a third pedal in the car.
@@cooltwittertag Don't blame the FIA for this. It was Ecclestone who did this financial system with the Concorde Agreement. The FIA could be blamed for other certain decisions though (talking about Belgium 2008 or perhaps, *maybe* Canada 2019, remember?), but not for this.
@@YaBoi-ru9yc I think i was watching a Real Engineering video on the physics of F1 cars and this channel was in the recommendations. I think it was the tire wall/runoff area video. That I saw first.
@@ieuanhunt552 real engineering guy is good for other engineering/mathematical disciplines but he really messed up the f1 video he has no clue on f1 aero, chain bear knows it all and is the perfect f1 technical youtuber
I wonder what the precession of a spinning flywheel will do to a racing car, or alternatively, how the g forces will affect the flywheel's max capabilities and efficiency
Nitpicking, but the energy recovery system is not recovering the rotational energy of the wheel, F1 wheels don't carry enough energy for this to be worthwhile. Rather, the recovery system recovers the kinetic energy of the entire car as it slows down. You could look at this from the frame of reference of the car, in which case yes, the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels is being converted into electrical energy, but then you have to complicate things by replenishing the rotational energy of the wheels by having the ground spin them up as deceleration occurs, and _that_ occurs due to inertial forces which generate their own potential energy due to deceleration, and really it's just so much of a headache that it's better to just take the road reference frame.
One thing I hope people realize, yes Williams have been struggling and some times embarrassing on track recently. It's not because they don't have smart people working there. The Williams technology division is extremely impressive. There are a lot of factors that go into building and running an F1 car, having smart engineers and designer is just factor in that.
Ahh, a good old classic Chain Bear explains, great! I still love these vids that give a technical explanation of something many of us have probably never heard of, or didn't know the details about. Keep making them Stuart, they're what sets you apart (together with F1 trivia, I love those as well!)
I understand the FIA safety team had some safety concerns, in the event of a crash if the flywheel and its casing is broken you'd potentially have thousands of fly wheel, high velocity bullets spraying in every direction.
This was my engineering project. I did use flywheel for quick burst. I also used an air compressor to store energy which was inefficient but the idea was to explore different possibilities and applications of recovered energy. The year was 2008.
Rotational energy? It's not just the rotational energy, or angular momenum of the wheels, it's the momentum of the whole car that must be considered. Example, if the car was put on a car hydrologic car lift, and the wheels were rotating at 1000 rpm, the energy generated in stopping the wheels spinning would be far less than if the car was moving at a rate that made the wheels rotate at 1000 rpm.
This would be neat to see in a commuter bicycle or scooter. Something that makes frequent stops in city traffic, and doesn't have an abundance of power to start with. Not to mention, scooters already have CVT's, even economy cars.
I wonder if the flywheel could have some strange effects on handling. Gyroscopic forces pulling the car around. Maybe the flywheel is light enough that it does nothing. But it's something to consider.
@@Shaun.Stephens agreed. My thinking is that F1 cars are so finely engineered that even a small force applied in the wrong way at the wrong time could have a noticeable effect. I think it would be negligible but you never know. Physics can be unpredictable at times.
I was thinking that putting it horizontal would maybe even have a positive effect since it stabilizes the car a little and reduces the chassis rolling in corners
Banking and tilting would still be coupled mounting it horizontally. So also an issue for banked turns, which would cause the nose to be pulled up or pushed down, depending on the direction of rotation... Going up or down hill would cause force shifts from left to right or vv.
I wondered that also. Wouldn't it make the care more understeery ? If you spin it up under braking, then the car would be that much harder to turn around a corner wouldn't it ? Or does it lie flat in the car's plane, and then it's a sort of anti-roll device ? Surely it would have an effect on brake balance though...
I was looking for this comment as it was my first thought. I guess the angular momentum would be small compared to the weight of the car, and if used correctly, it could even help cornering (in one direction anyway).
@@Jabbaz03 I believe this to be incorrect, as gyroscopic forces still induce a rotation about a different axis, regardless of the balance. It would - depending on orientation - induce weird yaw/pitch in directions depending on left or right turns.
I cant speak for cars but Ducati's V4 is supposed to have amazing handling bexause they changed the direction the crank rotates. Having the engine spin 'backwards' creates a gyroscopic force that helps pin the front wheel to the ground under hard acceleration. Rather than lifting the front wheel in most engines.
Bro, I just loveeeee your channel!!!!!!!!!!!! You are so passionate about this sport and I just love every video. And in every video I learn new things! I would really like it to see a video every day, but of course, that isn't possible because the quality of these videos is so extremely high!
The gyroscopic forces and the angular momentum of the flywheel did have a bad affect on the handling of the car. That was one of the main reasons why Audi switched to a battery system for their later LMP1 cars when they needed to increase the storage capacity. The flywheel had to be mounted in the car horizontally (meaning it's axis of rotation was vertical) because in any other orientation the gyroscopic forces would have hindered the car from turning in a corner, made it very understeery. In this orientation it acted as a stabilising force against roll and pitch movements (which is good), while turning was more or less unaffected as long as the flywheel speed was constant. However: if you put energy into the system and create a torque on the flywheel to spin it up, the same amount of torque will act on the car in the opposite direction. And vice versa when you try to slow the wheel down you will again have a torque on the car. In other words: every time the flywheel spins up your car will slightly pull to one side, every time you pull energy out of the flywheel the car will pull to the other side. So for example if the flywheel was spinning clockwise then on corner entry under brakes the car was understeering in right corners but oversteering in left corners. On corner exit it was oversteering in right corners and understeering in left corners. It took Audi technicians quite a while to properly deal with this issue. And as far as i know they actually changed the direction of rotation from track to track depending on corner layout. In an F1 car the effect would be even greater because the car has less mass and therefore is more affected by the torque from the flywheel. That might explain why Williams never used it in F1 even when it was a race proven system in LMP1 and in the Porsche GT3 car. When LMP1 rules changed and Audi needed to increase the storage capacity for it's hybrid to stay competitive, the first idea was to simply use 2 flywheels and let them rotate in opposite directions to cancel out each others angular momentum. But for some reason the rules did not allow two independent storage devices. And increasing the mass or the rpm of a single flywheel would have made the influence on the handling too bad. That, coupled with better battery technology that had become available caused Audi to drop the "Flybrid" system and go conventional.
Good vid but hybrid isn't really harvesting rotational momemtum from the wheels it's taking linear momentum from the car itself which is driving the wheels.
One thing that could have gotten it banned is a spinning flywheel can have a gyroscopic effect on the car. In the US, Gyros were used in some police cars, that were primarily used in high speed pursuits. These gyros were used for stability at high speeds. I think part of the reason that Williams wanted it dead center, was for the stability it could give. Remember as the car slowed, the flywheel was spinning up. This would give stability to the car during the needed actions (turning/traffic). This could also have given better stability on corners passively (no electronics except the "energy recovery"). I believe, even if the fuel tank wasn't expanded, the flywheel might have been banned, as soon as it was shown. There was no way, someone did not think about the passive stability aspect of a flywheel
Electric locomotives used this in the 1940s and 1950s on some British design engines. The massive flywheel allowed them to continue if there was a gap in the pick up supply rather than getting stuck. It was directly attached to the engine in most cases. The Williams system seems a shame it never got used in F1.
The negative of a flywheel is the gyroscopic effect where every attempt to move a flywheel in motion is met with forces that resist the motion, which doesn't sound like something one would want on a lightweight car that is always on the edge of grip. For a heavy lumbering bus it would be perfect.
I've always thought it'd be great to have a flywheel on my bike, so that it's less of a pain constantly having to stop and start for traffic lights in cities
Tbh, Hybrid hybrid is unlikely. Moar hybrid means more complexity, more weight, less efficiency from any part of the system, more points of failure (any of which could be catastrophic), more maintenance and ultimately higher cost. The Synergistic effects would have to be very good to warrant that. MGUH is an example that comes to my mind. It helps the combustion engine immensely while increasing complexity only moderately over other means of turbo control while sacrificing longevity for performance.
I dunno, I can't really hear it at all in this video. (th-cam.com/video/fYLmEadKmCw/w-d-xo.html) I think the engine is just so much louder than the flywheel you don't hear it at all.
flywheels are going to be super useful in many areas when they become a mature technology, allowing power systems to weather the 'spikes' of use that otherwise risk brownouts
The flywheel was a really nice engineering solution. However the battery seems better as it allows you to choose when to deploy energy and how much you want to use it. That is why Audi abandoned the idea in their LMP1H in 2014 (I think). Batteries where more efficient, when with the flywheel they had to deploy the energy almost instantly
well usually tracks have tight heavy braking sections followed by a straight so doesn't seem that bad considering you'd want to deploy it on the straight every lap anyway.
dont forget the Nissan GTR-LM Nismo had plans to have a similar system however due to problems with implementing the system, tight production scheduled and mainly reliability concerns, they entered the 3 cars without the system working however still in place, adding weight and lowering the potential power output of 1250bhp to that of just 550bhp from the engine.
I know it was an explanatory short cut, but it's worth noting that the bulk of the kinetic energy recovered is the car's, not the wheel's. That's why locking up is a thing: removing all rotation from the wheel is easy, but removing all kinesis from the car is hard.
This is a concept that IndyCar could pick up on given that they are going for hybrids in 2022. The flywheel concept can work in oval racing where the cars are constantly at high speed.
The horizontally rotating mass does also provide some protection against roll overs since a fast rotating flywheel would have a high moment of inertia.
Well Audi used the flywheel in their LMP1 car, while Toyota put their money on a super capacitor. However when Porsche entered LMP1 in 2014 with a battery powered car and started dominating (winning 7/9 races, taking every pole position) one year later, Audi and Toyota had to acknowledge the superiority of batteries and therefore, in the 2016 season, the 3 manufacturers were all using batteries.
It's because of their tradition of top class engineering that I think they should get the contract for the proposed standardised 7-speed f1 gearbox. It would keep the team alive in f1 while they're sorting out their current difficulties.
Couldn't you use the fly wheel as a sort of capacitor, in conjunction with a battery. But then wouldn't an actual capacitor be better, because it can store energy without have to spin so fast, so if you stop at a stop sign the energy goes to the capacitor and then the extra goes to the battery, then when you start again you pull from the capacitor (how ever much there is) and then when thats depleted then it goes to battery. And wouldn't this as well reduce wear and tear on the battery making it last longer?
How much I love this channel and how helpful it is, I find it extremely hard to follow the language. No secret that British accent is more sophisticated if you please, so it's hard for a non-native speaker to catch it at times, then the speed of narration is quite high to read the subtitles, especially in parts where the language is altiloquent. Moreover, there's technical stuff that you're trying to wrap your head around which makes it all even harder. In view of this I heartily ask you to consider slowing down the narration a bit, and maybe spell some words more distinctively. Thank you!
I'm not gonna lie.. this video, not only taught me several new things, but it also showed me the importance of intellectual property. Keep up the good work dude! Quality channel 💪🏾
It's amazing how good the Williams engineering group is at developing revolutionary new ideas. It's a shame that they are not as good on the track as they are in engineering breakthrough technology
I can imagine Road Cars, having both an electrical battery and a flywheel, since the flywheel could be used for situations where the car drives in a city with many stop-and-go passages. So the battery doesnt have to adjust the amount of power that it provides all the time the car stops/slows down and accelerates again and also, it doesnt have to load/reload/load/reload and so on. That could help lasting the battery longer in 2 ways: The battery lasts longer per stint (like 310km instead of 300km) and over the whole lifetime of a battery (100.000km instead of 95.000km). I dunno how significant those effects may be if a company develops it for some years, but i like the idea. Oh and btw: Wouldnt it be more useful to have several Flywheels in a single "engine"? I can imagine that the overall energy Loss is smaller if u have 4 Flywheels rotating with 10.000 RPM compared to 1 Flywheel with 40.000 RPM. Also the faster they spin, the more durable and strong the materials have to be.
There's no need to have four flywheels - you'd get the same effect from one flywheel that's four times as heavy. Which is essentially why it isn't done - if you spin the flywheel faster, you can make it lighter and still store the same amount of energy. Alternatively, for a given amount of weight, you can store more energy by spinning it faster.
A great example of the collateral returns of F1, well-presented. Reason #987 for why we need to work hard to figure out how to keep this series going. Just like Le Mans/WEC. This is moon shot stuff. Moon shots are very much on the mind of late. Can't imagine why. 🤔🙄🤔
The regulations are really killing innovationes. Nowadays the regulations has come to a point that teams are not really design the cars, FIA is designing the cars, teams are just optimizing them. Big teams with more resources will alwalys have better optimization. If the regulation can allow more diversed design, small teams can beat big teams by having better design concepte like what happended in 2009. After 2009 FIA seems emberassed and want to make sure that won't happen again, the regulation started to limit basicly everything on the car to prevent any loophole, but that's excectlly the opposite of what people want. The regulationes should only have a baseline such as minimal weight, energy consumption, budget cap an safety, than let the teams to find the best solution. They can use V10, V8, V6 as long as they work. Even if a team turns up with a nuclear powered car, it should be OK as long as they are within budget cap.
Love the Flywheel Hybrid solution for F1. be awesome for 2021 regs. make the parts interchangeable, Any ICE engine you want X amount of Petrol + a Flywheel KERS.
Maybe it's just me but the hybrid systems in LMP1 cars are so much cooler than the ones in F1. It's just amazing how the cars turn into 4wd for a few seconds out of the corners as the hybrid kicks in on the front axle. Different boosting strategies also create very interesting racing situations (or at least used to until everyone but Toyota left), just look up some videos about Porsche vs Audi battles in WEC. You don't really see that kind of stuff in F1, ot at least it's not very apparent/talked about. I feel like this is a huge missed opportunity by F1.
Wasn't KERS used for a whole season in F1 before batteries took over? Somewhere around 2007-2008? I don't remember exactly, but the commentators kept repeating it at least
Almost had me doubting my memory until the end. I was sure that the flywheel kers had been used in other forms of racing, but early parts almost made me think that maybe it was some other system and my memory was faulty. But then you pointed out that it was used by audi at le mans, so that's what my memory was remembering 😂
If you can create a vacuum chamber and put the flywheel in there and use magnetic bearings (eliminates friction and air resistance), then there will be no force slowing down the flywheel that much and so it can hold the energy forever (theoretically).
Talk about why having a massive gyroscope onboard the race car is either a hindrance or a massive boon ? Like, off the top of my head, if the flywheel is perpendicular to the road, doesn't it make the car quite "understeery" ? If it's parallel to the road, then is it some sort of anti-roll device ? Doesn't it prevent weight transfer in braking, or interact with the suspension in a weird way ?
Pretty sure this was done with Ricardo's engineering. Remember my lecturers talking about it (Ricardo research labs at our uni). Such a good simple concept, with added benefit of a rotating mass aiding stability. Funny side not how to balance a carbon flywheel, run it up in a vacuum then accidently break the seal let the air rushing over do it for you.
5:40 A fully mechanical system is not necessarily more efficient than a mechanical/electrical/chemical system. Firstly, there is still friction inside the CVT, which sucks energy out. In fact, if the CVT is overly complex like a rube-goldberg machine, an electrical KERS will be more efficient. Secondly, the act of changing forms of energy does not automatically mean energy is lost. Transforming kinetic energy into electrical energy is more than 90% efficient using a motor. Charging a battery is where the energy gets lost because of internal resistance. Hence, it cannot be said that since it is a purely mechanical system, it is more efficient than an electrical system.
This is why the technical regulations need to be more open. This would allow more innovative ideas that can be used beyond F1; like they used to talk about happening all the time. Yes open regulations will produce dominant teams, but that's what the practice time parity mechanism is for. F1 is 90% engineering exercises that no one ever sees and 10% an every fortnight competition showcasing the results of those engineering exercises. Once F1 realizes what they actually are it will be better for everyone.
I am impressed with your work! As I wrote before, you are making a great job. The same with animations, are always well constructed and provide full overview. Could you please tell what software you are using to create these?
I actually had an uber driver ask me once why electric cars don't just place generators in the undriven wheels for "free infinite energy". The reason why he asked me was that he had asked me where I was going, and when I replied I was going to my university's engineering center, he asked me if I was studying engineering and I affirmed. But yeah, that question hit me like a punch in the gut.
I get that this was kind of out of the range of the video but I was wondering why super capacitors aren’t feasible. I have limited knowledge but they seem to be a fair concept for storing energy in racing vehicles. Throughout the video I was wondering why they weren’t picked by F1 cars. My first thought was the technology is too new but as you’ve said before F1 is a high tech sport and it’s main reason for existence is for companies to test cutting edge technology. Beyond that the only thing I can guess is low power density or low maximum capacity. They seem to check all the other boxes rapid discharge, low mass, fair storage time, etc.
When he said "Hybrid units have been a part of F1 for 11 years", my mind went to early 2000s. Seeing 2009 on the screen hit me
Same here
Accept imminent death now. 😂 I too, will.
A de-ca-de... More than, actually
Remember when you thought 2020 was some far sci fi future you could only dream about?....
@@WeatherManToBe I thought the world was gonna end in 2020...but i was like 6 in 2009 kek.
A "revolutionary" flywheel hybrid. I see what you did there.
Audi R18 e-tron was using flywheel successfully, winning LeMans 24h three years in a row.
@@bluehead_info Think about the term "revolution", what does it mean?
Someone wanna explain the pun to my dumbass?
@@AsmodeusLustful ok, ok I didn't catch the sarcasm (:
@@bluehead_info Sarcasm? There was no sarcasm involved.
Damn, can you imagine if Williams went through with this design? The Audi R18 used flywheel hybrid before 2016 and it sounds godly
it's the same flywheel! Williams made it ;)
Oops, sorry Stuart I was too giddy about that I didn't watched until the end before commenting
@@Raprada Can you link a video with the sound, cause i'm intrigued by it
How does a flywheel affect the engine sound?
@@Марсель-ж5ч you can look up "2015 Audi R18 onboard" on TH-cam, the flywheel sound is very prominent in 2015 I think
The London Underground used a kinetic energy recovery system 150 years ago, they raised the stations up from the natural track level, breaking effort was reduced as the incoming train climbed the incline into the station, and acceleration effort was reduced as the down hill exit from the station reduced acceleration power.
The system that was occasionally used it trolley buses was also a good one. Sometimes they would need to switch between circuits or there were areas where there was no power. At the last stop they would power up a flywheel of the mains and when the gap in power was encountered the flywheel would return power to the motor to keep the bus mobile for up to 5 miles. But that wasn't as old as the trains system that was only 50~60 years ago.
GIIIINIIIUUSS!
🤔
Absolutely genius
There's a large railyard near Chicago iirc built on a low hill, as each car reaches the top and is decoupled, and the rails switched to the proper route, it rolls downhill without any power to its destination.
Do you plan on making a video about McLaren's hydraulic KERS used in 1998's MP4-13?
Though it was only used in one race, it was arguably a marvel of engineering and would have been highly influential were it not banned by the FIA after protests from, whom else, Ferrari. And as a pioneering piece of technology, it almost demands more recognition.
This is a brilliant idea for a video
Ferrari has so much control in the FIA, it's sad. People continue to spout "Mercedes bad", whilst Ferrari got the FIA to give them an exclusive bonus as a "historical team".
@@cooltwittertag Well, Mercedes, Red Bull & Williams all also have their own unique bonuses for various things (though not as much as Ferrari's 'long-standing team' bonus).
The problem with their system was that it also ended up as a part of a manual traction control device. I mean it stop stop McLaren in 1999 no built a more simpler version which required the driver to operate a third pedal in the car.
@@cooltwittertag Don't blame the FIA for this. It was Ecclestone who did this financial system with the Concorde Agreement. The FIA could be blamed for other certain decisions though (talking about Belgium 2008 or perhaps, *maybe* Canada 2019, remember?), but not for this.
This is why I love Williams. Being a private team and still innovating a lot throughout their history.
Lelouch Vi Britannia “private team”
Lets just hope Williams have some more amazing ideas like this soon and get their way back to the front.
Bear, you messed up at 4:01. You doubled the kW but not the bhp.
good catch
Whoops
Ssssssttt 😊
@@chainbear Also, I'm not sure if you meant to write 'size' twice at 8:13.
😏😌
I don't care much about racing but I am really into physics and engineering. And a friendly ernest voice speaking calmly.
Ieuan Hunt not trying to be annoying but how did you find this video then?
@@YaBoi-ru9yc I think i was watching a Real Engineering video on the physics of F1 cars and this channel was in the recommendations.
I think it was the tire wall/runoff area video. That I saw first.
@@ieuanhunt552 real engineering guy is good for other engineering/mathematical disciplines but he really messed up the f1 video he has no clue on f1 aero, chain bear knows it all and is the perfect f1 technical youtuber
I really like the attention you give to the details. @2:40 The variation in PE is linear while it is quadratic for KE.
I wonder what the precession of a spinning flywheel will do to a racing car, or alternatively, how the g forces will affect the flywheel's max capabilities and efficiency
Nitpicking, but the energy recovery system is not recovering the rotational energy of the wheel, F1 wheels don't carry enough energy for this to be worthwhile. Rather, the recovery system recovers the kinetic energy of the entire car as it slows down. You could look at this from the frame of reference of the car, in which case yes, the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels is being converted into electrical energy, but then you have to complicate things by replenishing the rotational energy of the wheels by having the ground spin them up as deceleration occurs, and _that_ occurs due to inertial forces which generate their own potential energy due to deceleration, and really it's just so much of a headache that it's better to just take the road reference frame.
One thing I hope people realize, yes Williams have been struggling and some times embarrassing on track recently. It's not because they don't have smart people working there. The Williams technology division is extremely impressive. There are a lot of factors that go into building and running an F1 car, having smart engineers and designer is just factor in that.
Yeah every team has bad times and if William can make it to the reg changes then I'm sure they can make a turn arpund
So the first F1 game by codemasters is already 11 years old?!
tsuguminxken F1 2009 for the wii. So, not 11 years old, but close.
Ben Ward the 11th game tho
@@ruairilane3562 Yes, it is the 11th game, but I still count it as 10 years old. If that makes sense.
Ruairi Lane no it’s the first game lol, they’ve done 11 games
No because Codemasters didn’t make F1 2009
Willams can design a flywheel-combustion engine hybrid, but can't design a car with working aerodynamic flow.
they are very different problems and i would say that the aero is significantly harder
By “working” you mean “competitive with the best aero in the world”
r/woosh
@@kingofgar101 Not so much harder; as much more expensive and requiring much more expensive infrastructure.
This was all in 2011 before CEO Adam Parr got screwed over...
Ahh, a good old classic Chain Bear explains, great! I still love these vids that give a technical explanation of something many of us have probably never heard of, or didn't know the details about.
Keep making them Stuart, they're what sets you apart (together with F1 trivia, I love those as well!)
I understand the FIA safety team had some safety concerns, in the event of a crash if the flywheel and its casing is broken you'd potentially have thousands of fly wheel, high velocity bullets spraying in every direction.
8:45 A electro-mechanical hybrid system in combination with a ICE.
I like the sound of that!
Good one. I remember seeing pictures of the flywheel unit placed where the passenger seat would be on gt3r. Thanks for explaining the principle of it.
I never knew about this. Well done Chain Bear another Brilliant video.
4:00
By the way, that's over 300 AA batteries.
(And it's about 160 bhp.)
@Hallison Michel you could power a car with any battery
@@yosyp5905 Except if the battery isn't charged.
Can't convert energy to power.
@@andrewc1036 what
@@yosyp5905 you can't convert units of energy into power. 300 batteries don't convert to hp. The discharge rate isn't specified.
your videos are really a treat to watch... the animations are top notch
This was my engineering project. I did use flywheel for quick burst. I also used an air compressor to store energy which was inefficient but the idea was to explore different possibilities and applications of recovered energy. The year was 2008.
Rotational energy? It's not just the rotational energy, or angular momenum of the wheels, it's the momentum of the whole car that must be considered. Example, if the car was put on a car hydrologic car lift, and the wheels were rotating at 1000 rpm, the energy generated in stopping the wheels spinning would be far less than if the car was moving at a rate that made the wheels rotate at 1000 rpm.
This would be neat to see in a commuter bicycle or scooter. Something that makes frequent stops in city traffic, and doesn't have an abundance of power to start with. Not to mention, scooters already have CVT's, even economy cars.
Damn i wish they could have pushed it through! So interesting! Thanks CB
I wonder if the flywheel could have some strange effects on handling. Gyroscopic forces pulling the car around.
Maybe the flywheel is light enough that it does nothing. But it's something to consider.
It was to be mounted horizontally - at least that's my understanding. So only really an issue for elevation changes, no big deal.
@@Shaun.Stephens agreed. My thinking is that F1 cars are so finely engineered that even a small force applied in the wrong way at the wrong time could have a noticeable effect. I think it would be negligible but you never know. Physics can be unpredictable at times.
I was thinking that putting it horizontal would maybe even have a positive effect since it stabilizes the car a little and reduces the chassis rolling in corners
Banking and tilting would still be coupled mounting it horizontally. So also an issue for banked turns, which would cause the nose to be pulled up or pushed down, depending on the direction of rotation... Going up or down hill would cause force shifts from left to right or vv.
Williams: *I lead others to a treasure I cannot possess*
Ahh yes the famous “flybrid” system Audi used to great effect
what about the gyroscopic forces of a fast moving flywheel. does it affect the behaviour and feel of a car ?
I wondered that also. Wouldn't it make the care more understeery ? If you spin it up under braking, then the car would be that much harder to turn around a corner wouldn't it ? Or does it lie flat in the car's plane, and then it's a sort of anti-roll device ? Surely it would have an effect on brake balance though...
I was looking for this comment as it was my first thought. I guess the angular momentum would be small compared to the weight of the car, and if used correctly, it could even help cornering (in one direction anyway).
If the flywheel is balanced very precisely i see no reason why it should affect the behaviour and feel of the car.
@@Jabbaz03 I believe this to be incorrect, as gyroscopic forces still induce a rotation about a different axis, regardless of the balance. It would - depending on orientation - induce weird yaw/pitch in directions depending on left or right turns.
I cant speak for cars but Ducati's V4 is supposed to have amazing handling bexause they changed the direction the crank rotates. Having the engine spin 'backwards' creates a gyroscopic force that helps pin the front wheel to the ground under hard acceleration. Rather than lifting the front wheel in most engines.
Awesome! I always wondered about that flywheel tech and why it was never used in F1
You should do more videos explaining innovations from motorsport in general. Great video btw
Bro, I just loveeeee your channel!!!!!!!!!!!! You are so passionate about this sport and I just love every video. And in every video I learn new things! I would really like it to see a video every day, but of course, that isn't possible because the quality of these videos is so extremely high!
The gyroscopic forces and the angular momentum of the flywheel did have a bad affect on the handling of the car. That was one of the main reasons why Audi switched to a battery system for their later LMP1 cars when they needed to increase the storage capacity.
The flywheel had to be mounted in the car horizontally (meaning it's axis of rotation was vertical) because in any other orientation the gyroscopic forces would have hindered the car from turning in a corner, made it very understeery. In this orientation it acted as a stabilising force against roll and pitch movements (which is good), while turning was more or less unaffected as long as the flywheel speed was constant.
However: if you put energy into the system and create a torque on the flywheel to spin it up, the same amount of torque will act on the car in the opposite direction. And vice versa when you try to slow the wheel down you will again have a torque on the car.
In other words: every time the flywheel spins up your car will slightly pull to one side, every time you pull energy out of the flywheel the car will pull to the other side.
So for example if the flywheel was spinning clockwise then on corner entry under brakes the car was understeering in right corners but oversteering in left corners. On corner exit it was oversteering in right corners and understeering in left corners. It took Audi technicians quite a while to properly deal with this issue. And as far as i know they actually changed the direction of rotation from track to track depending on corner layout.
In an F1 car the effect would be even greater because the car has less mass and therefore is more affected by the torque from the flywheel. That might explain why Williams never used it in F1 even when it was a race proven system in LMP1 and in the Porsche GT3 car.
When LMP1 rules changed and Audi needed to increase the storage capacity for it's hybrid to stay competitive, the first idea was to simply use 2 flywheels and let them rotate in opposite directions to cancel out each others angular momentum. But for some reason the rules did not allow two independent storage devices. And increasing the mass or the rpm of a single flywheel would have made the influence on the handling too bad. That, coupled with better battery technology that had become available caused Audi to drop the "Flybrid" system and go conventional.
Good vid but hybrid isn't really harvesting rotational momemtum from the wheels it's taking linear momentum from the car itself which is driving the wheels.
One thing that could have gotten it banned is a spinning flywheel can have a gyroscopic effect on the car. In the US, Gyros were used in some police cars, that were primarily used in high speed pursuits. These gyros were used for stability at high speeds. I think part of the reason that Williams wanted it dead center, was for the stability it could give. Remember as the car slowed, the flywheel was spinning up. This would give stability to the car during the needed actions (turning/traffic). This could also have given better stability on corners passively (no electronics except the "energy recovery"). I believe, even if the fuel tank wasn't expanded, the flywheel might have been banned, as soon as it was shown. There was no way, someone did not think about the passive stability aspect of a flywheel
Just wow what content you keep bringing 👏🏽👍🏽
Electric locomotives used this in the 1940s and 1950s on some British design engines. The massive flywheel allowed them to continue if there was a gap in the pick up supply rather than getting stuck. It was directly attached to the engine in most cases.
The Williams system seems a shame it never got used in F1.
The negative of a flywheel is the gyroscopic effect where every attempt to move a flywheel in motion is met with forces that resist the motion, which doesn't sound like something one would want on a lightweight car that is always on the edge of grip. For a heavy lumbering bus it would be perfect.
I've always thought it'd be great to have a flywheel on my bike, so that it's less of a pain constantly having to stop and start for traffic lights in cities
Did a research project on this tech, truly interesting meaty engineering 👍
The idea of a hybrid hybrid just blew my mind!
Hybrid electric and Hydrogen... (Both use electric engines to drive the wheels)
Tbh, Hybrid hybrid is unlikely. Moar hybrid means more complexity, more weight, less efficiency from any part of the system, more points of failure (any of which could be catastrophic), more maintenance and ultimately higher cost.
The Synergistic effects would have to be very good to warrant that. MGUH is an example that comes to my mind. It helps the combustion engine immensely while increasing complexity only moderately over other means of turbo control while sacrificing longevity for performance.
I can imagine it would've sounded quite cool if this happened, like a little whine when they break
I dunno, I can't really hear it at all in this video. (th-cam.com/video/fYLmEadKmCw/w-d-xo.html) I think the engine is just so much louder than the flywheel you don't hear it at all.
it's sitting on vaccum, you wouldnt hear anything
flywheels are going to be super useful in many areas when they become a mature technology, allowing power systems to weather the 'spikes' of use that otherwise risk brownouts
Extremely brilliant presentation of a brilliant idea.
The flywheel was a really nice engineering solution.
However the battery seems better as it allows you to choose when to deploy energy and how much you want to use it.
That is why Audi abandoned the idea in their LMP1H in 2014 (I think). Batteries where more efficient, when with the flywheel they had to deploy the energy almost instantly
well usually tracks have tight heavy braking sections followed by a straight so doesn't seem that bad considering you'd want to deploy it on the straight every lap anyway.
No, 2016
dont forget the Nissan GTR-LM Nismo had plans to have a similar system however due to problems with implementing the system, tight production scheduled and mainly reliability concerns, they entered the 3 cars without the system working however still in place, adding weight and lowering the potential power output of 1250bhp to that of just 550bhp from the engine.
I know it was an explanatory short cut, but it's worth noting that the bulk of the kinetic energy recovered is the car's, not the wheel's. That's why locking up is a thing: removing all rotation from the wheel is easy, but removing all kinesis from the car is hard.
This is a concept that IndyCar could pick up on given that they are going for hybrids in 2022. The flywheel concept can work in oval racing where the cars are constantly at high speed.
The horizontally rotating mass does also provide some protection against roll overs since a fast rotating flywheel would have a high moment of inertia.
Radio communication had a huge impact on the evolution of F1, I bet that would make a great video 😬
Well Audi used the flywheel in their LMP1 car, while Toyota put their money on a super capacitor. However when Porsche entered LMP1 in 2014 with a battery powered car and started dominating (winning 7/9 races, taking every pole position) one year later, Audi and Toyota had to acknowledge the superiority of batteries and therefore, in the 2016 season, the 3 manufacturers were all using batteries.
It's because of their tradition of top class engineering that I think they should get the contract for the proposed standardised 7-speed f1 gearbox. It would keep the team alive in f1 while they're sorting out their current difficulties.
Couldn't you use the fly wheel as a sort of capacitor, in conjunction with a battery. But then wouldn't an actual capacitor be better, because it can store energy without have to spin so fast, so if you stop at a stop sign the energy goes to the capacitor and then the extra goes to the battery, then when you start again you pull from the capacitor (how ever much there is) and then when thats depleted then it goes to battery. And wouldn't this as well reduce wear and tear on the battery making it last longer?
How much I love this channel and how helpful it is, I find it extremely hard to follow the language. No secret that British accent is more sophisticated if you please, so it's hard for a non-native speaker to catch it at times, then the speed of narration is quite high to read the subtitles, especially in parts where the language is altiloquent. Moreover, there's technical stuff that you're trying to wrap your head around which makes it all even harder.
In view of this I heartily ask you to consider slowing down the narration a bit, and maybe spell some words more distinctively. Thank you!
Cool vid. I hadn't realised it was the fuel tank issue that did away with the flywheel design.
The engineering is fucking amazing
It baffles me
Love this
you're videos are so relaxing!!!!
anyone feel like doing the math for how much of a gyroscope effect this would have on the quick turns presumably occurring after braking?
Would there be any gyroscopic effect if the axis of rotation were vertical?
@@samosasamosa6764 of course, the question is in which direction
I'm not gonna lie.. this video, not only taught me several new things, but it also showed me the importance of intellectual property.
Keep up the good work dude! Quality channel 💪🏾
Fascinating and well explained...thank you.
It's amazing how good the Williams engineering group is at developing revolutionary new ideas. It's a shame that they are not as good on the track as they are in engineering breakthrough technology
I can imagine Road Cars, having both an electrical battery and a flywheel, since the flywheel could be used for situations where the car drives in a city with many stop-and-go passages. So the battery doesnt have to adjust the amount of power that it provides all the time the car stops/slows down and accelerates again and also, it doesnt have to load/reload/load/reload and so on. That could help lasting the battery longer in 2 ways: The battery lasts longer per stint (like 310km instead of 300km) and over the whole lifetime of a battery (100.000km instead of 95.000km). I dunno how significant those effects may be if a company develops it for some years, but i like the idea.
Oh and btw: Wouldnt it be more useful to have several Flywheels in a single "engine"? I can imagine that the overall energy Loss is smaller if u have 4 Flywheels rotating with 10.000 RPM compared to 1 Flywheel with 40.000 RPM. Also the faster they spin, the more durable and strong the materials have to be.
There's no need to have four flywheels - you'd get the same effect from one flywheel that's four times as heavy.
Which is essentially why it isn't done - if you spin the flywheel faster, you can make it lighter and still store the same amount of energy. Alternatively, for a given amount of weight, you can store more energy by spinning it faster.
How does he do it? Continuously provide quality content...?
Please make more videos like this :) they are awesome!!
Remember guys, if you're afraid of professional photography because of the expensive gear you can just use your iPhone, which is also expensive.
A great example of the collateral returns of F1, well-presented. Reason #987 for why we need to work hard to figure out how to keep this series going. Just like Le Mans/WEC. This is moon shot stuff. Moon shots are very much on the mind of late. Can't imagine why. 🤔🙄🤔
The regulations are really killing innovationes. Nowadays the regulations has come to a point that teams are not really design the cars, FIA is designing the cars, teams are just optimizing them. Big teams with more resources will alwalys have better optimization. If the regulation can allow more diversed design, small teams can beat big teams by having better design concepte like what happended in 2009. After 2009 FIA seems emberassed and want to make sure that won't happen again, the regulation started to limit basicly everything on the car to prevent any loophole, but that's excectlly the opposite of what people want. The regulationes should only have a baseline such as minimal weight, energy consumption, budget cap an safety, than let the teams to find the best solution. They can use V10, V8, V6 as long as they work. Even if a team turns up with a nuclear powered car, it should be OK as long as they are within budget cap.
Love the Flywheel Hybrid solution for F1.
be awesome for 2021 regs.
make the parts interchangeable,
Any ICE engine you want X amount of Petrol + a Flywheel KERS.
Maybe it's just me but the hybrid systems in LMP1 cars are so much cooler than the ones in F1. It's just amazing how the cars turn into 4wd for a few seconds out of the corners as the hybrid kicks in on the front axle. Different boosting strategies also create very interesting racing situations (or at least used to until everyone but Toyota left), just look up some videos about Porsche vs Audi battles in WEC. You don't really see that kind of stuff in F1, ot at least it's not very apparent/talked about. I feel like this is a huge missed opportunity by F1.
Had never heard of that. Very cool idea!
Flywheel hybrids are rad. Are you familiar with the Chrysler Patriot LMP project? It was going to combine a flywheel hybrid system with a turbine.
Wasn't KERS used for a whole season in F1 before batteries took over? Somewhere around 2007-2008? I don't remember exactly, but the commentators kept repeating it at least
I am highly impressed that non-linear increase of kinetic-energy is noted in the animation.
Didnt toyota used it in ts050 or something like that? I Heard that had flywheel boost system for low speed corners after straight
Nope, Audi used it in their R18 e-tron
great video well explained thanks for your content
Almost had me doubting my memory until the end. I was sure that the flywheel kers had been used in other forms of racing, but early parts almost made me think that maybe it was some other system and my memory was faulty. But then you pointed out that it was used by audi at le mans, so that's what my memory was remembering 😂
If you can create a vacuum chamber and put the flywheel in there and use magnetic bearings (eliminates friction and air resistance), then there will be no force slowing down the flywheel that much and so it can hold the energy forever (theoretically).
Talk about why having a massive gyroscope onboard the race car is either a hindrance or a massive boon ? Like, off the top of my head, if the flywheel is perpendicular to the road, doesn't it make the car quite "understeery" ? If it's parallel to the road, then is it some sort of anti-roll device ? Doesn't it prevent weight transfer in braking, or interact with the suspension in a weird way ?
How did they get around the gyroscopic effects of the flywheel on steering and momentum?
the potential energy converting into kinetic with iperbolic speed was a nice little touch
Amazing video as always
This is a good innovation by Williams. Imagine this being used this season.
a really cool example of how tech from F1 is applied elsewhere!
Pretty sure this was done with Ricardo's engineering. Remember my lecturers talking about it (Ricardo research labs at our uni). Such a good simple concept, with added benefit of a rotating mass aiding stability. Funny side not how to balance a carbon flywheel, run it up in a vacuum then accidently break the seal let the air rushing over do it for you.
How would the gyroscopic forces of the flywheel affect vehicle dynamics?
Chrysler developed a flywheel energy capture system for INDY back in the '90's , I think, and it was BANNED !
I liked the CHAIN BEAR brand racing tire
I was under the impression CVTs were banned in the early 90s.
I think that is one avenue the FIA should reintroduce as it can impact road cars.
YES
MY 2ND FAV THICC BRIT UPLOADED
Who is the first?
Probably Jimmy THICC BOI
Exactly. He’s still the T H I C C E S T B R I T out there
@DL 44 - pardon my ignorance, but what does “Thicc” mean in this context?
Well, good ol Jim (and Stewart for that matter) eat a lot it seems like, so they have quite the belly. So.... Thicc.
5:40 A fully mechanical system is not necessarily more efficient than a mechanical/electrical/chemical system. Firstly, there is still friction inside the CVT, which sucks energy out. In fact, if the CVT is overly complex like a rube-goldberg machine, an electrical KERS will be more efficient. Secondly, the act of changing forms of energy does not automatically mean energy is lost. Transforming kinetic energy into electrical energy is more than 90% efficient using a motor. Charging a battery is where the energy gets lost because of internal resistance. Hence, it cannot be said that since it is a purely mechanical system, it is more efficient than an electrical system.
Super interesting! Many thanks 👍🏽
This is why the technical regulations need to be more open. This would allow more innovative ideas that can be used beyond F1; like they used to talk about happening all the time. Yes open regulations will produce dominant teams, but that's what the practice time parity mechanism is for. F1 is 90% engineering exercises that no one ever sees and 10% an every fortnight competition showcasing the results of those engineering exercises. Once F1 realizes what they actually are it will be better for everyone.
Loved the video ... are there more examples of good spin-offs from F1 which would make interesting videos ? Keep up the great work.
Haha, you wrote "spin-off". Sorry for the silly humor but I just had to😁
Depending on how large the flywheel is it also generates some unwanted forces such as precession.
The electrical symbol for a supercapacitor is just the same as for a normal capacitor. What you showed at 0:35 is the symbol for a battery. ;-)
I am impressed with your work! As I wrote before, you are making a great job. The same with animations, are always well constructed and provide full overview. Could you please tell what software you are using to create these?
I actually had an uber driver ask me once why electric cars don't just place generators in the undriven wheels for "free infinite energy".
The reason why he asked me was that he had asked me where I was going, and when I replied I was going to my university's engineering center, he asked me if I was studying engineering and I affirmed.
But yeah, that question hit me like a punch in the gut.
Awesome video, as always.
Doesn't most of the energy from the ERS come from the KE of the car not the rotational energy of the wheels directly? (3:12)
Absolutely right.
I get that this was kind of out of the range of the video but I was wondering why super capacitors aren’t feasible. I have limited knowledge but they seem to be a fair concept for storing energy in racing vehicles. Throughout the video I was wondering why they weren’t picked by F1 cars. My first thought was the technology is too new but as you’ve said before F1 is a high tech sport and it’s main reason for existence is for companies to test cutting edge technology. Beyond that the only thing I can guess is low power density or low maximum capacity. They seem to check all the other boxes rapid discharge, low mass, fair storage time, etc.