I think it's hilarious the Chinese call regen KERS!!!? KERS was a system developed for F1 "Kinetic energy recovery system" which used a vacuum flywheel ("kinetic energy") and revolves at up to 64,500 rpm. Note "Kinetic" which is the energy of something MOVING. Regen is simply converting the "Kinetic" energy of the car (slowing down) into electrical energy (in the battery)
I think that was the Williams systems. They developed it but never fitted it to their F1 cars and used an electrical system like the other F1 teams. The design was sold for other uses though. Other F1 teams used electric motors and batteries. KERS is a pretty good name and it does mean we can claim we have F1 tech in our cars!
I find level 3 regen on an MG5 about equivalent to a diesel engine breaking, in fact, when the battery is fully charged (and hence no room to store any more energy) the lack of regen I find quite alarming, when I take my foot off the pedal, and the car doesn't slow down as much as it should.
I agree. I find level 3 too much.
For greatest efficiency, when slowing down on the motorway, it's best that the battery current (third display down from Speedo, on a MG5) doesn't go negative, as there's a large conversion loss, e.g. better not use the energy from the battery in the first place, rather than stuff it back in.
There is an argument that the occasional bit of charging into the battery rather than constant draining helps to overcome the Peukert effect which limits the battery's ability to deliver all the stored energy. Yes Peukert is associated with lead acid batteries but it is also seen to a lesser degree with LiIon batteries as well. The more the battery is caned, the less of the stored energy you can get is the basic law!
Indeed, it has been said that the most efficient roads are not that are level but have slight hills to go up and down. I was doing some postgrad work on this and there certainly on first inspection seemed to be some validity in it. The batteries get a break and seem to respond better as a result.
When I was using a Pug 206SW 1.4Hdi for 8.5 years, I always used as much engine-braking as pos. and I never had to change the brakes until I scrapped it last year! (bought, £480, driven 82,000, sold £2000 (ULEZ) plus £221 for scrap.......
Never really understood the need for engine braking with modern cars, especially high power sports cars rear wheel cars with lots of torque where engine braking would occasionally lock the rear wheels and a spin like a handbrake turn. It is braking on one set of wheels only for a start so can never be as efficient as using the brakes. The weight transfer is also pretty strange. There is also the small matter of the fact that ABS isn't working as well as there is no brake pressure to modulate. Then there was the cost of the additional clutch wear compared to the cost of brake pads which are cheaper and easier to replace. It is not a good way with a modern car.
Yes I know it was used on old vehicles whose brakes were pretty awful but with modern cars there is absolutely no need. Not possible with EVs as the amount of regen is carefully controlled to prevent this problem.
I digress... yes I agree if you have to brake/slow down then coasting followed by regen and finally the brake is the way to go.
Doesn't the parking brake act on the rear drums? That should give them enough exercise to prevent seizing, I'd have thought.
Its rear discs not drums and the system is a "park brake by wire" in that electronics controls the parking brake application. In normal use this means that the car is virtually stationary when the brake is applied and released.
There is also a motor brake which i think is used when the car is switched off. Then there is the assist feature which locks brake pressure so that the brake pedal can be released without releasing the brakes.
Long and short of it is that the parking brake is not much use in cleaning up discs.