Instead of another 25 posts of a fruitless pissing match over the definition of a word, a more interesting discussion would be of the OP's intent; what was being done in F1. There's a bunch of talk here of closed throttle... a closed throttle blows nothing. The idea was that the teams wanted to maintain "blown diffuser levels" of downforce during off-pedal moments. To do that you ideally want max RPM (more RPM = more volume/time). You want that steady maximum downforce whether you're braking hard, "coasting" under cornering, or accelerating hard. Jim Hall used an onboard snowmobile engine to keep downforce constant regardless of road speed. F1 teams were simply maximizing the blown diffuser element of downforce at all times by maintaining maximum "blow" regardless of the driver's foot. The FIA wanted the teams to match throttle opening to the instantaneous need for forward propulsion, but the teams wiggled out of that for the remainder of the season, apparently not even prepared to run an "honest" KERS.
The teams were making a mockary of the KERS idea. They were using fuel energy for fueled downforce, not forward propulsion. I think they were also using all that available powered time (not needed for propulsion) to charge the KERS... again making a mockery of the ER goal of KERS. Why upset the car with "generator braking" when you've got plenty of (more controllable) friction braking on the car, and you're going to be screaming the engine to keep exhaust flow maximised?
The debate/negotiations with the FIA were over what percentage of full throttle the teams could have while the driver was fully lifted. It doen't take much throttle opening to make a declutched engine run redline, but the teams wanted a lot... hence the suspicion they were charging the KERS with the IC engine, not the car's momentum.
Under this scenario the throttle pedal becomes an acceleration request rather than a throttle opening request. If the driver presses the pedal, the throttle is already be open blowing the diffuser and maybe charging the KERS. Seems to me the throttle ends up controlling the KERS generator load in addition to the transmission clutch and ratio selection. Oh yeah... and the throttle plate... almost forgot it. I'm assuming the brake pedal declutches the engine so RPM can be managed to be constant (high) to blow and charge. Of course all this has to be invisble to the driver, with perfect transitions off and back to propulsion.
It is not 'a fruitless pissing match about the meaning of a word'.
It is F1 biased aero engineering stealing yet another established definition in its continuing worship of downforce aero 'uber alles'.
The rest of your post engineguy, I am in full agreement with.
Good explanation of the wrong way to use energy recovery from an educated experienced person.
The F1 teams (FOTA) completely altered the FIA regulations attempt to encourage new technology from the real world to be developed to its peak in F1.
The result is that F1 is now nowhere close to that peak of world vehicle technology where it should be and continues to become more boring and of less interest as each new season unfolds.
Many engineers and ideas people who have been in F1 for many decades are leaving the sport to find meaningful technical positions elsewhere.
I blame them not.
The new FIA F1 regulations for 2014 will either be a turning point or a death nell.
Those who disagree can then join Ferrari and the soft drinks promoters in the stone age as new ideas for motorsport competition replace the historic.
Patrick Head recently resigned from his position at F1 Williams.
He had been complaining against electric traction using what has become his trade mark comment. 'Shock and Awe' to plead for the awesome noise to remain in F1. Strange that he has taken up a new position in the 'energy recovery' field and 'Shock and Awe' was a BBC series on educating people about electricity.
Might tell you something about the future.
Edited by 24gerrard, 24 January 2012 - 11:05.