Don't let the facts get in the way of your bigoted opposition to the teams organisation. While FOTA aren't lilly-white, KERS is Max's showpiece. I don't intend to provide you links because everyone knows it and he has been pushing for it. The reasons for FOTA backing away - too numerous to list. But how about;
To stick it up Max by baiting him to go the other way (as he always does) so that the capped F1 racing has to carry expensive ballast which is irrelevant to any commonsense?
Or how about to show solidarity for sensible cost cutting measures?

There's plenty of commonsense reasons for ditching it. If it is irrelevant to future roadcar innovation then it's a piece of race gimmickry that the public struggle to get their heads around. While I wouldn't exaggerate this decision as a FOTA masterstroke it shows strength of common purpose in working down the right lines. With the top drivers putting their necks out for FOTA I think their resolve is still holding out well. (four days to go)

bigoted opposition
Definition: intolerant, prejudiced
that seams to sum you up far more than me.
So now as well as being rude you are a fortune teller are you?
Otherwise how can you tell where KERs would be in ten years time?
And in case you forget some road going cars already have KERs installed.
My whole point and the one you missed was FOTA have been saying we want to be at the bleeding edge of technology but when they are they moan like crazy about it.
We all agree at one point FOTA were in the right but now as they go from stupid to idiotic more and more people are thinking what the hell are FOTA really about do they really care about F1 or are they just out for themselves. I applaud the teams like Williams who had the guts to say not in my name and signed up without all these ever growing stupid demands.
Incase you cannot understand a simple thing you change nothing from the outside you work from the inside, and demands only ever tend to get the answer NO.
But then i supose you think FOTA arnt demanding anything or lying when they keep on about a 40M cap wich is infact much more like unlimited apart from in performance areas.

For me KERS is one of the few systems that I'd like on my car (obviously the McLaren Merc one, not the BMW one Except that it should work serially, not parallel to the normal engine/transmission.

The only other part is carbon fiber which would help reduce weight of the car a lot.

OK - accepted. But as I stated in my reply I don't think FOTA are completely right in the argument. However they have been trying to get consensus rather than FIA's "take it or go and run your own series" approach to problem solving which are surely "demands". Unless the media have been selective in their reporting AND Max has done a bad job with media handling it's Max who has come out looking the bad guy.

Look I know the media can be a misleading industry as I work with and sometimes in television. However;

1. Mosley's position taking this recent issue has been autocratic.
2. His position over the past 10 years been increasingly autocratic.
3. The teams have been a disparate group always arguing for their chance to get an advantage over each other and MAx has been growing increasingly impatient.

However driving or attempting to drive, a wedge through the sport which threatens F1 is not "good faith bargaining".
KERS was controversial when mooted, problematic through early development, still is not showing signs of providing a reason for existing IMO.
More relevant, it still requires so much investment to reach any kind of competitive edge that in today's supposedly cash-strapped times it makes sense to ditch it as part of any meaningful cost-saving movement. Phew!

Further to my point above about Max looking to many as the bogeyman, people have a right to have a long memory. When cost saving first started tp become a significant issue Max decides that safety issues required a drastic cut in power. Why he decided that power equals danger I haven't quite fathomed since most prangs happen on corners hence cornering speeds I thought were the issue. He then takes a brainwave to "cut" two cylinders off one end of a 3 litre V10 and - Whammo, 2.4 litre V8s! Sorry Max, very expensive way to not achieve much. The point is his decisionmaking is inept and inconsistent and has been getting worse. The way democracy happens is a joke and most people think the current issue is over cost saving - it is not.

The KERS position of FOCA is right IMO, plus it has a FIA v FOCA strategic aspect.....

Sorry I will keep on topic and civil as much as my exasperation with this stupid meltdown of our sport allows.
Please accept my apology.

That was due to happen next season anyway, it what be patently unfair to increase the limits mid-season as teams have made their decisions based on the published rules.

sporting regs
9.9.1 The KERS must connect at any point in the rear wheel drive train before the differential.
there is no real way of connecting KERs in a pure series manner that i am aware of, unless they connect it to the wrong side of the engine, Which is against the rules.
Connecting it to the wrong side of the engine on a road car would also entail far more weight when it comes to recovering energy ( on a road car it would not work engine side as an energy recovery unit so would need a seperate recovery system in the drive train (this is due to the differences in how racing cars and street cars are used and driven)) . Also by using it in the drive train you deliver the power in a consitant fashion to the wheels and dont have the extra wear on the clutch.

If FOTA wants to negotiate they just moved further away from the table. They should try the other way around. Ever since the Heathrow meeting they have taken steps further and further away from a solution and their KERS decision is just another way of empty posturing. Or do they really think that Mosley will give in if they give him KERS back?

They could have put that decision on the shelf for a while until the rest had been sorted out, if they really are interested in sorting anything out, that is.

The big problem is with FOTA and how they are acting right now is that there is no difference to their or Max's attitudes.
Max has said take it or leave, just like FOTA have said our way or we leave.
Both are demanding the same thing that the other side backs down 100%
However i would add one difference is that FOTA are adding to their demands day by day.
Supposedly the first argument that most agreed with was their worry over the new cap but how many arguments have they now added to the pile?


You have as much right to your thoughts as i do to mine.
The difference between fools and intelligent people is they acknowledge the other has their own rights too and listen to others after all we all never stop learning and i know i am not perfect and have learnt some interesting things here as well as laughed at some i have seen posted but in general most people here are far better behaved than most boards.
Accepted and forget it.

no fota are just demonstrating commonsense

max wants cost cutting yet brought this nonsensical technology in.

teams spent a fortune and are faced with having to spend even greater fortune to actually make it work such is the daftness of how it works. and with all those ungreen batteries, new safety gear, dangers.

basically fota are showing up max for how stupid his recent decisions have been.

now as for whether fota keep their metal, I,ll be surprised but god how I wish they would

I got up for my first gp of the year and what a snorfest. if this is the best f1 can do with all the changes - kers, front wings, slicks rear wings, new diffusers, spec b chasis etc the costs ploughed in this yr by the teams to try and make them competitive - and for what? the cars are about the same speed, overtaking little changed. th eonly thing that has changed is mclaren and ferrari struggling thanks to their futile efforts to make kers work.

good administration max.

if fota fold and max wins then I am not wasting my time watching that and judged by the crowd in turkey, malaysia, monaco and any other damn gp this yr I am not alone. and max is not the solution - only a huge part of the problem along with his mate bernie

Increased KERS power bursts mean larger batteries, more powerful (larger) motor/generators, more powerful control electronics, larger stresses on engine and transmission. It's easy to say and very difficult to implement.

If the extra power was sent through the drivetrain as soon as it was generated, would you not be able to get away with smaller batteries?

You could be right, but my unfair comment was aimed more at the teams that have decided not to run KERS. They did that on the basis that the limits didnt give a competitive advantage, to then increase those limits mid-season would be wrong.

Good riddance. Perhaps if Mosley had allowed the cars to increase weight rather than insisting on starving the drivers...

I think in a couple years we will see more 'semi hybrids' in road cars, which take advantage of braking energy, and allow the reduction of engine size and fuel consumption without losing the performance figures.

KERS had the potential to really add something to the technological show of F1 and to possibly give the racing a bit of spice-up once in a while, but I do understand why they've agreed to scrap it.

KERS, as it is right now, simply isn't worth the effort to put on your car right now. It takes too much time and money and the fact that only two teams out of ten have gotten KERS to give an advantage shows how difficult implementing it is. So they could either - increase the power output of KERS to make it more beneficial(making it expensive for these new teams to come in competitive), or just cut their losses and scrap it, in an effort to 'look like' they want to help these new teams(maybe its genuine, who knows?).

While the new front tires next year might make KERS a bit easier to implement, its still an expense and a difficulty and it will make things that much more difficult for these new teams and I think its a reasonable compromise to just scrap it.

Kers might be worth it if it was unlimited, and would maybe showcase a good green tech, but having it limited to 6 seconds or whatever is utterly pointless..

glad it's going

You can't beat the laws of physics. Or there's something I don't quite understand in your post.

It's not about that.

It is another blow to Max Mosley and makes it once again plain for everyone to see, how his moves on cost-cutting and his attempts to establish F1 with more green credentials including KERS are actually going opposite ways.

I have to say, very well played, FOTA!

BMW and Dr.Mario Theissen have lost a lot of credibility all the way since Canada 2008. Poor strategic and poor technical decisions. I am amazed how they have lost course.

If the power from KERS is being used soon after being generated, rather than accumulating whilst waiting for the driver to press the button, the amount stored at any one time would be less and you could get away with having a smaller battery.

Unfortunately due to the speeds at which the energy travels through the system for this to work you would have to be sending energy through the drivetrain whilst you are still braking. Clearly this won't work because you can't make the car accelerate and decelerate at the same time (if you can then I think you may be in line for a Nobel Prize ). So some of the energy has to be stored in batteries or capacitors (or, if you are Williams, a flywheel) until you begin accelerating.

Yes, I know this - some of the energy has to be stored. But if it was being used almost immediately, rather than accumulating like it does now, you could use a smaller battery.

Ah ok, I think I see where you are coming from now. Assuming that the rate of energy recovery is the same as it is now so that the accumulators are not filled from one braking period then you are right.

The whole point is to use it when it is needed, otherwise an F1 car would turn into a facility for demonstration of energy transformation without any practical benefit. And will impede the driveability of the car.
But, my personal opinion has always been that energy recovery technologies are not at home in a racing series which has it roots in excessive power and high speed.
Why there's a need for a very complicated and prone to faults system, while at the same time engine power is artificially limited.
If the rules encouraged extracting max power with minimum fuel from the engine, I'd be among the first supporters. KERS in F1 is a self-induced aim.

But if the output rate and duration of use are increased they might require larger batteries.

I found this line from the autosport article a bit odd:

Of the current teams in F1, there are 2 not part of FOTA and therefore not bound by this decision. Even if all the current teams have their entry accepted, there is room for 3 new teams. So there could easily be 5 non-FOTA, and therefore potentially KERS, teams in F1 next season. This decision doesn't necessarily spell the end of KERS in F1.

Of that two only Williams are developing a KERS which has not been tested in real condition yet.

Good riddance! Another example of the FIA stupidity in pandering to the green nuts.

Sure, but Williams could sell it to other teams if they get it to work.

If I remember correctly Williams are developing the solution in conjunction with Flybrid Systems. It could turn out to be quite a nice little earner for them if the system works.

i hate all this 'push to pass' button ethos, it's racing, you pass the guy by out-driving him, that's the whole point of the exersise.

Brundles comment on 'plastic racing' were spot on, it was the illusion of racing, not the real thing, a pass means something great because it's a display of driver superiority, a push to pass means nothing by contrast.

Depends on the position - "push to pass" turns easily into "push to defend"
Totally agree with you. KERS this year has presented itself as a defending rather than attacking aid. Partially, because KERS cars still get passed.

Well, all the energy, under current regulations, is stored in one braking, so I add myself to the people that doesn't understand what you're saying.

I think KERS won't work until there is some fuel limit. Like in regular cars, the day KERS allow you to skip one pitstop, then it'll be useful. For that to happen, you need a hybrid engine, where a sizable percentage of the power comes from electric motors.

I naively believe in electric racing: the torque of an electric motor is high and the size and weight are less than those of an ICE engine. Nowadays electric racing cars are beating famous "conventional" brands at drag strips without much developing effort. It works for 400 meters.

I also think that the issue for "prolonged" racing is the storage: you cannot beat the energy density of gasoline with current technology, that's evident. Mosley somehow thought that teams had the money or time to research electric storage: keep dreaming. In the end, like with pistons (Mahle) or brakes (Brembo), there is a couple of manufacturers, those especialized in the issue. Williams is crazy if they think they can beat a manufacturer at basic research.

In the end, the compromise reached in F1 is just part of the "legacy" of Mosley: there you have a guy where the basic human needs of being recognized and have power have no mitigation. Arrogant he is. That's what you get when you put a noble in charge.

KERS was/is an interesting concept. Implementation during an economic downturn was ill conceived. Some of the blame to the FIA and some to BMW for insisting on its use in 09. I do seem to remember the teams originally suggesting that they would have preferred to go with bio-fuels through 2012 and then bring KERS in with a new engine formula in 2012 (Fry/Autosport) to which Max responded no, F1 needed an immediate answer to the "green" movement.
Implementing this technology has obviously turned out to be harder than anticipated and flying around the world in 747's and scraping batteries after each race sort of diminishes the whole "green" concept.

I think Honda was Flybrid. Williams bought another company.

As to the FIA, it all originated with the European Parliament:


Quoted from Autosport Wednesday, January 16th 2008, by Jonothan Noble

Clearly FOTA doesn't care about the Euro Parliament. IF they run their own series, they might find that politics is important.

Biofuels are a not very green and they will remain for some time (saltwater algae? fish are dying out anyway).

+1 to Max for forcing energy recovery / hybrid-electric cars.

Biofuels are a disgusting example of wrong priorities - when several countries are struck by famine, turning food into fuel is wholly unethical.

There is little in common between an F1 KERS system and a road cars. 1 is used to pass/prevent passing, the other charges a battery that is used to power vehicle efficiently.

I wouldn't call it hindsight since BMW still votes to keep it, but the FOTA is apparently not so united as they say they are. I think this is all just a ploy anyway, one that the FOTA teams think will put further pressure on the FIA, since KERS is included and even enhanced in the budget cap rules.

So this is gonna solve the global problems. Can anyone calculate the percentage of contribution to CO/CO₂ emissions of F1?
Why does the EP not take any measures against the land mastodons called SUV with their large volume engines, consumption of fuel and materials, heat dissipation and space rquirements?
BTW, a new EP is due in short time. Let's see what the overpaid bureaucrats will come out with.

Was just about to say that. The higher the output, the larger the battery needed, for various reasons, one being once you start to discharge a certain amount of power out of a smaller battery it does tend to want to go on fire. Not exactly what you want in the middle of a race, is it.

They may not be green now, but with investment they could be in the future. The internal combustion engine will be around for a long time yet and an alternative non-oil based fuel is the way forward. We will have to wait and see whether that is biofuel, hydrogen or something else.

Don't give Max any credit. Energy recovery/hybrid electric has been around for a long time and could have been in F1 for over 10 years now if he hadnt banned it. There is nothing green about it's use in F1, and not one drop of fuel has been saved by it's introduction.

I remember something along the lines of "all the CO³ produced by the cars in an entire season of F1 racing is less than the amount produced by a single transatlantic 747 flight".

Correct they are not very green but a shift towards the use of biofuels in 09 and the implementation of KERS with a new engine formula in 12 made a heck of a lot more sense than KERS in 09.
-1 to max.

Go study the "cradle to grave" life of the batteries used and then come back and show me how this was a good move.
-1 to max.

By the way it is not co3 but co2/co
co3 being corbon trioxide which is an unstable form of carbon and not emmited by the burning of fosil fuels. it is carbon dioxide and monoxides that are relesed when fossil fuels are burnt.
This is a Luddite argument that fails to take into consideration the amount of other carbon based emissions that are a result of F1 how many jumbos fly how many intercontinental flights due to F1? Add all the other carbon based activities as well and you get a massive carbon footprint as a direct result of F1 and its activities.
The whole world understands we cannot keep on emitting the amounts of CO2 that we are putting out now and it has to start somewhere. Or are you arguing that hay leaving all your lights on in your house is not much so why bother.
Every little bit adds up.
The EU like all other areas of the world are undertaking to make reductions in CO2 emissions if they see something like F1 as just not giving a hoot they may well decide to enforce limits and cuts like they do with other business's. It is when all is said and done a business.
KERs may not be the answer but who are you to say it is not the first step on a long road that ends up with something far better.

Please dont use the word Luddite, it's very NuLabour.

Not trying to defend all this burning of fuel....but.....as I understand it F1 through carbon offsetting programs is actually carbon neutral and has been for many years. Not sure if they pay to plant trees or such like but I understand they do something

Demo, would making all cars in F1 electricity driven have any contribution while they are still being freighted by big airplanes?
Your arguments are quite abstract IMO.
I alredy asked a question, here it is: Why the EU does nothing to prevent European car manufacturers from making big land vessels (the so fashionable SUV-s) which usually are used to transport a single person from point A to point B, using resources for 2 to 3 smaller and more economic cars?

The biggest one that used to count, as far as F1 goes, but doesn't so much now because of the restrictions, was the wind tunnels. Because of all the sophisticated heating/cooling/etc needed each tunnel used the equivalent power of a small town. That's a hell of a lot of lights.

But that ignores the real criminal in the great co² fantasy (if it exists, since more and more scientists are coming out with proof that the Global Warming Swindle is well and truly just a fallacy, but that is for another thread) and that is the power generation itself as, especially in places like the UK, most electricity is generated by coal/oil/gas stations which are the real polluters. F1, air travel and automobiles are barely a blip on the graph when compared to the power stations. There is the issue, but since nobody has had the guts to start buliding enough nuclear power stations then the EU and governments should learn to keep their traps shut as it has been their inability to actually do something to truly lower emissions by getting rid of the coal/gas/oil fired stations which has kept these scary emissions so high in the first case.

The FIA has purchased credits to offset carbon emissions in F1 since 1997 and the WRC since 2001. This has been undertaken independently without contributions from the teams involved.

It is understood that the offsets include not only the emissions of the competing cars but also, and more importantly, the worldwide travel of personnel involved in both championships.

The above is taken from the BBC sports site.
Thanks LewisDG did not know that

However there are many differing opinions on how usefully carbon off setting is in reality.
and carbon off setting is still a floored (but welcome) argument.
It fails to address the basic need for reducing carbon emissions which is the only sustainable way forward
The agreed way forward for the world is as follows
Measure
Avoid (did max think about this with all his far flung races?)
Offset (is at best only a temporary measure used while you actualy reduce emissions)
Reduce ( is long term the only way forward)
Iterate
As you can see offset is just a part on the way to reduction.
However the argument could be put forward that by the banning of refuelling in races that the pressure has been increased to make the cars more fuel efficient due to the reduction in fuel being needed and hence the reduced weight/ increased performance that brings with it.
But then FOTA are happy to freeze engine development so that argument goes out the window.
Which leads us back to KERs as the only way left which FOTA also want out the window.

Edit add

Dragonfly you argue about abstract arguments but that post completly abstract lines like this
Would making all cars in F1 electricity driven have any contribution while they are still being freighted by big airplanes?
The simple fact is that they need to work at reducing F1 emmisions thats not abstract that is clear cut and simple to understand