KERS and DNF
#1
Posted 21 March 2009 - 18:49
'Is there a way to prevent DNF if KERS fails?'
The reason why I bring this up again is because first Renault and now Ferrari confirm the use of KERS (while they originally expressed worries) and the answer to the question above also gives an inside look at how the reliabilty of the R29 and F60 really is:
1. If it is a imminent DNF causer, it would be strange if the -accoring to media- unreliable F60 features it (aka: is this the next screw-up from especially Ferrari management?).
2. Where the stops in winter testing a real issue or where it just parts at the end of their lifespan?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 21 March 2009 - 18:57
However, when half way the race they get a problem with the cooling, by switching the system off you don't deal with the fact that the batteries are hot already, which might cause a DNF.
#3
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:16
#4
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:21
#5
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:28
#6
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:33
Originally posted by Clatter
It might depend on which bit of the KERS system fails, as well as the nature of the failure.
That just about wraps it up. End of thread
It is surprising to see cars that seem to be a bit fragile (as Ferrari seem to be alluding to) add a variable such as KERs to their set-up.
Odd.
#7
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:42
But do we know that they couldn't have continued their race simulation? They could have just brought the car in to hurry up and diagnose the KERS problem, ya know?Originally posted by bankoq
My guess is one of the Ferraris won't finish Melbourne because of KERS failure. They had some serious problems to finish their race simulations because of the system.
#8
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:43
Well an elaboration would be nice. Which types of failures would lead to a DNF and why?Originally posted by Jack McGhee
That just about wraps it up. End of thread
#9
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:53
Originally posted by TheHumanPromise
Well an elaboration would be nice. Which types of failures would lead to a DNF and why?
I don't think any of us know enough about the workings of the KERS systems to be able to answer that one properly.
#10
Posted 21 March 2009 - 19:56
Yea, I wasn't demanding an answer, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Somebody may know or have sufficient knowledge to make an educated guess.Originally posted by Clatter
I don't think any of us know enough about the workings of the KERS systems to be able to answer that one properly.
#11
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:03
when even an armchair expert cand give a FIFTY percent chance of failure, those stupid ferrari managers decide to run kersOriginally posted by bankoq
My guess is one of the Ferraris won't finish Melbourne because of KERS failure. They had some serious problems to finish their race simulations because of the system.
jesus...
#12
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:34
Massa:
About KERS usage: "I think we have to and It's decided we will always use the KERS. If any problems, we can just turn it off and continue.(...)"
#13
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:41
I figured they'd have some kind of fail-safe for it.
#14
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:47
#15
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:48
#16
Posted 21 March 2009 - 20:59
Why?Originally posted by Clatter
Can't help feeling that's a rather simplistic answer from Massa that won't always match reality.
#17
Posted 21 March 2009 - 21:02
I should think so yeah. Not have it stripped off and replaced with ballast in some races.Originally posted by rogano
What does he mean with "always use the KERS"? On every track?
#18
Posted 21 March 2009 - 21:09
Originally posted by tormave
I should think so yeah. Not have it stripped off and replaced with ballast in some races.
If that´s true, their KERS must be really good/light then.
#19
Posted 21 March 2009 - 21:39
Originally posted by TheHumanPromise
Why?
Because I don't believe it's as simple as just turning it off. That will work for some problems, but I think there are plenty of other ways in which the system can break that can't be righted by the flick of a switch.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 21 March 2009 - 22:24
Originally posted by TheHumanPromise
Why?
For instance, if it causes a fire, it won't be a matter of just turning it down.
#21
Posted 21 March 2009 - 23:28
Yea, I figured that, but I just want to know what it is thats making you think that. What problems do you think would not be able to just be 'turned off' or whatever?Originally posted by Clatter
Because I don't believe it's as simple as just turning it off. That will work for some problems, but I think there are plenty of other ways in which the system can break that can't be righted by the flick of a switch.
Someone mentioned a fire, and thats an example of something that cannot just be 'turned off', but then again, would it automatically mean a DNF?
#22
Posted 21 March 2009 - 23:52
Originally posted by TheHumanPromise
Yea, I figured that, but I just want to know what it is thats making you think that. What problems do you think would not be able to just be 'turned off' or whatever?
Someone mentioned a fire, and thats an example of something that cannot just be 'turned off', but then again, would it automatically mean a DNF?
Well if the charging units catch fire it could easily damage the surrounding components. Same if the electric motor catches fire. What happens if the KERS is engaged and fails to release? I don't really know how it all couples together, but assume there is some sort of gearbox or clutch. Shocking loading through the engine could cause issues, it certainly was for Mac.
I still think we will see several KERS cars break down in the opening races. It's a whole new system and I very much doubt the teams have found all the possible ways to break it yet.
#23
Posted 09 April 2009 - 18:17
I think we pretty much saw it IS a DNF causer, unless someone has information stating otherwise regarding the KERS failures in Malaysia all weekend long