Jump to content


Photo

The FIA and KERS...


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 GrndLkNatv

GrndLkNatv
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 14:59

So the FIA wants F1 to go green! Okay, we can live with that! So in qualifying we find out that the top five teams who qualified are not running KERS, that green thing the FIA wants. I find this completely hypocritical and I would hope someone would write an article about how crazy it is! So teams who went green are penalized for doing so, that is they cannot compete with those who can't get the job done, and because they did get the job done, they are penalized for doing so.

So my question is why are there not grid spot penalties for those teams who are not running KERS? I mean Brawn looks fast, but if they were running KERS, they wouldn't be so fast would they? It's obvious that KERS is exactly what Piero Ferrari said it is, junk, but why should those who implemented it be penalized for following the rules?

Also why is Toyota penalized when the FIA had already inspected their car before the weekend began? Are the officials with the FIA that incompetent? Do they realize that these little stupid things are causing fans to hate them and find total disgust and mistrust with them?Posted Image

Advertisement

#2 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:02

KERS sucks

#3 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:03

The more I think about it the more I'm coming to the conclusion that KERS isn't actually a green technology in a racing environment.

It is an energy recovery device to be used along with petrol power. Not to save petrol

It might have a green application in the roadcar world but in racing it's very misleading to say so

#4 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:04

I think the whole regulations of KERS is wrong. Although the FIA would like Formula 1 to beome more eco-friendly, it has curtailed the development of this road relevant technology. KERS is restricted in such way that the advantages don't yet outweight the disadvantages of this system.

#5 GrndLkNatv

GrndLkNatv
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:06

So why not penalize those who don't have KERS by giving them grid spot penalties?

#6 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:10

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
So why not penalize those who don't have KERS by giving them grid spot penalties?


Because that wouyld be unfair? Why the hell would a team get penalised for not running an optional system????????

#7 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:13

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
So why not penalize those who don't have KERS by giving them grid spot penalties?


Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Shut up! Don't give Max ideas!

#8 GrndLkNatv

GrndLkNatv
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:15

Why write a ticket to someone for speeding? If you are not going to enforce your rules why have them? So what I am really saying is either have KERS or dont' have KERS but the FIA is full of a bunch of very stupid people! Either enforce it or drop it, but don't penalize those who followed your stupid rules just because those who wrote them are to stupid to know how enforce them.

#9 airwise

airwise
  • Member

  • 2,001 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:16

I can't see how KERS fits in with the proposed cost savings. If the FIA are to implement a budget cap, they will have to offer a spec KERS facility - in which case it seems something of a waste of resources for teams to spend this season developing their own solutions.

#10 GrndLkNatv

GrndLkNatv
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:16

Originally posted by Ferrim


Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Shut up! Don't give Max ideas!


That's exactly what I am going to do, is give Max the idiot the idea! I have already written him! Either enforce your stupid rules or don't write them.

#11 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:25

Make KERS mandatory, then. But giving non-KERS teams grid penalties? What a farce that would be!

#12 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:26

Originally posted by Gilles12
The more I think about it the more I'm coming to the conclusion that KERS isn't actually a green technology


Anyone could see that from the moment it was introduced. Indeed, it has put a large negative spin on the entire concept of 'green' technology by demonstrating the false economy of carrying a boot load of lithium in order to become more green.

Incidentally - there is no rule defining KERS as mandatory. There is no grounds for a penalty of any sort whatsoever for those wise enough to not run KERS. Teams made a cost/performance analysis - some are running it, some are not. Those that elect to not run it, imho, have made a very wise choice. They can spend the significant savings in developing worth while parts of the car.

There is no rule, as far as I know, that makes the rear wing mandatory. Everyone knows, however, that they make a significant positive impact on performance for the cost of design and implementation. With KERS, however, such a positive impact is not proven. Indeed - the SIGNIFICANT cost of developing KERS, despite its negligible impact on performance, zero impact on improving the sport, rendering it mandatory would fly in the face of both common sense, AND the FIA's alleged cost saving measures.

There is nothing stopping other teams ripping KERS out and replacing it with strategically placed ballast.

Doug

#13 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:28

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv


That's exactly what I am going to do, is give Max the idiot the idea! I have already written him! Either enforce your stupid rules or don't write them.


(I'm probably going to regret this...)

The rules don't stipulate the obligation to run KERS. All they do is open up the regulations to permit it's use

It's down to the teams to decide to run it

So in all fairness it's down to the teams

#14 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:30

I would put the max. weight for non KERS cars up to 610 or 615 kg.

#15 Verderer

Verderer
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:31

It seems to me that KERS, and the way it's use has not been forced on everybody, was never intented as a beneficial green tech. It is just a political device, just like how the diffusor row has been allowed to drag on. Divide and conquer is Max's motto. He does everything he can to disrupt the 'united front' of the FOTA.

KERS won't save energy or make the Earth greener, it's just focusing our attention away from the real issue.

Max needs to go. Now. And chuck Bernie in the same boat while you're at it.

#16 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:33

Originally posted by Verderer


Max needs to go. Now. And chuck Bernie in the same boat while you're at it.


Boat? Give them a sack of cement each and throw them in a lake.

#17 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,378 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:36

First off teams tried to postpone the introduction of KERS until 2010. BMW insisted on the option to run it.

Rules do not require its use. Teams analyzed it and made decisions for 09.

Why should the rules be changed because its use is not advantageous? Because teams that chose to implement it chose wrong? Make changes for 2010 but the season has started and unless there is a safety concern the rules should stand. Looks like my favorite team (Ferrari) chose wrong, guess what, time for them to improve.

#18 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,067 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:37

I'm wondering if it wasnt a clever strategy to give the smaller teams a better chance.

If you're Factory Team A you have a budget of 200million but used up 50 researching and developing your KERS unit.

Privateer Team B has a budget of 100million, but bought Factory Team A's engine and KERS unit for 10mil a year.

So FTA has 160mil to spend on the car and drivers, and PTB has 90million, instead of 200vs90



Dunno

#19 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:37

Originally posted by J2NH
First off teams tried to postpone the introduction of KERS until 2010. BMW insisted on the option to run it.


Ironic that Kubica didnt use it...

Advertisement

#20 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:39

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'm wondering if it wasnt a clever strategy to give the smaller teams a better chance.

If you're Factory Team A you have a budget of 200million but used up 50 researching and developing your KERS unit.

Privateer Team B has a budget of 100million, but bought Factory Team A's engine and KERS unit for 10mil a year.

So FTA has 160mil to spend on the car and drivers, and PTB has 90million, instead of 200vs90



Dunno


Are you suggesting Max wants a two tier Formula?

Surley not...

#21 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,378 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:40

Originally posted by Verderer
It seems to me that KERS, and the way it's use has not been forced on everybody, was never intented as a beneficial green tech. It is just a political device, just like how the diffusor row has been allowed to drag on. Divide and conquer is Max's motto. He does everything he can to disrupt the 'united front' of the FOTA.

KERS won't save energy or make the Earth greener, it's just focusing our attention away from the real issue.

Max needs to go. Now. And chuck Bernie in the same boat while you're at it.


KERS cost a ton of money to develop, for one year, then they go to standardized units. The teams tried to postpone it but BMW insisted on its use, probably thinking they had a leg up for this year with their early development of their 09 car.

KERS is not green, mentioned on Speed that the batteries are a bugger to ship (hazardous material) and are only good for ONE race and then have to be disposed of (recycled). Cradle to grave on just the batteries has got to cost a fortune.

HUGE mistake. MAX MUST GO.

#22 MrAerodynamicist

MrAerodynamicist
  • Member

  • 13,677 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 28 March 2009 - 15:41

I always suspected that the FIA were too stingy on the power limits allowed, meaning that economies of scale haven't kicked in.

#23 GrndLkNatv

GrndLkNatv
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 29 March 2009 - 00:43

Posted Image

#24 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 29 March 2009 - 00:50

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
So why not penalize those who don't have KERS by giving them grid spot penalties?


Close the board, it ain't going no further.

#25 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 March 2009 - 00:53

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
So the FIA wants F1 to go green! Okay, we can live with that! So in qualifying we find out that the top five teams who qualified are not running KERS, that green thing the FIA wants. I find this completely hypocritical and I would hope someone would write an article about how crazy it is! So teams who went green are penalized for doing so, that is they cannot compete with those who can't get the job done, and because they did get the job done, they are penalized for doing so.

So my question is why are there not grid spot penalties for those teams who are not running KERS? I mean Brawn looks fast, but if they were running KERS, they wouldn't be so fast would they? It's obvious that KERS is exactly what Piero Ferrari said it is, junk, but why should those who implemented it be penalized for following the rules?

Also why is Toyota penalized when the FIA had already inspected their car before the weekend began? Are the officials with the FIA that incompetent? Do they realize that these little stupid things are causing fans to hate them and find total disgust and mistrust with them?Posted Image


What a complete crock of crap.

KERS is not mandatory, and no one told the teams they had to develop it. All the FIA did was to allow (stupidly) KERS, it's up to the teams to decide whether there is an advantage to using it or not.

#26 quasi C

quasi C
  • Member

  • 2,018 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 29 March 2009 - 00:58

Or, those cars are slower regardless of KERS. I'm sure they wouldn't run it if it had no benefit.

#27 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,386 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:08

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
Why write a ticket to someone for speeding? If you are not going to enforce your rules why have them? So what I am really saying is either have KERS or dont' have KERS but the FIA is full of a bunch of very stupid people! Either enforce it or drop it, but don't penalize those who followed your stupid rules just because those who wrote them are to stupid to know how enforce them.

Sticking with your analogy, it'd be a bit like giving a ticket to somebody who had 2 passengers and didn't use the optional car pool lane. Its asinine.

Its not the FIA's fault that Ferrari, Renault, Mclaren and BMW decided to go down the KERS route. It was all their own decision. Nobody made them do anything.

In addition, I'm not so sure that we can just blindly assume that these team's deficit to the cars in front is due to KERS, either. The designs of these cars are all from a blank sheet, and for me, it was never going to be a surprise to see the order shaken up, with some teams getting it right and others not. There could be a million reasons why the KERS teams aren't as fast, it doesn't *have* to be because of KERS.

#28 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,378 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:09

Originally posted by Clatter


What a complete crock of crap.

KERS is not mandatory, and no one told the teams they had to develop it. All the FIA did was to allow (stupidly) KERS, it's up to the teams to decide whether there is an advantage to using it or not.


What Clatter said times 2.

#29 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 April 2009 - 14:06

I posted this in the tech forum too.
It looks like KERS has a new pair of wheels. Max will be celebrating in Chelsea about this one. All jokes about Max aside, this could have a huge impact on the worlds economy creating a new industrial revolution and be a real alternative for gasoline and/or the combustion engine in cars.

http://web.mit.edu/n...us-battery.html

MIT scientists have harnessed the construction talents of tiny viruses to build ultra-small "nanowire" structures for use in very thin lithium-ion batteries.

By manipulating a few genes inside these viruses, the team was able to coax the organisms to grow and self-assemble into a functional electronic device.

The goal of the work, led by MIT Professors Angela Belcher, Paula Hammond and Yet-Ming Chiang, is to create batteries that cram as much electrical energy into as small or lightweight a package as possible. The batteries they hope to build could range from the size of a grain of rice up to the size of existing hearing aid batteries.

Batteries consist of two opposite electrodes -- an anode and cathode -- separated by an electrolyte. In the current work, the MIT team used an intricate assembly process to create the anode.

Specifically, they manipulated the genes in a laboratory strain of a common virus, making the microbes collect exotic materials -- cobalt oxide and gold. And because these viruses are negatively charged, they can be layered between oppositely charged polymers to form thin, flexible sheets.

The result? A dense, virus-loaded film that serves as an anode.