Jump to content


Photo

Renault to throw KERS in the trashcan?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Pep

Pep
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:09

Flavio:

"The only use of KERS is to throw it into the sea as an anchor" :lol:

"I never liked Kers, specially because of the cost. We'll see what happens in the race and then we'll have time to analyze data, numbers, etc. BMW was the biggest promoter and now it seems they are going to do away with it. I think it's been a dramatic way of spending money"

http://www.marca.com...1240060250.html

Alonso when asked why Renault has decided not to use KERS has said that it's understandable that it's a secret.

Advertisement

#2 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,199 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:11

It looks like KERS is a big failure. The only car where it seems to work reasonably well is McLaren.

#3 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:13

One KERS car in the top 10. Says it all, really.

#4 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,379 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:17

BMW was the team that insisted on an 09 implementation after giving up RK's shot (long shot) at last years tittle to work on KERS and their 09 car.
Wonder if they would vote the same way now?

Imagine what the combined cost has been for this development? Staggering I am sure and for what? FIA and the teams are their own worst enemies.

#5 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:31

I think KERS should remain optional.

Now that some have already developed it, it would be unfair to block it.
Let the teams continue having an option of using it or not.

#6 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,211 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:44

Originally posted by J2NH
Imagine what the combined cost has been for this development?


The combined cost, over all teams, was reported by the BBC to be £500 million.

#7 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:48

Originally posted by Galko877
It looks like KERS is a big failure. The only car where it seems to work reasonably well is McLaren.


Ignoring the obscene costs involved, it's only a failure because of the limits put on it's use. Once those limits are opened up then it will be a must have.

#8 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:49

absolute waste of money, especially as theres likely going to be a spec system next year anyway, which makes all this money and development for this season by the teams as a total waste

#9 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,199 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 April 2009 - 15:55

But if other teams stop using it and McLaren will keep on using it I wonder if that will bring them an advantage for 2010 when it will be obligatory?

#10 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,211 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:00

Originally posted by Galko877
But if other teams stop using it and McLaren will keep on using it I wonder if that will bring them an advantage for 2010 when it will be obligatory?


The 2010 KERS package will be a spec unit so I don't see why they would get an advantage.

#11 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,525 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:02

Originally posted by Galko877
But if other teams stop using it and McLaren will keep on using it I wonder if that will bring them an advantage for 2010 when it will be obligatory?

Thats the important aspect of this - the future.

A team may make short-term benefits from ditching KERS this year(though thats certainly not a given, as Ferrari have shown), but at what cost? They're gonna have to get it working sooner or later. Better to figure it out now while you're not in any title fight or anything, I say. That way they are better prepared to hit the ground running in 2010.

#12 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,525 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:04

Originally posted by Rob


The 2010 KERS package will be a spec unit so I don't see why they would get an advantage.

For one, KERS being spec in 2010 is just being discussed, its hardly official.

Two, the package itself isn't really the problem. Its integrating it to where its negative effects(size, weight, etc) are minimized.

#13 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,755 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:27

Originally posted by Rob


The 2010 KERS package will be a spec unit so I don't see why they would get an advantage.

Looks like that's not going to happen.
I just read that Max has so far rejected FOTA's proposal for a standard KERS. Basically Max wants the KERS competition to continue.

#14 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:38

So...$500 M and counting. Way to save money in F1 Max Mosely. What a wanker, er, spanker.

#15 AFCA

AFCA
  • Member

  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:40

Originally posted by Timstr11
Looks like that's not going to happen.
I just read that Max has so far rejected FOTA's proposal for a standard KERS. Basically Max wants the KERS competition to continue.


That's weird actually. I thought Mosley wanted a standard KERS himself, well at some stage at least...

#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,525 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:44

Originally posted by AFCA


That's weird actually. I thought Mosley wanted a standard KERS himself, well at some stage at least...

I think it was the teams who wanted the standard KERS as a compromise to the mandatory KERS in 2010.

Mosley's whole vision for the introduction of KERS(to become relevant to road cars) would be meaningless if they introduced a standard version.

#17 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:48

Mosely's vision for KERS is already meaningless. The roadcar industry has their own systems in place and hardly needs F1's developments, which likely have application. That was his line wasn't it? That F1 would be saving the planet?

#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,525 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:52

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
Mosely's vision for KERS is already meaningless. The roadcar industry has their own systems in place and hardly needs F1's developments, which likely have application. That was his line wasn't it? That F1 would be saving the planet?

I think you might be exaggerating a bit on the extent to which Mosley said F1 was going to 'help' anything.

Its very likely true that the introduction of KERS was part of an 'image-changing' campaign, but the idea that more efficient, lighter, and more compact KERS can have relevance to road cars is very true. Maybe not in their current guise, but 2009 was only ever planned to be a first step to get the team's feet wet with the technology.

#19 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,279 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 April 2009 - 16:58

Kers fails because a) it's output is extremely limited and b) there was no minimum weight increase in the cars to compensate for a 30KG system.

You are basically forced to run a car that's 5% heavier with 10% extra power available for only 6 seconds ... when the 6 seconds are up you still carry the weight for the remaining 90 seconds of the lap.

Somebody forgot to their math on it ;)

Advertisement

#20 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:01

Originally posted by Clatter
Ignoring the obscene costs involved, it's only a failure because of the limits put on it's use. Once those limits are opened up then it will be a must have.

And that's exactly the tool the FIA has in hand if developments on using KERS in F1 are not going the way they want it.
They'll just increase the allowed use of KERS until it becomes essential for every team to be competitive.

#21 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,525 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:05

Originally posted by EthanM
Kers fails because a) it's output is extremely limited and b) there was no minimum weight increase in the cars to compensate for a 30KG system.

You are basically forced to run a car that's 5% heavier with 10% extra power available for only 6 seconds ... when the 6 seconds are up you still carry the weight for the remaining 90 seconds of the lap.

Somebody forgot to their math on it ;)

I presume the thinking behind it was that if they were allowed a higher minimum weight, there would be a bit less incentive for developing it to be lighter and more compact. He wanted to create competition.

I can see the reasoning behind it, but I think its flawed in practice.

I'm not totally against KERS at all, but I do think it was brought in too early.

#22 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:05

Teams are going to spend the money anyway. I would prefer to see it been spend on battery technology than on 5cm aero flipups.

Aren't Renault and Ferrari using the same system? Ferrari seem convinced that it brings them time but it unreliable, while Renault have never praised it's performance but seem to have less issues with it.

#23 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,279 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:13

Originally posted by eoin
Teams are going to spend the money anyway. I would prefer to see it been spend on battery technology than on 5cm aero flipups.

Aren't Renault and Ferrari using the same system? Ferrari seem convinced that it brings them time but it unreliable, while Renault have never praised it's performance but seem to have less issues with it.


kers performance depends on mechanical vs aero grip. The more mechanical grip you have relative to aero the better kers works.

And batteries for it are a huge hole (both financial and in waste disposal tems) ... they are good for one race only, after that they are got to be disposed. Hardly "green"

#24 Berner

Berner
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:16

Bring on the diesels!

#25 jk

jk
  • Member

  • 1,750 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:18

If the FIA would unrestrict kers, i bet the cars would be faster than the non-kers cars.
What is the point in developing a high-tech kers system, if the FIA dictates it's performace? Basically the only improvement you can make, is to make it lighter. Improve power or energy recovery (which is the interesting part) is not necesary, since the output is limited much below what the system really is capable of.

A stupid thing to have "competition" between the kers systems, yet decide how efficient it can be.

#26 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 April 2009 - 17:21

I like kers. I hope the FIA sees fit to allow more time per lap of kers boost in the near future.

#27 Arska

Arska
  • Member

  • 744 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 18 April 2009 - 20:24

Kers can be justified by forcing the non-kers cars to put ballast in non-optimal positions.

#28 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 April 2009 - 20:49

Originally posted by Arska
Kers can be justified by forcing the non-kers cars to put ballast in non-optimal positions.


So you think it's justifiable to hobble some cars to counter a crap system?

#29 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,587 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 19 April 2009 - 02:02

Max harping on about costs makes me laugh.

£500 million and counting - and even if the KERS doesn't become a standard unit next year, once everyone has it you won't see overtaking like we have had in Malaysia (Webber/Hamilton/Alonso for instance). At the moment the racing is great because we don't have everyone with KERS and the limits are such that whether to use KERS or not is relatively finely balanced. Also, once we see KERS cars with DDD such as BrawnGP then we get a better idea about whether having KERS is an advantage or not.

It would have been a much better option for the FIA to commission a team to develop KERS such as Mclaren with the standard ecu - that is, if 'costs' were really such a big issue for Max - instead of being a political weapon to hit teams over the head with.

#30 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,379 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 19 April 2009 - 02:38

500 million? Almost real money.

What happened to keeping costs down because their was no need to spend on things the fans could not see? How will this fit into the proposed budget caps for the coming years?
Limited testing, hate to see it gone because it did make the season more interesting but no doubt saved money, limited wind tunnel time and CDF time saves money, reduce the areas of the car that can be modfied saves money, limit engine development and usage saves money, holy crap what do we do with all that money we just saved? I know we'll toss it into a black hole and call it KERS!

Green, there is nothing green about using batteries that are disposed of after 1 race in a sport that globe trots in 747's.
Safety? Matchett on Speed after Kimi's incident in Malaysia explaining that the drivers have been instructed to jump from the car with both feet in case of a malfunction to prevent them from becoming a ground to earth. Wouldn't that be good for the sport to see some driver or volunteer corner worker get fried on live feed?

The lack of vision by the FIA is just staggering.

Imagine the savings if just a few short years ago the v-10's would have been Rev limited?

#31 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 19 April 2009 - 02:41

Originally posted by Berner
Bring on the diesels!


Or, the electric race cars. :lol:

#32 bobqzzi

bobqzzi
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 April 2009 - 02:57

New technology in racing almost always loses to establised technolgy at first. Once the bugs are worked out, it usually triumphs.

That said, the easiest way to get everyone to use KERS (without some ridiculous rule saying you haev to use it) is simply to take the power cap off it.

Let them make as much power as they can with it- that way the teams have to juggle all sorts of interesting possibilties. If you make an extra 200HP, thn the gear box has to be more robust, maybe a bigger clutch is required etc.. and, of course, it will weigh more.

#33 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,804 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 19 April 2009 - 03:40

Originally posted by EthanM
Kers fails because a) it's output is extremely limited and b) there was no minimum weight increase in the cars to compensate for a 30KG system.

You are basically forced to run a car that's 5% heavier with 10% extra power available for only 6 seconds ... when the 6 seconds are up you still carry the weight for the remaining 90 seconds of the lap.

Somebody forgot to their math on it ;)



No, no and no. it is NOT heavier.

#34 David Ricardo

David Ricardo
  • Member

  • 245 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 April 2009 - 04:02

Originally posted by bobqzzi
New technology in racing almost always loses to establised technolgy at first. Once the bugs are worked out, it usually triumphs.

That said, the easiest way to get everyone to use KERS (without some ridiculous rule saying you haev to use it) is simply to take the power cap off it.

Let them make as much power as they can with it- that way the teams have to juggle all sorts of interesting possibilties. If you make an extra 200HP, thn the gear box has to be more robust, maybe a bigger clutch is required etc.. and, of course, it will weigh more.


It would cost too much money and the team with the best kers would win every race. Races would be boring.

#35 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,379 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 19 April 2009 - 04:05

Originally posted by bobqzzi
New technology in racing almost always loses to establised technolgy at first. Once the bugs are worked out, it usually triumphs.

That said, the easiest way to get everyone to use KERS (without some ridiculous rule saying you haev to use it) is simply to take the power cap off it.

Let them make as much power as they can with it- that way the teams have to juggle all sorts of interesting possibilties. If you make an extra 200HP, thn the gear box has to be more robust, maybe a bigger clutch is required etc.. and, of course, it will weigh more.


Yup, except that is exactly what F1 is trying to stop. Take the lid off and the teams that can will spend like there is no tomorrow. Does F1 need to do this to create good racing on the track? What is the benefit that KERS brings to F1?

#36 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 April 2009 - 04:21

I would think most of the issues with KERS will be solved once they solve the rear tyre widths. With no refueling next year, you would think it'd be preferable to go with wider rear tyres as opposed to narrower front tyres. Once thats sorted out, KERS wont be interfering with the ballast as much.

#37 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 19 April 2009 - 04:47

Originally posted by Madras
One KERS car in the top 10. Says it all, really.


FIA have put asinine restrictions on the amount of energy that can be reclaimed, stored and used with KERS. If the idea is to 'be green' and stop wasting energy as heat while braking, please allow the teams to store and use as much energy as they possibly can.

In its present form KERS is like a curse to teams. :down:

#38 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 19 April 2009 - 04:56

Originally posted by Berner
Bring on the diesels!


Naah, diesel-electrics. :love:

Run the engine at a constant RPM, and store the excess energy (when available) in 'ultracapacitors'. Reclaim as much energy as you want under braking. Drive via electrical motors.

Would make a nice formula for 8 hour endurance racing. Formula DEER: Diesel-Electric Endurance Racing. :clap:

#39 airwise

airwise
  • Member

  • 2,001 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 April 2009 - 06:09

I've got a feeling the reason we aren't seeing KERS on the Ferrari and Renault is due to a safety issue with the MM system. Just a hunch but the teams sure as hell aren't benefitting from losing it.