Jump to content


Photo

The first KERS victory in history - shall KERS remain?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

Poll: The first KERS victory in history - shall KERS remain? (133 member(s) have cast votes)

The first KERS victory in history - shall KERS remain?

  1. Yes, KERS has proved its worth - it should stay 2010 and beyond! (68 votes [51.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.13%

  2. No, KERS was just useless burning of precious funds - stop it! (44 votes [33.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.08%

  3. I don“t care (21 votes [15.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,038 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 July 2009 - 13:46

With Mercedes bringing in the first KERS victory in history, what do you think? Should it stay?
Max Mosley must feel vindicated!

Advertisement

#2 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 13:50

I like the idea of KERS..

#3 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 13:55

No not really.

#4 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 14:04

KERS development should be opened up and the limits on the technology dropped. It's a good idea that's been brought down by poor regulations from the FIA and a lukewarm response from FOTA. I'd like to see a combination consisting of a 1.5 litre turbocharged engine formula and a advanced 4-wheel KERS system.

#5 bigginge

bigginge
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 14:07

KERS development should be opened up and the limits on the technology dropped. It's a good idea that's been brought down by poor regulations from the FIA and a lukewarm response from FOTA. I'd like to see a combination consisting of a 1.5 litre turbocharged engine formula and a advanced 4-wheel KERS system.


++

#6 Pharazon

Pharazon
  • Member

  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 14:11

KERS development should be opened up and the limits on the technology dropped. It's a good idea that's been brought down by poor regulations from the FIA and a lukewarm response from FOTA. I'd like to see a combination consisting of a 1.5 litre turbocharged engine formula and a advanced 4-wheel KERS system.


damn straight...

all the teams would have developed it if the gain was much more..

it's just too marginal atm with the current regs

#7 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:00

KERS development should be opened up and the limits on the technology dropped. It's a good idea that's been brought down by poor regulations from the FIA and a lukewarm response from FOTA. I'd like to see a combination consisting of a 1.5 litre turbocharged engine formula and a advanced 4-wheel KERS system.


I think this years limits made sense as it gave teams without KERS a chance and the limited power made the introduction safer. I would also like to see the KERS restrictions removed and the option of a turbo and 4WD would appeal to me.

KERS should be made GREEN by forcing the power to come from braking rather than engine over run.

#8 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:16

KERS idea is a good one but in present form it's a disaster in every sense. According to this story KERS development was the reason Renault F1 team made loss last year without any gain.

Edited by alfista, 26 July 2009 - 16:17.


#9 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:17

It should stay but should also be mandatory, not optional.

Edited by Touti, 26 July 2009 - 16:17.


#10 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:41

Just because a KERS car won the race doesn't mean the decision to have it is vindicated. The only real reason it had anything to do with the victory was the start (and there's nothing to say Lewis wouldn't have made a good start anyway even without it, even if KERS did help him), and when Lewis passed Webber (I'm guessing Lewis used it in that move). Other than that, it played no part in the victory, and so isn't really that big a deal. This year it's been a total waste of time and money. Had they not been limited to 7 seconds or whatever it is, more teams would probably use it. Equally though, if they all have it, they're likely to just use it at the same time anyway, because if you're defending your position you'll use it, meaning the car behind using it to try and pass you will basically be wasting the energy. That's the way I see it anyway.

#11 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:28

It should stay but should also be mandatory, not optional.


It would be even more stupid. What is the point to make all cars equally faster spending zillions of dollar on that?

#12 Mekola

Mekola
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:37

One victory is not enough to vindicate the effectivity of KERS.
Note that one six-wheeler car also had had an F1 victory before...

#13 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:38

No, no and no.

#14 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:42

Yes, Yes Yes

Biased? you bet ya. McLaren and Williams seem to be the teams that have to give up their advantage. :down:

#15 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:43

I'm anything but a McLaren/Hamilton fan, but they earned this one. I think KERS has proven that it's very useful at the start and in defence-oriented driving, though this would change if everybody had the same KERS-power.

IMHO Ferrari, McLaren and BMW had not lousy starts to the season because of KERS, as some claimed, but despite KERS.

The KERS thing is only going to work in the long-term, though, if there's no limit of how often and with how much power KERS may be used, as this would most likely cancel out the effects it currently has on racing. So free up the regs and it will be fine.

#16 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:05

Yes, Yes Yes

Biased? you bet ya. McLaren and Williams seem to be the teams that have to give up their advantage. :down:


In which race did Williams use KERS?

#17 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:32

One victory is not enough to vindicate the effectivity of KERS.
Note that one six-wheeler car also had had an F1 victory before...


I agree. The cars that have them are not fighting for any real important positions besides 3rd for Ferrari in constructors. McLaren took it off somewhere. Hardly vindication. The way KERS is now, no. If it was free development and other things, yes. It should say something that the cars with KERS only have one victory. If it was on all cars I suppose you wouldnt have this problem but if they are all the same then what good is it.

#18 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:41

It would be even more stupid. What is the point to make all cars equally faster spending zillions of dollar on that?


I thought one of the points of F1 was to serve as a lab to develop things used in every day cars. Mercedes has the most reliable KERS because they were helped by the car division. I'm sure Mercedes F1 could develop it more and help the car division back, that's also true for Renault, BMW, Toyota and Ferrari (Fiat).

As for the zillions of dollars ? I can tell you where to take them, use standard parts for everything on the car that doesn't add to the show instead of spending millions on wheel nuts, brake air ducts etc.

#19 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:49

I thought one of the points of F1 was to serve as a lab to develop things used in every day cars.


Utter rubbish, name one thing that was developed in F1 for use in road cars.

Advertisement

#20 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:51

Yes, Yes Yes

Biased? you bet ya. McLaren and Williams seem to be the teams that have to give up their advantage. :down:

:confused:

#21 buh_buh

buh_buh
  • New Member

  • 13 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:51

I say keep it, but don't make it mandatory. Its better to see KERS battle non-KERS cars off the start, and during on track battles. Makes for more passing and more interesting battles on track. But there's a fine threshold between making it a choice, and outweighing the benefits so every team decides to implement it. The interesting part of KERS right now is the disparity in performance between KERS and non-KERS cars, whether its the power boost, or the extra weight.

#22 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 20:31

Utter rubbish, name one thing that was developed in F1 for use in road cars.

lol the list is many and includes such things as composite materials, carbon fibre, ceramic brakes, crash structures, tyre compounds and manufacturing techniques, fly by wire systems including paddle shift and clutch less systems, snycro gear boxes.
I will not even start on engines etc etc etc
however as you can see there are many many developments that started off in F1 and then moved on to road going cars.
As already said by Williams they have developed a KERs system that already is looking for markets outside of F1 and from people who understand the markets it is a large step forward from what has been available before and should find many markets away from F1 cars. So certainly for Williams they will make a profit from KERs and its use outside of F1.
People seam also to forget that IF kers is used in F1 next year it is meant to be able to be used for twice as long and be twice as powerfull as this years unit which after all was more about learning about KERs and how to use it safely before they went to far more powerfull units.

Edited by Demo., 26 July 2009 - 20:33.


#23 andysaint

andysaint
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 20:34

IMO the basic KERS idea is good i.e. giving the drivers extra horsepower when they want. But why not just give them a simple button on the wheel to give them a few more revs and 75bhp? But more cost effective. I find it confusing that Max was bleeting costs and how to reduce them but advocates spending millions on a system that isn't essential. It was just his pet project so he would be remembered for something 'green'.

#24 ariene

ariene
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 04:50

I think this situation is good.
Some teams use, some not.
But it is a complicated question and KERS has 2 different sides.
So I don't care.

#25 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 05:19

I think F1 may become a bit boring in the near future because the cars will be so close in performance that the races will be a procession.
We have engines of virtually equal performace, same tyres, limited room for aerodynamic developement e.t.c. These rules while do cut costs but these are at the expense of competition hence I would suggest some serious rethinking.

Budget limitation at the level suggested by Mosley is not reasonable, they need to free up quite a bit more room for development and set a much higher budget ceiling in the region of 300 million afterall it is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sports. It is the collection of the best in human ingenuity as far as motor racing is concerned and should be adequately resourced. It is way off the mark to limit the annual budget of the teams to something roughly equal to the income of the best paid drivers in the paddock.

Edited by femi, 27 July 2009 - 05:19.


#26 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,565 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 27 July 2009 - 05:31

just to shake up the system
how about a total ban on disk brakes
and make all slowing to be based on KERS

remove all limits and allow any type of KERS
for as long as they want at what ever power levels

#27 Keith68

Keith68
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:41

Serious question now....

Macca have got theirs to work really well and its giving them an advantage on some tracks. Certainly they can stick a few more litres of fuel in and aim for top 4 instead of pole and still expect to be at the first corner pretty much alongside the leader. For them its now slowly starting to make sense, and with 6 months aero development on the current concept that car will fly.

The KERS ban is voluntary amongst the FOTA teams I believe? And FIA rules still allows it for next year?

If so and if I were in Martin Whitmarsh's shoes, I would be very tempted to quietly keep it on the car for '10 and risk being thrown out of FOTA. Small loss really if it brings another WDC WCC.

Edited by Keith68, 27 July 2009 - 08:47.


#28 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:07

Maybe that should be the FIA's next attempt to divide and conquer FOTA. Relax the KERS restrictions and see if anyone takes the bait... I can't see that it would quite tie in with the push to reduce costs though.

I think we may have seen the one and only victory for a KERS car, until that sort of technology is standard everywhere anyway and barring exceptional circumstances coming in to play.

I'm intrigued to know if KERS had any impact on Lewis being able to pit after Webber when the prediction before the race had been for Hamilton to come in a lap ahead of the Red Bull. Can the system allow you to save fuel at all, say helping Lewis short-shift but still maintaining pace, or was the timing of stops more about tyres?

#29 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:29

I hate KERS! This was Hamilton's and F1's first 'plastic' F1 win. The most fakest GP victory in the history of the sport imo...I hate it!

#30 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:26

lol the list is many and includes such things as composite materials, carbon fibre, ceramic brakes, crash structures, tyre compounds and manufacturing techniques, fly by wire systems including paddle shift and clutch less systems, snycro gear boxes.
I will not even start on engines etc etc etc
however as you can see there are many many developments that started off in F1 and then moved on to road going cars.
As already said by Williams they have developed a KERs system that already is looking for markets outside of F1 and from people who understand the markets it is a large step forward from what has been available before and should find many markets away from F1 cars. So certainly for Williams they will make a profit from KERs and its use outside of F1.
People seam also to forget that IF kers is used in F1 next year it is meant to be able to be used for twice as long and be twice as powerfull as this years unit which after all was more about learning about KERs and how to use it safely before they went to far more powerfull units.


None of those were developed by F1 for road car use. They weren't even developed by F1 in the first place, most of it came from the aviation industry.


#31 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:05

lol the list is many and includes such things as composite materials, carbon fibre, ceramic brakes, crash structures, tyre compounds and manufacturing techniques, fly by wire systems including paddle shift and clutch less systems, snycro gear boxes.
I will not even start on engines etc etc etc


None of that was developed by F1 -it was spun off the military aviation industry. Even seat belts were in aircraft decades before F1, and anti-lock brakes.

Rumor has it the rear view mirror, but that was at Indy.

Almost nothing on that list of yours is in a modern everyday car, or needs to be.


#32 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:15

One victory is not enough to vindicate the effectivity of KERS.
Note that one six-wheeler car also had had an F1 victory before...



..and would have had many more if not for two facts: 1. the tire companies refused to develop tires for the car, and 2. Six wheels were banned.

KERS would work if unlimited, in 4WD cars without any allowed aero downforce. This would promote development of a mechanical energy storage system, rather than batteries (removing limits would require more energy storage, hence more batteries and weight).

Since the major problem with hybrid energy road cars is in the batteries, this could be the first time that F1 spending may be useful for auto manufacturers. However, since Ferrari doesn't give a crap about fuel consumption on its douche-mobiles, no one cares.

Unlimited KERS would have revolutionized F1 when McLaren first proposed it, got accepted by the FIA, then banned due to a secret veto from Ferrari. So say what you want about F1 and why you watch it, but it has little/nothing to do with making road cars better.

when it comes to "precious" funds in F1, why doesn't anyone look at the ridiculous driver salaries?

Edited by Villes Gilleneuve, 27 July 2009 - 16:28.


#33 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:24

No it won't remain. If everyone uses it, then each driver effectively cancels each other out really.

#34 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:25

Yes the aerospace industry invented and developed lots of 'F1' technologies but it's clear to see that the technologies that end up in road cars often come via motorsport. The debate is if motorsport is simply an indicator of what technology is on the way to being used in road cars or is it an important part of getting the costs/manufacturing/size/weight right for use in a car.

http://www.sciencemu...st_forward.aspx is interesting but doesn't go into any depth but you can see a lot of technology that has been used in F1 that is now being used in other areas. Again the counter argument is that F1 is just a signifier not the creator of these technologies.

#35 pitflaps

pitflaps
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:32

I bet it's marginal this year but Mclaren have proved it definitely wouldn't be marginal next year given a year's development under their belt. If there were no money or regulation restrictions you'd see half the grid with it in 2010.

I confess I'm not 100% sure of how green its credentials are or how relevant it is to the automotive industry but if done correctly I think even the principle of a device that takes kinetic energy, otherwise dissipated turning it into something that provides power is such an important symbol of how waste can be recycled it's worth keeping. I accept of course that there is a rather obvious bit of hypocrisy here in the shape of millions of dollars poured into the design but that shouldn't detract from the principle, (and anyway, it probably would have been spent on e.g. wind tunnel tinkering anyway).

At the very least it's quite an interesting piece of technology in a sport with almost no scope for true engineering originality any more.

How about Bernie providing some funds to a third party engineering concern who would develop it on behalf of all the teams....silly me, what a stupid idea.

Edited by pitflaps, 27 July 2009 - 16:33.


#36 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:33

The problem with KERS is that it has been imposed after the FIA realised that one of their bans on new technology was a mistake. If the original McLaren system had been given the OK F1 cars would now be jammed with highly developed recovery systems with teams pushing each other technologically to develop better more efficient systems . Unfortunately it's too late to turn back the clock 10 years to undo their mistake.

Without being unlimited the technology is a primitive cut down version and won't produce any decent new technologies above what is going on outside of F1. To make it unlimited now would cost a fortune and 1 or 2 teams would master it and destroy the other teams on track. The FIA screwed up again by making it too limited in the first year thus hardly making it worth the teams while to develop. They should just open it up to unlimited recovery from any system that recovers from breaking or heat and let the teams create some useful technology.

#37 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:37

http://www.sciencemu...st_forward.aspx is interesting but doesn't go into any depth but you can see a lot of technology that has been used in F1 that is now being used in other areas. Again the counter argument is that F1 is just a signifier not the creator of these technologies.


Oh get real. Non-slip boots came from F1 ? staircases? They link everything to F1.

By this argument, carbon fiber in F1 owes a huge debt to tennis and badminton rackets.

I like the ceramic link to Mars rovers -this was developed by NASA in the 70s, so NASA--> F1--->NASA.

That F1 bike is low-tech compared to pro racing bicycles.

Were 60s cigar-shaped cars the influence for the current shape of cigars?



#38 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:38

The problem with KERS is that it has been imposed after the FIA realised that one of their bans on new technology was a mistake. If the original McLaren system had been given the OK F1 cars would now be jammed with highly developed recovery systems with teams pushing each other technologically to develop better more efficient systems . Unfortunately it's too late to turn back the clock 10 years to undo their mistake.


The FIA approved KERS back then, Ferrari veto'd it. The mistake was the Ferrari veto.


#39 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:41

KERs does not need to be limited by any regulations as it currently does. It should be wide open (with the exception to safety).

Advertisement

#40 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,038 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 July 2009 - 23:08

Just because a KERS car won the race doesn't mean the decision to have it is vindicated. The only real reason it had anything to do with the victory was the start (and there's nothing to say Lewis wouldn't have made a good start anyway even without it, even if KERS did help him), and when Lewis passed Webber (I'm guessing Lewis used it in that move). Other than that, it played no part in the victory, and so isn't really that big a deal...


Other than that, KERS did not have to play anymore part, because it was exactly these two moves that secured HamiltonĀ“s first win of the year.


#41 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 July 2009 - 23:21

Max Mosley must feel vindicated!


Vindicated that KERS should remain, whilst costing the entire amount his proposed budget cap!? :confused:

#42 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 July 2009 - 23:23

Utter rubbish, name one thing that was developed in F1 for use in road cars.


Enzo? Carrera GT? Bugatti Veyron? etc etc :)

Certainly CF construction techniques and flappy gearboxes did not come from submarine industry. ;)

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 27 July 2009 - 23:23.


#43 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,043 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 July 2009 - 23:29

You should all keep in mind that Hamilton could have two victories this year if it wasn't for Webber slicing his tire in Germanyce, so Hungary doesn't have to be a fluke.

#44 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:25

You should all keep in mind that Hamilton could have two victories this year if it wasn't for Webber slicing his tire in Germanyce, so Hungary doesn't have to be a fluke.

I don't think Webber was going to be beaten by anyone at that race, even the stewards. The chances of a McLaren or Ferrari winning again this year don't look bad to me though.

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:42

Enzo? Carrera GT? Bugatti Veyron? etc etc :)

Certainly CF construction techniques and flappy gearboxes did not come from submarine industry.;)


They didn't come from F1 either, the ideas were taken from elsewhere and developed for F1. F1 is not a test bed for road car technology, it is a test bed for F1.

#46 Japan Time

Japan Time
  • Member

  • 232 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:49


Who Kers ? :drunk:

#47 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 July 2009 - 17:24


As I'm intrigued by the tech in the F1 I would love to have KERS stay with some bigger leeway.

#48 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 July 2009 - 19:09

As I'm intrigued by the tech in the F1 I would love to have KERS stay with some bigger leeway.


Agreed. Double the allowed KERS time per lap, de-restrict the allowed power and watch the worthwhile development push.

#49 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 28 July 2009 - 19:10

Had McLaren (and the others) not diverted so much attention, money and effort to KERS, they might be leading the championship now.
There made, of course, a great advance in development, but the car is still far from excellent and Hungary is a specific track.
Besides with only two teams using KERS there is a kind of unsporting taste in all this.

#50 EVO2

EVO2
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 28 July 2009 - 19:41

KERS creates interest in 2009 because not every team has it and Mercedes and Ferrari are the only teams to have made it work. They therefore have an overtaking advantage leading to fascinating first laps.

BUT : If every car has the same standard KERS system in 2010, everyone will be using it in exactly the same places round the circuit so it will create no additional overtaking opportunities.

In those circumstances it will become an expensive additional complication that benefits nobody.

For that reason only it should be dropped from the end of this year.