38 replies to this topic

[2ms]

KERS was a disaster for every team that tried to adopt it in 2009. The cars that were designed to work with or without KERs ended up all opting to go without KERs (ie performed better without it), and the two cars which were designed most to work with KERS had their worst seasons in ages (Ferrari and McLaren).

Now we see Ferrari, McLaren, and Mercedes all pushing for KERS. That's just what the new teams need to stop being dangerously slower than everyone else -- having to incorporate another whole new thing into their cars on top of the drastic degree to which they will have to leap forward in the evolution of what they've got right now.

Are these teams' enthusiasm for KERS just an enthusiasm for any edge they think they can get on teams like Red Bull who don't have experience working with KERS systems? I hate to be cynical. But let's be realistic. Does Domenicali really want KERS because he wants to save the planet or is the real reason something more related to wanting to win more races?

Heaven knows half of the things that happen in F1 happen for shady, political, generally wrong reasons. But I'd really hate to see concern for the environment be manipulated as trick for creating even bigger gap than already exists between the mega teams and the little guys.

Edited by 2ms, 13 May 2010 - 06:40.

[Captain Tightpants]

The reason why KERS failed was because it was improperly implemented. It didn't help that the only four teams to run it produced lacklustre cars; it wasn't until the end of the season that the McLaren and, to a lesser extent, the BMW started coming good.

If KERS is re-introduced, I have the feeling it's going to be mandatory. Or that enough teams are going to run it that anyone on the sidelines is going to be feeling very silly if they don't adopt it. Teams will apparently have three options: 1) to develop in-house, 2) to purchase from another team or 3) to purchase from an external supplier, like Flybrid. Teams like Ferrari and Renault are also pushing for KERS to produce more power and to be more available over the course of a lap. The idea seems to be to make KERS so appealing that teams won't ignore it for the sake of saving money. Part of it has to do with wanting to improve the show (more juice in the KERS reserve will certainly help passing, probably without the need for a double diffuser ban, but they appear to be going for both), and part of it has to do with the technology emerging in road cars. Ferrari worked the device into the 599 HY-KERS concept, while Porsche have intoduced it to the 918 Spyder. If a manufacturer's competitors who do not compete in Formula 1 are using it, then the manufacturers will probably have to follow suit. Formula 1 offers the opportunity to develop a better KERS system, and faster.

To suggest that they want it to gain a competitive edge over teams like Red Bull is a little silly because there's no way a team like Red Bull are going to let something like KERS pass them by. Especially when the can get it from someone like Flybrid, or run the Renault KERS device in conjunction with the Renault engine.

[F.M.]

A technical question: If they want it to be more powerful/higher capacity, won't it require store the brake energy from all 4 wheels? Because I remember teams struggling to get their KERS system fully charged every lap on certain circuits...

[Captain Tightpants]

A technical question: If they want it to be more powerful/higher capacity, won't it require store the brake energy from all 4 wheels? Because I remember teams struggling to get their KERS system fully charged every lap on certain circuits...

That's just an added technical challenge, then.

[2ms]

The reason why KERS failed was because it was improperly implemented. It didn't help that the only four teams to run it produced lacklustre cars; it wasn't until the end of the season that the McLaren and, to a lesser extent, the BMW started coming good.

If KERS is re-introduced, I have the feeling it's going to be mandatory. Or that enough teams are going to run it that anyone on the sidelines is going to be feeling very silly if they don't adopt it. Teams will apparently have three options: 1) to develop in-house, 2) to purchase from another team or 3) to purchase from an external supplier, like Flybrid. Teams like Ferrari and Renault are also pushing for KERS to produce more power and to be more available over the course of a lap. The idea seems to be to make KERS so appealing that teams won't ignore it for the sake of saving money. Part of it has to do with wanting to improve the show (more juice in the KERS reserve will certainly help passing, probably without the need for a double diffuser ban, but they appear to be going for both), and part of it has to do with the technology emerging in road cars. Ferrari worked the device into the 599 HY-KERS concept, while Porsche have intoduced it to the 918 Spyder. If a manufacturer's competitors who do not compete in Formula 1 are using it, then the manufacturers will probably have to follow suit. Formula 1 offers the opportunity to develop a better KERS system, and faster.

To suggest that they want it to gain a competitive edge over teams like Red Bull is a little silly because there's no way a team like Red Bull are going to let something like KERS pass them by. Especially when the can get it from someone like Flybrid, or run the Renault KERS device in conjunction with the Renault engine.

KERS would be an advantage for McLaren, Ferrari, and Mercedes to the extent that they already have the experience of working with it, integrating it into their cars, reducing its negative effects on handling, etc (or at least McLaren and Ferrari do in all those areas -- MGP probably has advantage in that they are the manufacturer who made the most successful KERS system and also worked closely with McLaren last year).

KERS clearly was a disadvantage to the teams that had it designed into their cars last year. It took them a huge amount of time, effort, and presumably effort to partially fix their performance problems over the course of the season. Sure increasing the amount of energy available could have eliminated the disadvantage (by giving them power advantage that offset handling disadvantage) but that's really irrelevent to what's being talked about for next year wherein KERS use would be practically mandated (ie everyone would be using it).. Last year the teams that used KERS had to go to a lot of trouble to assuage the negative impacts KERS had on overall performance. Now they have already been through that and the experience, know-how, etc will certainly give them an advantage/edge in performance if they get their way and have KERS brought back again.

Edited by 2ms, 13 May 2010 - 07:10.

[arknor]

mechanicly operated F-duct thats activated by the kers button please , pitty fia sucks

[Captain Tightpants]

Now they have already been through that and the experience, know-how, etc will certainly give them an advantage/edge in performance if they get their way and have KERS brought back again.

Yes, and how many of the new teams are going to be developing their own system? None. They'll be buying them for sure. And with the resource sharing agreement, it's likely to be offered cheaply. The established teams would jump at the chance to supply the newcomes, because it offers the opportunity to establish a relationship with them. If Lotus purchased the Renault KERS unit, would they be likely to take the Ferrari engines once their Cosworth contract expires? No, they'd take the Renault engine.

Also, it was Williams' never-used fywheel-based KERS unit that was believed to be the best available last year.

[undersquare]

A technical question: If they want it to be more powerful/higher capacity, won't it require store the brake energy from all 4 wheels? Because I remember teams struggling to get their KERS system fully charged every lap on certain circuits...

That was just the rule that limited the charge rate to 60kW, rather than a shortage of energy available. So the transmission drive should be OK. Dunno what the limit is but rear brakes are about 40% so should be good for a lot of storage.

[Clatter]

Also, it was Williams' never-used fywheel-based KERS unit that was believed to be the best available last year.

Maybe on paper, but they never used it because they were not able to resolve the problems with it. Cannot see how anyone could claim it was the best available under those circumstances.

[arknor]

Maybe on paper, but they never used it because they were not able to resolve the problems with it. Cannot see how anyone could claim it was the best available under those circumstances.

dont porsche use it in one of their road cars?

[Victor_RO]

dont porsche use it in one of their road cars?

No, it's used only on the 911 GT3-R race car... at least so far.

[RoutariEnjinu]

I thought it was funny how the FIA made the energy transfer through KERS deliberately low, so that those that didn't develop it, wouldn't be at a disadvantage, to effectively make it optional for 2009.

THEN, everyone moans that it offers no real benefit, and barely makes a difference...

They should completely unlock it IMO. Fierce competition in energy recovery would be good for the environment.

[Captain Tightpants]

They should completely unlock it IMO. Fierce competition in energy recovery would be good for the environment.

You couldn't have it completely unregulated - otherwise, you'd just have people sitting on the KERS button all race long.

[RoutariEnjinu]

Only if they can recover enough energy to do so.

If they want Formula 1 to be green, be applicable to the 21st century, and actually DO something (not that it should have to) then this kind of arms race is where money should be spent. Not in aero or piston engine.

They should unlock it so that it becomes that big a game changer that money is spent on its development, and not on the development of a new front wing end-plate, that has zero application to road cars.

Do this, or don't bother with it at all in my opinion.

Either is fine.

Innovate and be applicable to road cars.

Iterate new aero in seeking perfection and be a sport, for the sake of being a sport.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 13 May 2010 - 11:27.

[uffen]

The only true reason to adopt KERS is to attract new sponsors. The so-called environmental appeal of KERS will broaden the scope of firms interested in sponsoring racing.
Will it make the racing better? No. If everyone has KERS it is all equal again (as equal as a variety of KERS can be) just like the different engines, transmissions, etc. are all equal. Maybe some are better in some situations than others but overall - equal.

Road cars have had this system for over ten years now. They don't need F1's help. Sure, they will claim it helps (the image thing) but in reality it is just another expensive road to (racing) nowhere.

[RoutariEnjinu]

If everyone has it, while it would level out under perfect conditions, when mistakes are made, it allows more of an opportunity to capitalise on it.

It would only be equal and redundant if they were driven by laser guided computers, applying it at the same point, never making a mistake.

[Buttoneer]

Don't forget the minimum race weight for the cars has increased this year which might have made KERS a much more attractive option for 2010. It's certainly one f the problems teams had in 2009 - getting the car and driver down to fighting weight and having headroom for ballast.

I agree with Routari - deregulate and the teams will concentrate their efforts to create something small and clever which will fit into a hatchback rather than an SUV.

Personally, if we're going for a 'standard' KERS, I far prefer the flywheel version because it doesn't need exotic and ecologically dubious materials in the batteries.

[Petroltorque]

I don't want to sound like a pedant, but from my knowledge of O Level physics , KERS works off of engine braking, not wheel braking. That energy has already been dissapated in the form of heat and is in effect lost. Its the energy one is harnessing from the engine overrun in the braking zone thats available. I suspect that the flywheel system developped by Williams and Honda (Flybrid) that will turn out to be the best and customer teams will probably pursue that avenue.

[Alfisti]

I don't buy that once they all have it negates the chance to see better racing.

It's another tool for the driver and therefore a chance to make an error or get too brave if it's producing enough power. It will add an element of opportunity for passing moves for sure.

[uffen]

Yes, mistakes will make the difference, not the technology per se.
The teams will make it as fool-proof as possible, though, and the drivers will be coached from the pits. Don't look for too, too many errors.

[rolf123]

Not sure why you're having a pop at the likes of Domenicalli for wanting it back.

Teams were encouraged to build one but only Ferrari and McLaren persevered. Spent something like 10 or 20 mil on it only for it to be canned thanks to a majority vote by FOTA.

If the same thing had happened to me and there was an opportunity to get it back, I'd go in head first. Green credentials don't even come into it. Now they have a chance to at least break even on their investment.

[CSquared]

I don't want to sound like a pedant, but from my knowledge of O Level physics , KERS works off of engine braking, not wheel braking. That energy has already been dissapated in the form of heat and is in effect lost. Its the energy one is harnessing from the engine overrun in the braking zone thats available. I suspect that the flywheel system developped by Williams and Honda (Flybrid) that will turn out to be the best and customer teams will probably pursue that avenue.

The KERS generator is like just another brake. It's taking energy from the whole drivetrain. The heat in the brakes is lost, yes, but there will be less heat there because some of that energy went into the generator.

[CSquared]

Teams were encouraged to build one but only Ferrari and McLaren persevered. Spent something like 10 or 20 mil on it only for it to be canned thanks to a majority vote by FOTA.

If the same thing had happened to me and there was an opportunity to get it back, I'd go in head first. Green credentials don't even come into it. Now they have a chance to at least break even on their investment.

Fallacy of Sunk Costs

[Fastcake]

Unregulated KERS is something F1 could seriously show off to the world, if the cars are effectively recovering lots of "lost" energy, you suddenly have a nice big "green" image to showcase. If Formula One needs to be world-relevant, then this step is something FIA almost has to include.

Personally I would like to see a better KERS system implemented, it's a good area of competition between teams that could see some significant differences.

[Atreiu]

I agree. Set less restrictions on KERS and really make them push the envelope over it.
Imagine teams going for lighter packages, others for more hp, and so on...

[Alfisti]

The only issue re. pushing th eenvelope is the safety factor.

[2ms]

Not sure why you're having a pop at the likes of Domenicalli for wanting it back.

Teams were encouraged to build one but only Ferrari and McLaren persevered. Spent something like 10 or 20 mil on it only for it to be canned thanks to a majority vote by FOTA.

If the same thing had happened to me and there was an opportunity to get it back, I'd go in head first. Green credentials don't even come into it. Now they have a chance to at least break even on their investment.

I'm not really having a pop at the people who are pushing it. In fact, I completely understand why they would want it and the fact that this good reason exists is essentially the thing I am trying to point out. It's completely reasonable and understandable for them to want it. This is because the purpose of being for a racing team is to win races and using KERS would help them win races. The question is, does any of the rest of us really want it. Do we really want all the new teams, for example, to be even more slow relative to the mega teams next year? It seems there's no way introducing KERS wouldn't make for an even larger gap between the little teams and the big ones who have already obtained experience with integrating KERS into their cars.

A couple people seem to think that simply having everyone use the same off-the-shelf systems means KERS would not change the playing field at all. This makes no sense to me because KERS is not something you just drop into your car and not have to change anything else. In fact, it has very large effects on the packaging and balance of your car. Teams like McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, have already done a lot of this work before whereas the other teams have not. Thus, KERS will be an advantage to them relative to the other teams. This aside, I think there's good enough reason alone to let the new teams just focus on getting reasonable performance out of their conventional cars first. It seems almost crazy to make them have to take on the extra work of integrating this whole new system none of them have ever had to design a racecar for before.

By the way, I'm not against KERS fundamentally. I just think its introduction was messed up and now reintroducing it is going to be problematic for a while. I think since we now have a bunch of new teams with miniscule budgets barely running at GP2 speeds in F1, it's about the worst possible time to introduce KERS. It should have either been introduced across the board before the new teams and then given several years to mature and have the know-how on its integration be as common knowledge as possible, or it should be re introduced a few years from now after the new teams have gotten more up to speed.

[rolf123]

Yep, the new teams have it quite hard.

I would actually like to see some sort of advantage given to them. Clearly there is a divide between them and the rest of the field.

Maybe give them more seconds worth of KERS or some other similar advantage.

[Risil]

The only issue re. pushing th eenvelope is the safety factor.

If it's unsafe they shouldn't be running KERS, simple. Genuine question: What's unsafe about unregulated KERS, by the way? Electric shock risk? Fire?

[MikeTekRacing]

Maybe give them more seconds worth of KERS or some other similar advantage.

this is not nascar
here all the cars comply to the same rules. no advantages, no prisoners taken
it's F1 dammit, if they are here they compete under the same rules

[RoutariEnjinu]

Yes, mistakes will make the difference, not the technology per se.
The teams will make it as fool-proof as possible, though, and the drivers will be coached from the pits. Don't look for too, too many errors.

Not talking about errors deploying KERS. Talking about general driving errors of the guy in front.

[RoutariEnjinu]

If it's unsafe they shouldn't be running KERS, simple. Genuine question: What's unsafe about unregulated KERS, by the way? Electric shock risk? Fire?

If it was the other way around, and electric cars were the norm, developed from the 1800's, and we'd recently discovered underground fluid that could be burned to produce locomotion, there's be people saying it would be crazy to carry a tank of this around, and set fire to the insides of some of the vehicle to make it go.
The heat would be tremendous, what if they touched the exhaust? What if it leaked out. What happens in a crash? Marshals should wear bomb suits.

If electric propulsion is where we're heading, it needs to be developed now without hysterics on safety.

[moredeep]

DD being banned, mandatory KERS... both of which just to create more overtaking opportunities. Nothing more. Just imagine the hundreds of millions of $$$ collectively that couldve been saved if all of this happened last year

[Buttoneer]

Unregulated KERS is something F1 could seriously show off to the world, if the cars are effectively recovering lots of "lost" energy, you suddenly have a nice big "green" image to showcase. If Formula One needs to be world-relevant, then this step is something FIA almost has to include.

Personally I would like to see a better KERS system implemented, it's a good area of competition between teams that could see some significant differences.

But how would you regulate the unregulated KERS? This technology *would* be good for development in the F1 battleground but not all the teams have the right backing to spend the money. IMO it would need to be much like the tyre war with all the Mercedes teams (for example) pooling data to create the technology for their teams and upgrading/rolling out new versions to all teams dynamically through the year. Where that leaves the Cosworth teams I honestly don't know. They would need a decent third party provider (maybe the Williams Flybrid one) to work closely with Cosworth to create something for the tail end of the grid. But without the cash to spend it will always lag behind the big spenders.

Unless you're wanting to see one group of teams flying away from the rest there needs to be some mechanic which limits the advantage of bottomless pockets.

[pgj]

I am with Captain T.

KERS was not implemented properly. It should never have been phased in. Another incentive would have been to increase the minimum weight of the cars. So that faced with carrying the equivalent dead weight or power productive weight going for extra power would be an obvious choice.

I have no doubt that Williams has two reasons for wanting KERS as an integral part of F1 from 2013. Firstly to keep KERS topical and current in order to protect its investment in WHP. Secondly, it is probably promoting it on behalf of a new engine suppler to F1. I would like to think that it might be VW although it could just as easily be Hyundai.

[Dan333SP]

No, it's used only on the 911 GT3-R race car... at least so far.

Well, they use a flywheel based KERS system on the GT3 car, having bought a system from Williams which was never actually raced in F1. They also have a road car that was just introduced that is a high performance hybrid system that includes something like a KERS button, the lovely 918 Spyder-

[One]

Who is missing from YES guys?

Simple answer...

Edited by One, 14 May 2010 - 11:36.

[223]

As others have said, KERS was a good idea implemented badly last year. It's still a good idea, but they should rethink it. Make it really worth having. Don't put limits on when or how long you can use it, just on how much horsepower it adds. Maybe taper the rev limits of the engine back some more so KERS can take up the slack, if that is feasible.

Asking the new teams to redesign a car with KERS is not so different than asking them to redesign, add or subtract any other part of the car as happens every year. As someone else pointed out, KERS may bring in new sponsors so while the new teams may incur more expenses initially to put a KERS system in, in the end they may benefit from the addition of KERS.

Like it or not, KERS and like-minded green technologies are the future so no sense in fighting it anymore than fighting the ban on special race fuels, 12 cylinder engines or tubular steel chassis. F1 needs to finally drag itself into the 21st century if it is to stay relevant to a rapidly changing world audience. KERS may only be a relatively small step towards what may be a radically different F1 car in the not so distant future.

This is both funny and very insightful. I laughed. (thanks for that):

If it was the other way around, and electric cars were the norm, developed from the 1800's, and we'd recently discovered underground fluid that could be burned to produce locomotion, there's be people saying it would be crazy to carry a tank of this around, and set fire to the insides of some of the vehicle to make it go.
The heat would be tremendous, what if they touched the exhaust? What if it leaked out. What happens in a crash? Marshals should wear bomb suits.

If electric propulsion is where we're heading, it needs to be developed now without hysterics on safety.

[Risil]

If it was the other way around, and electric cars were the norm, developed from the 1800's, and we'd recently discovered underground fluid that could be burned to produce locomotion, there's be people saying it would be crazy to carry a tank of this around, and set fire to the insides of some of the vehicle to make it go.
The heat would be tremendous, what if they touched the exhaust? What if it leaked out. What happens in a crash? Marshals should wear bomb suits.

If electric propulsion is where we're heading, it needs to be developed now without hysterics on safety.

Not being all that technical and all, that was basically the question I was asking, whether I am simply overreacting to the safety problems of a new technology. That said had the internal combustion engine not been developed, and steam power had remained the norm, no way would motor racing have got off the ground, safety would have been a serious problem. The prospect of steam-powered automobiles was a legitimate talking point before the Second World War. Some methods of propulsion are just fundamentally less safe than others.