Why is KERS restricted?

[xxChrisxx]

Regardless of people's opinion on this forum, if the FIA's ambition is to limit spending to allow for the independent teams to compete, free KERS development is a contradiction in terms, exponential cost - value relation or not.

Unless you set a hard cost cap, those with money WILL spend it. Those without will have to make do.
It's been that way since the very birth of racing. It will be that way until the end of time.

So if I read you correctly, all those cost-cutting measures, either by FIA of FOTA, has been futile? Until the end of time?

It evidently has been futile. This tune about cost has been been sung since the early 90's.

Spending has only gone 1 way, UP.

So until you put a hard cap of spending, those with the free cash will spend for success.

[SZ]

machin,

Your comments on the McLaren/Zytek system are novel but aren't nearly as relevant as the fact that it's a good deal lighter than any comparable system, and the difference in weight and packaging flexibility alone - which represents a substantial development cost differential that no other team has been willing to (anywhere near) match - does more for lap times than another 200-300kJ per lap.

(There's also the small matter of battery life diminishing to accommodate as much and driving the cost of the most expensive consumable on the system up significantly).

autogyro, richard_leeds,

A standardised KERS system doesn't mean standardised development. KERS, as it is, has very little relevance to road car energy recovery for a number of reasons - the biggest synergy (and attraction for manufacturers and series promoters) is in marketing a green awareness of, and from, F1. The importance of this cannot be underestimated - marketing drives sponsorship and ultimately the survival and growth of the sport.

The main aspect of KERS (or of any energy recovery system) offering relevance to road cars isn't in how much you can store, it's in controlling getting it back to the wheels effectively. Hybrid control theory is a very active area of research (anyone in the market for postgrad... take a good look at it). This is also where development should be open.

Making sure teams have homologated hardware would drive costs down significantly and not disadvantage any team unequally in terms of packaging challenges. It wouldn't matter if it weighed twice what it does now to bring it in on cost, as long as that's a cross each team had to bear. However leaving the control software - possibly also the hardware - open for individual development promotes a good, healthy, competitive use of technology - at low cost - that offers some scope of feedback to more mainstream auto applications.

The notion that F1 needs to be a technological battle between constructors is correct. The notion that this implies ridiculous levels of spending are appropriate where possible... is total bullsh*t, creates significant performance differentials not easily remedied, drives competitors out and moves us closer towards the sport's ultimate demise.

Marelli and Bosch have been touting standardised KERS systems. I would imagine McLaren/Zytek to tender for a solution were the FIA to look at a standardised system. Hell, you could have a range of standardised KERS constructors if you liked. The FIA maintains a spec and a cost cap.

A standardised KERS has a place and will move the acceptance of the technology among all competitors far faster than a single 'best' effort ever will.

[autogyro]

The main aspect of KERS (or of any energy recovery system) offering relevance to road cars isn't in how much you can store, it's in controlling getting it back to the wheels effectively. Hybrid control theory is a very active area of research (anyone in the market for postgrad... take a good look at it). This is also where development should be open.

I completely agree and welcome any post grad, under suitable CA.
However, your statement does contradict the idea of a standardized Kers in F1.

If you are taking the present state of play in road hybrid technology and using this as a base line for FIA agreement on the base regulations on a standard Kers, then you are missing the point that current hybrids and EV's are only first generation and there is a huge raft of very rapid development underway. There is in fact an EV revolution underway, barely recognized by F1 teams and followers.
Following this idea would result in F1 embracing obsolete technology probably even before applying it to the cars.

[SZ]

My statement doesn't contract a thing.

As stated, the main relevance to road cars of hybrid anything in F1 is in marketing. Technical transferability is... not required.

If you really believe that KERS development in F1 and hybrid systems in road cars will have anything to do with each other in terms of hardware development for the short-to-mid term, I think you've a poor understanding of the technical requirements of each. They're vastly different, and in that, developing significantly different hybrid solutions in F1 is a (very expensive) dead end. How expensive? Had McLaren kept up their yearly spend in KERS for five years (the 'unlimited development' scenario) they'd have spend about as much as most large car companies spend in developing a new model for market, in about the same timeframe. That's not a hybrid solution for a new model - we're talking a complete new car from bumper to tailpipe that stands a good chance of profitability. Clearly the spend involved currently is ridiculous.

Control theory is ever-evolving, on the other hand, and is a good avenue to open up in F1 - particularly given that most cars are yet to feature hybrid technology (still a niche) and the control hardware you might find on you average vehicle these days - engine and ABS computers particularly - are a good deal more sophisticated than anything you'll find on an F1 car.

Should the FIA let F1 teams run amok with hybrid electronics - and really, there's not that much to be spent on anything but brainpower - in a few years there might be a cottage industry with something worth selling back to the auto industry.

[xpensive]

So if I read you correctly, all those cost-cutting measures, either by FIA of FOTA, has been futile? Until the end of time?

It evidently has been futile. This tune about cost has been been sung since the early 90's. Spending has only gone 1 way, UP. So until you put a hard cap of spending, those with the free cash will spend for success.

Perhaps the point is to minimize the benefit of wreckless spending? Stopping teams from throwing away the entire ultra-lightweight engine after one race is one way of doing that, while everybody should be free to throw away the bodywork if it has a scratch on it?

[autogyro]

My statement doesn't contract a thing.

As stated, the main relevance to road cars of hybrid anything in F1 is in marketing. Technical transferability is... not required.

If you really believe that KERS development in F1 and hybrid systems in road cars will have anything to do with each other in terms of hardware development for the short-to-mid term, I think you've a poor understanding of the technical requirements of each. They're vastly different, and in that, developing significantly different hybrid solutions in F1 is a (very expensive) dead end. How expensive? Had McLaren kept up their yearly spend in KERS for five years (the 'unlimited development' scenario) they'd have spend about as much as most large car companies spend in developing a new model for market, in about the same timeframe. That's not a hybrid solution for a new model - we're talking a complete new car from bumper to tailpipe that stands a good chance of profitability. Clearly the spend involved currently is ridiculous.

Control theory is ever-evolving, on the other hand, and is a good avenue to open up in F1 - particularly given that most cars are yet to feature hybrid technology (still a niche) and the control hardware you might find on you average vehicle these days - engine and ABS computers particularly - are a good deal more sophisticated than anything you'll find on an F1 car.

Should the FIA let F1 teams run amok with hybrid electronics - and really, there's not that much to be spent on anything but brainpower - in a few years there might be a cottage industry with something worth selling back to the auto industry.

I am not suggesting allowing teams to 'run amok', or any other emotive term.
Of course there has to be sensible regulation.
I do not agree that Kers development has no direct connection to road car technology.
In fact this is obviously NOT the case because all the Kers developers in F1 are at this very time profiting from the technology in the vehicle market place.
Some of this is indeed marketing hype but a large amount is hands on engineering.
Have you another reason for controlling Kers in F1 perhaps?

[SZ]

The 'green' road car components portfolios of the major European component suppliers - Bosch, Marelli, Continental - have nothing in common with the parts offered for motorsports. Not a thing. Not just unique parts - the systems work completely differently. The three teams developing the control side of KERS barely have any plans to put anything related into road cars. An electric A-class at most.

KERS developers in F1 are not directly profiting from their KERS involvement in F1 in the slightest - name one example. Just one.

Control KERS, control cost, limit secondary effects on vehicle performance - especially given that KERS has limited performance potential - limit the performance differential between teams on best use of a hybrid technology, rather than the present focus on pointless hardware development. Today the differences in spending between teams are so significant that not only are massive performance differentials opened up on how developed the KERS' packging is, but that smaller teams can't afford it - the package let alone developing integration - at all.

Control it and it can even be profitable for suppliers and affordable for teams - all of them.

[autogyro]

The 'green' road car components portfolios of the major European component suppliers - Bosch, Marelli, Continental - have nothing in common with the parts offered for motorsports. Not a thing. Not just unique parts - the systems work completely differently. The three teams developing the control side of KERS barely have any plans to put anything related into road cars. An electric A-class at most.

KERS developers in F1 are not directly profiting from their KERS involvement in F1 in the slightest - name one example. Just one.

Control KERS, control cost, limit secondary effects on vehicle performance - especially given that KERS has limited performance potential - limit the performance differential between teams on best use of a hybrid technology, rather than the present focus on pointless hardware development. Today the differences in spending between teams are so significant that not only are massive performance differentials opened up on how developed the KERS' packging is, but that smaller teams can't afford it - the package let alone developing integration - at all.

Control it and it can even be profitable for suppliers and affordable for teams - all of them.

I have not said that Kers should not be controlled, only not standardized.
Williams is out in the middle east selling the technology developed from Kers system's into industry as we post. The flywheel system is already in bus and truck production. I totally disagree with your over view of Kers and hybrid technology and your comment on the 'pointless hardware development'. Only pointless to you, because you are either unaware of certain projects or you are obviously content with current hardware (why is that?). Any investment in Kers control systems is potentially of huge benefit for control systems in road vehicles, particularly when applied to rapid and high energy charge and discharge rates.
Also joining a combination motor/generator to an IC crank is a very simple and much limited interpretation of how to harvest and apply energy even under current Kers regulations. What you are referring to is already obsolete.

[Giblet]

What do you guys think would be a good solution to band-aid KERS in it's current form to make it viable in the future?

Most of the converstaiton here seems to be pointing towards how it was done wrong, but since that ship has already sailed, what would be the best way to fix this half broken idea.

We basically all agree that it was good idea, with poor implementation. How could something good be scavenged from all the work put in?

[autogyro]

What do you guys think would be a good solution to band-aid KERS in it's current form to make it viable in the future?

Most of the converstaiton here seems to be pointing towards how it was done wrong, but since that ship has already sailed, what would be the best way to fix this half broken idea.

We basically all agree that it was good idea, with poor implementation. How could something good be scavenged from all the work put in?

The ship has not sailed. Kers is still in the F1 FIA Regulations for 2010.
It is FOTA that is preventing it's use, not the technology or the FIA.
The question has to be why?

[Giblet]

I meant that the chance to implement KERS properly from the beginning, that is the boat we missed.

The question is actually still what.

I really don't see any ideas about what can be done to make KERS better, considering it already exists, this has to be considered, even if it is fun to talk about how it could have been.

[Fil]

if there is no set standard in the automotive world, and the system is in a 'revolutionary' stage, the only realistic and useful option is to open the regs for F1 to play its part and be an active & dominant force in steering the evolution of hybrid technology.

surely if it were to happen, manufacturers would find more reason to stay or enter/re-enter F1. they're developing it anyway, why not use F1 as a test-bed? in its current restricted form its obviously of no relevance to their own personal hybrid research.

Turbo research was advanced in leaps & bounds in F1 in the 80's due to a lack of restrictions in its initial lifespan in F1, benefiting all manufacturers involved. KERS/Hybrid drives need to be afforded the same opportunity.

[ISLAMATRON]

yep all they needed to do was allow unrestricted KERS with a cap on how much is spent on its development, and a fixed price at which the independent teams can purchase the KERS system(or the whole driveline).

If the speeds got too high all they needed to do was lower the amount of fuel allowed for the race.

any team caught breaking the budget rules will lose all points, results & FOM money.... simply done.

[SZ]

I have not said that Kers should not be controlled, only not standardized.

Now you're being thick.

'Standardised' depends on what you standardise. It's clear it's too expensive for most teams in its current form. We have virtually standardised engines in F1 already, the sport isn't adverse to standardising anything. You can't have a competition based around a given technology when most teams simply cannot afford it.

If you limit what's able to be developed to what's cost effective and yet makes a difference, then all can compete. It also happens to be the only part of a system relevant to road car use.

You've a massive focus on not standardising anything whilst neatly ignoring that the cost are already unfeasible.

Williams is out in the middle east selling the technology developed from Kers system's into industry as we post. The flywheel system is already in bus and truck production.

And the last time you saw a vehicle produced/developed in the Middle East was when? Which trucks and busses?

No really, go on.

I totally disagree with your over view of Kers and hybrid technology and your comment on the 'pointless hardware development'. Only pointless to you, because you are either unaware of certain projects or you are obviously content with current hardware (why is that?).

I can see you totally disagree, though your Marco Polo attitude - that you're the first person in the world to gain a perspective on how KERS might/might not be useful - is amusing.

I work in the auto industry on relevant projects - I'm well aware of them - and totally disagree with you. So do the major automotive companies I contract to. Technically, there's zero interest in KERS in F1, whether unlimited or not. I asked you to name one automotive project benefiting from F1 KERS from a major auto manufacturer. Just one. When you're done with the bullsh*t, name me just one. Show us how relevant it is. GM putting the Volt into mass production did far more for advancing hybrid technology than KERS has, and will do so for some time.

I don't think there's much wrong with the current hardware in concept, though it's clearly unaffordable to develop it continually. Given the small energy output and the significant disparities in what competing systems weigh, teams lose more from compromised packaging than they gain in a limited energy boost. That alone - cost issues aside - needs to be addressed.

Any investment in Kers control systems is potentially of huge benefit for control systems in road vehicles, particularly when applied to rapid and high energy charge and discharge rates.

Agreed - you're quoting me now - though allowing competition in control systems only makes for a competitive and much cheaper series. You do not need to build/develop the rest of the system. There's also the small matter that F1 teams do not have the capacity to do so, or to commercialise it - currently they don't.

Also joining a combination motor/generator to an IC crank is a very simple and much limited interpretation of how to harvest and apply energy even under current Kers regulations. What you are referring to is already obsolete.

I'm not referring to any specific method of acquiring redundant energy - there are many outside of the most common approach in F1 - but just how much energy do you think any such solution could actually recover? There's a limit.

What do you guys think would be a good solution to band-aid KERS in it's current form to make it viable in the future?

One hardware supplier - unlimited control hardware/software development. You build the black box controlling it, you program it, compete to see who makes best use of it.

FIA to upgrade hardware spec on a yearly/bi-yearly basis.

Fixed price for hardware supply that all can afford.

It is FOTA that is preventing it's use, not the technology or the FIA.
The question has to be why?

You're kidding, right?

[xpensive]

What do you guys think would be a good solution to band-aid KERS in it's current form to make it viable in the future?

One hardware supplier - unlimited control hardware/software development. You build the black box controlling it, you program it, compete to see who makes best use of it.

FIA to upgrade hardware spec on a yearly/bi-yearly basis.

Fixed price for hardware supply that all can afford.

Sounds very reasonable to me SZ, but I think something needs to happen with the batteries before this becomes environmentally credible. Spending what, 50 or 100 kUSD per car and race, on batteries as "consumables" is simply not.