Red Bull KERS strategy

[Owen.C93]

Horner seemed annoyed at Webber for not getting on the front row. Perhaps they thought they were safe to not use it.

[Hangaku]

Sorry guys but all this talk of start only systems and no one is addressing the two major problems with that theory:

1) Why didn't / couldn't they use such a system in qualifying?

2) The engineers asked Vettel to use KERS urgently due to temperature problems with the battery in FP1 presumably due to it over charging. So the team have a full KERS implementation at their disposal.

I can see people suggesting that 2) is because they have a system but decided not to use it, but there's still the question of 1.

To me I think it's more that their system is unreliable, as demonstrated in 2, and so they opted not to use it in qualifying and / or they've bastardised the system by trimming out the charging components so that it doesn't overheat in the race.

I'm with you all the way on this

[HampusA]

Sorry guys but all this talk of start only systems and no one is addressing the two major problems with that theory:

1) Why didn't / couldn't they use such a system in qualifying?

2) The engineers asked Vettel to use KERS urgently due to temperature problems with the battery in FP1 presumably due to it over charging. So the team have a full KERS implementation at their disposal.

I can see people suggesting that 2) is because they have a system but decided not to use it, but there's still the question of 1.

To me I think it's more that their system is unreliable, as demonstrated in 2, and so they opted not to use it in qualifying and / or they've bastardised the system by trimming out the charging components so that it doesn't overheat in the race.

1. Why would they? They said it makes the car slower. Their "claimed" system is used for starts only so there´s no point in using the system as your already up to speed.

2. Why does this say that they have the full system on? It could be their own little system that did not disconnect itself like it should and therefore overloaded the battery hence the "urgent! unload the KERS"

I do think they have a full system to use from Renault but decided it would only slow them down. Again, there´s nothing that says that it was the full system in use when he got that over the radio.

[segedunum]

A start only KERS will only be of any use unless they can seriously reduce the weight of it otherwise they're just carrying around weight that isn't doing anything.

[Owen.C93]

A start only KERS will only be of any use unless they can seriously reduce the weight of it otherwise they're just carrying around weight that isn't doing anything.

They would only have to replace the weight with ballast anyway, so it's just a slight COG issue, which is probably nothing.

[djos]

imo the RBR KERS still charges under braking during the races but it's a slow charge rather than a fast charge which would allow them to do away with the active cooling systems others use with their batteries thus making it weigh less and take up less space.

I reckon this would allow for full deployment every 5 or so laps instead of every lap and would still be handy for defense to keep others from getting close enuf to use DRS.

[copperkipper1]

Humm I'm confused to this...
If it were KERS then surely it would still charge under braking and be used again?

Doesn't sound like KERS at all...Just a battery stuck to a motor which surely must be rule bending if they arn't re-harvesting any energy. lol'


and there is a good chance of a safety car in the first lap...does the start really mean that much to redbull?



Can't wait to see what happens tommorow.

[l4mbch0ps]

2009 Tech Reg:

"5.2.4 Any KERS may only be capable of increasing the stored energy whilst the car is moving on the track.
Release of power from any such system must remain under the complete control of the driver at all times the car is on the track. "

2011 Tech Reg:

"5.2.4 The amount of stored energy in any KERS may not be increased whilst the car is stationary during a race pit stop.
Release of power from any such system must remain under the complete control of the driver at all times the car is on the track. "


That wording change (the only one I found in the KERS regulations) clearly allows for garage charging now, whereas before it did not.

I think the differentiator for whether or not this system is legal or not may come from the definitions section :

"1.20 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) :
A system that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking, store that energy and make it available to propel the car."

If that is an inclusive definition, and you must comply to all the conditions of the description, then the system would have to recharge during braking... if it's given a looser definition, then you can just put a battery to a motor and charge it in the garage. Maybe it just trickle charges to compliance - hard to say.

[Green Genes]

I don't understand how the weight saved by a lighter start only KERS is of any benefit, since all cars have a mandated minimum weight and a mandated weight distribution. Is it all in the lower center of gravity? If it were an aero benefit from a tighter package, wouldn't we be able to pick up on it visually?

[bonjon1979]

Reading the Autosport article I am left wondering if gear ratio's is the explanation. Being able to use the DRS in qualifying means they'll get up to their chosen top speed without KERS help, whilst in the race they'll use KERS to get close to that same top speed. This will compromise them when overtaking and being able to use both KERS and DRS, but means they'll have a more optimal gear ratio for the rest of the race.

This is what I thinks going on.

[segedunum]

The weight of your average KERS system is around 30 kilos which leaves them slightly less than half of the ballast that they usually have to move around in the car. I'd call that a pretty large centre of gravity penalty that must be raked back in performance for every kilo they spend on that system. You've then got to factor in additional weight of cooling and packaging. If KERS provided more power than it does currently then it would really be a given that KERS was a hard requirement, but it doesn't, so this won't be done because they couldn't get one to work. That's before you get to the effect of the system on tyres this year.

I did find Adrian Newey's comments about KERS when the car was launched quite curious when he seemed to talk about how difficult it was to gain an advantage out of it, increasing aerodynamic efficiency and how it was only really useful at the start to maintain track position. That's the only place that Red Bull seem to think it is worth anything.

[HampusA]

But doesn´t the KERS system sit extremely low in chassis?
Ferrari have their inside the fuel tank and most other below it?

Here´s a gif showing the ridiculous flexing of the RBR front wing.

http://i.imgur.com/6qfEj.gif

[raymondu999]

I was thinking of this start-only kers rumor. Most of you are looking at it in comparison to a full KERS implementation. What if the car was designed initially to NOT use KERS? So basically they meant to not use KERS, then they thought, "Hey, I'm gonna get knocked on the start if I don't have KERS!" then added the unit? That sounds VERY plausible to me. Something Newey would think about.

[Pandamasque]

Why would you reduce weight that gives you some power 'for free', just to replace it with ballast while the front-rear weight distribution is mandated anyway? It's not like the KERS bits they've supposedly done away with would be that high in the car.

[LionKing]

If HRT can come up with a qualy only car, then RBR should be allowed to do a start only KERS...