See what we have here, 80 Hp is some 10% of the engine power, this is about what Chrisitan Horner claims they are down on power with the Merc, isn't it? Still Newey don't want to implement it, wonder why? Newey is a rational engineer I think.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
First off, there's no possibility of the Renault being 80hp down on the Mercedes. Even if you bought into the silly notion that Newey can design a chassis to make up for that sort of deficit, the Renault factory car would be at the back of the grid. 80hp is massive. 80hp over 6 seconds, combined with several negative handling issues and a reduction in aero efficiency may or may not be. But the engines are similar enough to have very similar requirements in terms of packaging, and that means 80hp would be free. I'll bet all the engines on the grid, front to back, are covered by less than 1/2 that, and if we only look at the 3 factory engines I wouldn't rule out them all being covered by less than 20hp.
Kers does certainly have strategic considerations above the power it adds. Speed on the straight is more valuable than speed in the corner, and given 2 cars capable of exactly equivelant laptimes the car that's faster on the straight will stand a much better chance of winning the championship. It's not worth race wins, and not even an extra position every race, but you could certainly expect a couple of extra positions over a season.
That said, there's no good evidence to conclude that kers cars are capable of running with non kers cars, at least not yet. And if the question is whether or not a kers car is better than a faster non kers car, I think we've seen some pretty good evidence to suggest it may not be.
RB have said their kers is designed to fit into the car without compromising the car. That would seem to indicate the kers had to eat all of the inevitable compromises. Given what kers is made up of, those compromises are most likely to involve longer cables and more connections, along with possibly less component cooling. These would all be expected to impact reliability more than performance of the kers unit, but would seem to impact the performance of the car in terms of packaging.
So, you would expect the kers system to give less than competing kers units, and for the car to perform better with kers removed than competing cars with kers removed. This reality, assuming it's accurate, would likely cause teams like McClaren to feel married to kers and forced to make it work, while allowing teams like RB to adopt a "take it or leave it" stance, leaving it on if it worked but pulling the plug any time there's a problem. It's dangerous to make assumptions based on a sample of 1, but that does seem to be what we've seen.
Well, we all have to remember that the 80 hp is only for six seconds per lap. That's what makes KERS a bit of a waste of money and time.
As for the endless debate on Renault power, I don't think anyone has said the engine is 80 hp down. However, there's been more than enough evidence that they're at least 20 down from 2009 onwards. However, nudging Red Bull and even Renault's opposition who are behind them and saying "They're giving away power to you" is simply a bridge too far for most.
However, Newey, as vocal as he has been on engine power, has decided to pass up what KERS offers, for one race at least. I think that should send us a message as to how useful KERS is overall.
segedunum wrote:Well, we all have to remember that the 80 hp is only for six seconds per lap. That's what makes KERS a bit of a waste of money and time.
As for the endless debate on Renault power, I don't think anyone has said the engine is 80 hp down. However, there's been more than enough evidence that they're at least 20 down from 2009 onwards. However, nudging Red Bull and even Renault's opposition who are behind them and saying "They're giving away power to you" is simply a bridge too far for most.
However, Newey, as vocal as he has been on engine power, has decided to pass up what KERS offers, for one race at least. I think that should send us a message as to how useful KERS is overall.
Didn't Newey pass up on KERS in 2009? Has Newey ever run KERS in a race? If this is true, maybe the hesitation is reliability not that he hasn't needed it...just a thought...IMHO
"Driving a car as fast as possible (in a race) is all about maintaining the highest possible acceleration level in the appropriate direction." Peter Wright,Techical Director, Team Lotus
Red bull, during preseason testing appeared to have tested both a large hot air exit and a significantly smaller one. Initially, I had figured that they were merely playing around with both of them for various heat conditions, but someone pointed out on this forum (apologies to whoever it was!) something interesting in Australia.
During the free practice sessions, when Red Bull were apparently running KERS (they called Seb on the radio and told him to use KERS urgently) they used the larger outlet, but then come Qualifying (if I remember FP3 also!) they used the smaller one.
The theory being that the larger outlet is required for KERS cooling.
Granted it could have been a coincidence and they were merely testing the large outlet in Australia, but it would sort of make sense that KERS would require additional cooling.
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?
I'm wondering if there is any information out there about the RB7 KERS wobbles? Do we believe their KERS problems are of a thermal nature? How does that match with Webber having a failure right from the start of the Malaysian GP and Vettel only having intermittent problems at best? Any ideas on that?
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Adrian Newey wrote: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90626
"The reality is that it is a system in its infancy," said Newey. "We are not a manufacturer team so we are having to develop KERS ourselves, which has not been our area of expertise in the past.
"We are also doing it on a limited resource, limited budget and with limited experience, so we are on a rapid learning curve. How long it takes us to get to the top of that learning curve remains to be seen."
When asked if the problems were such that they could take some time, Newey said: "The fact that we are still finding new problems implies that is the case."
Some of the problems that Red Bull Racing has suffered with its KERS have been related to the ultra-aggressive packaging that Newey has demanded for the RB7 – but he has insisted that the team has not been too on the edge with it.
"I don't think so," he said. "If the problems we had were all related to the packaging then the answer would be yes, but they are not."
Webber did not run KERS at all in the Malaysian GP, after suffering a problem with it prior to the start, while Vettel was told not to use his in the second half of the race.
"With Mark we had a problem off the line that meant he could not use it at all, during the race, including the start," said Newey. "He had a problem on the lap to the startline – it was a fresh problem, not a problem we have had before.
"With Seb – we had a problem that meant we could have continued to run it, but from a safety point of view we thought it best to turn it off and not take any risks."
Sounds similar to Williams who also develop their own KERS version from scratch.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
For Vettel, id assume that his troubles would be to do with overheating, in the battery, or possibly the circuit, hence why it was coming back after not being used for a while.. Webber could be another issue, maybe a totally fried circuit?
"I continuously go further and further learning about my own limitations, my body limitations, psychological limitations. It's a way of life for me." - Ayrton Senna
Based on what Newey is saying, Red Bull are, comparatively to others, at early 2009 levels of KERS development & experience.
He's basically admitting they are 2 years behind everyone else.
Which I think is odd. Here are the conflicting quotes:
Late March:Rob White, "The systems tested over the winter with Lotus Renault GP and Red Bull Racing are evolutions of the KERS raced in 2009 by the Renault F1 Team, and tested by Red Bull Racing. We provide a central point of contact for each team for the KERS system on the engine, but its integration into each car and its operation is the responsibility of the respective teams."
Early April: Newey,
"The reality is that it is a system in its infancy. We are not a manufacturer team so we are having to develop KERS ourselves, which has not been our area of expertise in the past. If the problems we had were all related to the packaging then the answer would be yes, but they are not."
Renault has supplied a working system, evolved from the working 2009 system, & Red Bull only need to package it within their own constraints. So what is Newey on about?
Is Red Bull trying to cloak their packaging issues behind 'development' fibs?
Any post(s) made by this user are (semi-)educated opinion(s), based on random fact(s) blurred by the smudges of time.
Any fact(s) claimed by this user will be supplemented by a link to the original source of said fact(s).
Fil wrote:Based on what Newey is saying, Red Bull are, comparatively to others, at early 2009 levels of KERS development & experience.
He's basically admitting they are 2 years behind everyone else.
Which I think is odd. Here are the conflicting quotes:
Late March:Rob White, "The systems tested over the winter with Lotus Renault GP and Red Bull Racing are evolutions of the KERS raced in 2009 by the Renault F1 Team, and tested by Red Bull Racing. We provide a central point of contact for each team for the KERS system on the engine, but its integration into each car and its operation is the responsibility of the respective teams."
Early April: Newey,
"The reality is that it is a system in its infancy. We are not a manufacturer team so we are having to develop KERS ourselves, which has not been our area of expertise in the past. If the problems we had were all related to the packaging then the answer would be yes, but they are not."
Renault has supplied a working system, evolved from the working 2009 system, & Red Bull only need to package it within their own constraints. So what is Newey on about?
Is Red Bull trying to cloak their packaging issues behind 'development' fibs?
I would venture to guess that they are trying to basically build their own system, while based on Renaults, that meets their standards and performance ideals. Obviously it hasn't gone well yet, except the fact that they have won both races. Pray for the other teams when they have it perfected in their package.
"The car is slow in the straights and doesn't work well in the corners." JV
im going to say Red Bull doesn't run KERS in China... i mean why would they if it fails then they have a huge chunk of weight in a area they wouldnt really want.... i know they add ballast and there is weight dispersion requirements but those can be moved to suit the car and track where as the KERS can not
