Do teams have a chance without KERS in 09?

[G-Rock]

In the long run a team has to invest in KERS in order to be competitive after 2009.
There has to be some mechanism in place to reward the teams that stuck their necks out though It wouldn't be fair if say, TR won the 09 championship because they chose not to run KERS and devote resources elsewhere (reliability for example) and then for 2010, just buy a Ferrari or Mclaren KERS system and benefit from their 09. development and sacrifice.

As for what tracks will benefit most from KERS? I would say the high speed tracks would benefit most since a burst of 80 hp won't upset the balance on a straight like it would in a tight corner.

[WhiteBlue]

Our position in the discussions has been that KERS is important for Formula One because it will put F1 into the role of a new technology pioneer. Obviously, we think KERS is important to BMW because we have put a lot of effort on it.

We agreed that the cost of KERS was quite significant, but the real thing is that when we discussed it a month ago the money had been spent already on development, so it would be the worst thing to spend money on something you don't use.

Even if you delay the introduction, no development project has become cheaper by delaying the introduction. In effect, all the teams would have developed KERS for another year before making use of it and that, in our view, doesn't make sense.

There isn't really much more to say. All teams have agreed to a 12 months of veto period prior to the introduction of changes to new technology. BMW are only exercising their veto as Ferrari, McLaren and Renault have done in the past. The attacs by Flavio are simply motivated by his own failure to have competitive KERS in time. If he had the better system he would talk different.

[DaveKillens]

I totally agree WhiteBlue. Now that pre-season testing is upon us, some teams have discovered that they are not on schedule for the KERS system. So now the politics come into play, and team principals such as Flavio and Monty have come out, saying that KERS is a mistake. Of course, it's a mistake.. for their teams because they are behind the rest in development. Right now, it's relatively simple to observe who is lagging in KERS development because they are making efforts to put a stop to the application of KERS in the '09 season.

[ISLAMATRON]

Hmmm, I think it is too hard to speculate, since KERS is really quite open in how and of what it is made.
An electric motor type KERS would be extremely useful in acceleration due to the amazing torque at 0rpm electric motors give. However my biggest counter efficiency in terms of KERS is, if it adds too much weight, you are burning the fuel and loosing lap time to carry it. So who has it, will possibly be slightly slower before using the charged energy. It is going to be awkward.

Quite possibly, KERS will be useful at some tracks more then others. I doubt to see it on tracks with very long flat out bends and straights.

KERS does not add any weight, it only takes up weight that was formally ballast, the car will exactly the same as last year, but now some of the dead weight from last year gives an 80 hp boost for 6+ seconds. KERS does shift the CG slightly higher, thus efecting the cornering. It will not effect fuel econmy.

[ISLAMATRON]

If Flavio, Luca and Sam Michael and are correct, that some teams are investing 50 MUSD in KERS to gain two or three tenths per lap, I think the money could be wiser spent by the teams without an open checkbook.

Its mostly Ferrari's fault... if the main teams against KERS would have allowed it to be introduced unregulated it could have been a much greater impact and performance differentiator for about the same money. Flav and Luca are the ones who castrated KERS and now they complain it costs too much for the small effect it brings. I didnt see Luca complaining about spending 50 mil to improve his engine 25HP last year even though the rules said engine freeze. All this anti KERS is just politricks by the old school idiots who dont understand the tech. Reminds me of when Ferrari couldnt handle the turbo engines.

all this talk about a standerd KERS in 2010 is assinine.

[allan]

Yeah sure, what do Ferrari and Renault know about technology??
those idiots ur talking about mr. smarty are complaining because KERS is simply useless in the real world! why would u spend 50 mil on something that gives u a couple of tenths a lap, and you can't even use it in your road cars? The other 50 mil you claim ferrari have spent on their engines last year can actually make their way to their road cars... the new gearbox in the f430 scuderia and the california can shift gears faster than any f1 car in the 90s or even early 2000s...but again, what do they know about technology implementation? i guess ferrari and renault are lacking the genius thinking of clueless fans

[wesley123]

Yeah sure, what do Ferrari and Renault know about technology??
those idiots ur talking about mr. smarty are complaining because KERS is simply useless in the real world! why would u spend 50 mil on something that gives u a couple of tenths a lap, and you can't even use it in your road cars? The other 50 mil you claim ferrari have spent on their engines last year can actually make their way to their road cars... the new gearbox in the f430 scuderia and the california can shift gears faster than any f1 car in the 90s or even early 2000s...but again, what do they know about technology implementation? i guess ferrari and renault are lacking the genius thinking of clueless fans

no, kers cant be used(it isnt usefull) on roadcars, but you can implement it on another way, like using the electric engine when the car is stationary.

The KERS wont have a big advantage, especially on low speed tracks like monaco, there it will be bettr without KERS, but for Monza KERs is really usefull, high top speeds, the teams without kers there dont have a chance.

[G-Rock]

Why can't KERS be useful on road cars Wesley? I think the integration of energy recovery systems and the honing of this technology in F1 can be very useful. It's being used right now in buses and GM has a heavy duty pickup truck with this system in place right now not to mention Honda and Toyota.
This systems can be made lighter, more efficient and F1 is the perfect test bed.

[wesley123]

Why can't KERS be useful on road cars Wesley? I think the integration of energy recovery systems and the honing of this technology in F1 can be very useful. It's being used right now in buses and GM has a heavy duty pickup truck with this system in place right now not to mention Honda and Toyota.
This systems can be made lighter, more efficient and F1 is the perfect test bed.

Where do those cars need the extra power? so in that way it is useless.

The energy can be used for other things, as i mentioned, like driving stationary or low speeds.

[allan]

using hydrogen cells is much more effecient and beneficial....
renault were the first to start experimenting with these kinda systems from the early 80s (were engines where turned off when the car comes to a complete stop, then started again when the gas pedal is pressed), and new Japanese hybrid cars already use electric cells/motors up to 40-60 km, but the point is KERS benefits are not worth the vast amount of money that was spent on it this year... say each of the top teams spent 50 mills, you have ferrari, mclaren, bmw, toyota,renault, williams, and "Honda" each developing their own system, thats 300-350 mils being spent on .3 second a lap! isnt that the budget needed to run an additional f1 team? and who was talking about cutting costs?

[donskar]

KERS is not an integral system in that it does not need to be fully operational in order for the car to run. If you bump start your car you can still drive the car even though your starter is busted, same with your battery or your stereo. KERS is regulated to be used for only about 6 seconds a lap... the rest of the time the car must still run and the KERS is dead weight collecting electric charge. If you are expecting explosions from the battery pack or something like that dont hold your breath.

No, Islamatron, I am not

expecting explosions from the battery pack or something like that

. I am expecting an incredibly complex and finely tuned instrument to get more complex through the addition of a new system of unproven reliability.

Comparing an F1 car to a "busted starter" or a "stereo battery" is not worth discussing.

[NDR008]

Actually, I work for the company partly responsible for Toyota's hybrid technology and most of this modern type stop starts, and other auto-technology (as well as some F1 parts), and all the related engineers tell me the same thing - not one thing can ever be carried over, be it:
concept
software/ECU strategy controlling it
material
life-design

nothing

So when teams say it is useless for road cars - they are 100% true.

As for - should we care? Another story, I like the idea of F1 technology setting the way for road cars, but nothing about an F1 car really contributes to road cars anymore. F1 car - standard ECU - road cars, ECU's are just becoming silly.

Engine technology - frozen, you look at a modern BMW engine, the materials, design, etc (and I mean in the real detail, machining process, everything - cutting edge stuff).

Strategy - how to inject fuel, burn it, measure it - again cutting edge.


So in my opinion, F1 is only expensive because of the high tolerances to which things are made and because they are single manufactured units (even though, making something in limited volume makes certain devices possible - which might be impossible to mass-produce).

When you have something like F1 - restrictive rules, to me mean, more money is spent on smaller gains. Example - instead of investing in making the engine better - spending the same money in trying to cut transmission losses, alternator losses, etc. Teams will still want to win as badly and aim to throw more or less the same cash at it.

That is my view, and I am pretty confident of it.

[ISLAMATRON]

using hydrogen cells is much more effecient and beneficial....
renault were the first to start experimenting with these kinda systems from the early 80s (were engines where turned off when the car comes to a complete stop, then started again when the gas pedal is pressed), and new Japanese hybrid cars already use electric cells/motors up to 40-60 km, but the point is KERS benefits are not worth the vast amount of money that was spent on it this year... say each of the top teams spent 50 mills, you have ferrari, mclaren, bmw, toyota,renault, williams, and "Honda" each developing their own system, thats 300-350 mils being spent on .3 second a lap! isnt that the budget needed to run an additional f1 team? and who was talking about cutting costs?

Each team has spent 10 times that amount developing their own engines and gearboxes but yet Ferrari is the team most opposed to standard powertrains... very hypocritical. Just because Ferrari does not have to think about gas milage or C.A.F.E. doesnt mean that all the other car manufacturers in F1 dont.

KERS is already in use in many different automotive applications as well as trains and even buses. The fact that F1 has higher speeds do not mean the KERS technology is not relevent. momentum is momentum, whether is comes from speed or mass... road cars may not travel as fast as F1 machines but they are much heavier so yes they would all beneifit from KERS. Basically all the teams are using a battery & an electric motor/generator, yes they may be controlled differently but the concept is the same. Tell me in what way is F1 aero related to road cars? or their engines? or gearboxes? KERS may in fact be most related to road cars in that the electric motor/generator is only about 80hp, something a small car may use.

Areo, engines & gearboxes have all seperatly cost more than KERS... where is the outrage towards those.

And no hydrogen cells are not more efficient because KERS is recovering energy that has already been spent(the fuel). Free energy, in a semse.

[ISLAMATRON]

No, Islamatron, I am not

expecting explosions from the battery pack or something like that

. I am expecting an incredibly complex and finely tuned instrument to get more complex through the addition of a new system of unproven reliability.

Comparing an F1 car to a "busted starter" or a "stereo battery" is not worth discussing.[/quote]

What the hell is a stereo battery? I didnt compare an f1 car to any of those, I said a broken KERS sytem on an f1 car would be like your road car with a bad battery or a busted radio, both cars would still be driveable.