Dude, are you sure? Just post a photo with the battery partialy depleted please, because I saw the race again and couldn`t find it!shadowkhas wrote:They showed onboard of Vettel's car with the KERS graphic after he was told not to use it. There was a sliver of it used up.
Yes good point, but the commentators pointed out later in the race that vettel was using small amounts of KERS on the back section of track even after being informed not tooSayshina wrote:There are several reasons to do this. Just off the top of my head it could be:pearsey13 wrote:I really don't know how Vettel's KERS system worked at malaysia but Webbers didn't. It seems a bit strange.. and even though Vettel's was working, he was told by is team not to use it for the majority of the race which i dont see the point in if they are carryig all that extra weight.
1: Mechanical failure, causing a performance degradation. Wouldn't want that to happen to the leading car.
2: Electrical connection or wire short failure: Could easily cause a fire, throwing away points.
3: Whatever failure they've been trying to track down has been destroying the evidence when it lets go. In this case you stop using it as soon as the first sign of trouble shows hoping you can find some evidence.
Case 3 used to be very common with engines, particularly with oiling problems. If you were out of the points anyway you'd pull the cars in before they blew.
If it were case 2 and I were running the team, I'd be tempted to bring Vettel in for a cautionary stop, even if it meant giving away 1st.
On the other hand, if they really did separate Webbers car from the others that pretty much screams electrical problem, so....
You can't say RB are 2 years behind. I doubt anybody seriously put development time/money into kers last year. You need to remember that DURING last year kers was dead, and seemed very unlikely to return. Also, it is the nature of engineering that once somebody else has found a solution to a problem, even without any knowledge of how they solved it, you can solve said problem in much less time. RB are, worst case, 3 months behind.
When F1 switched from V-10's to V-8's several teams had problems with components that had been well established and reliable for years. Some of the old timers chuckled and commented that the young guys were going to have to learn how to live with a V-8. The current cars are extraordinarily hard on parts, particularly electrical connections and wires. It's been said more than once that if a wire on a current F1 car can move at all that it WILL wear through the insulation during a race.
Renault may be 3rd in kers development, but they still abandoned it for a big chunk of '09 and can be assumed to be well behind the big 2. I wouldn't be surprised of they were behind Mercedes as well.
If we assume for the moment that the RB representatives are being honest, all of their kers problems to date make perfect sense. They all apear to be teething troubles with a new system, complicated by the teams decision to push the packaging limits and complicated further by massive restrictions on testing.
There's no reason to go chasing conspiracy theories when you can find a perfectly rational explanation from given statements. The only thing I'd add to those statements is a sentiment that's been put forward by several others here, which is that kers still seems to be very much a marginal tech. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they pull it off for the next couple of races. A malfunctioning kers could easily put you out of a race, whereas running without kers may not have any negative effects at all, and at worst will drop you 1 spot at the start.
They are well funded, but they are NOT manufacturer supported. Mercedes would certainly have had some involvement with the McClaren kers, and has certainly been looking at hybrids for years. This will give them a huge advantage over Red Bull, in terms of direct data and contacts within the industry. You should never underestimate how important those contacts are to solving inevitable problems quickly when they crop up. We think of F1 teams as big deals, and I would in fact expect the average battery or connector company to jump at the chance to work with them. But when Mercedes is on line 3....you run to the nearest phone.CHT wrote:I am not sure if I am the only one here who is mystified by how a team like RBR could end up in such a bad situation with their KERS system. Especially if you consider RBR is such a very well funded F1 team who have won both championships in 2010.....
One explanation which I have is that RBR might be trying to deceive everyone that they are having KERS problem on their RB7 in order to make the championship look closer.....
Just a conspiracy theory..
For the second part, I've heard competing rumors regarding the tech. sharing agreement between Force India and McClaren, some saying it's winding down and some saying they're still getting significant help. I'd be surprised if Sauber or Williams had made significant investments, as it really does seem to still be a marginal tech. It's not enough to add time to your car, it has to add more time relative to whatever else you could have spent that money on. And by all accounts, the cost of kers is very very high.marcush. wrote:I don´t think RedBull will be able to have KERS working as well as Mclaren this year and even 2012 ...
...does Force India already use KERS? Sauber? who is doing this for them ..do they just carry over from Mclaren /Ferrari ?
bigforty-two wrote:I hate to nitpick sayshina, but it's "McLaren" not "McClaren".
I really don't like to be pedantic (ok, that's a bit of a fib) but that one really makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!</Rant>
Did anyone notice if Red Bull were using the large or small hot air outlet on their engine cover in FP1 and 2?
The car goes in to parc ferme between qualifying and the race and the teams can't change anything (unless they get the stewards permission and that's given for safety or reliability issues only) so they can't move parts around. The tank must also be a single volume within defined boundaries (defined in the rules) and the fuel must all be held in the tank except for the little bit in the pipes etc running to the engine. Remember the BAR Honda penalty from a few years ago where they had a clever tank system apparently to get around the weight rules.lemon5009 wrote:4.2 Weight distribution :
For 2011 only, the weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively at all times during the qualifying practice session.
Does this means the car can have any weight distribution it likes during the race?
If KERS-light is possible (dummy parts etc.) car+driver must maintain a minimum weight of 640kg.
Can the extra fuel inside the tank (and its location) by design be used as moveable ballast and still comply with practice and qualifying regulations ?
Because they have concentrated all of their car design/development on the aerodynamics of the car. They have worked to produce a high downforce car and the packaging of the internals has been carried out to support that single goal.CHT wrote:I am not sure if I am the only one here who is mystified by how a team like RBR could end up in such a bad situation with their KERS system.
No conspiracy theory needed - just the acceptance that RBR and Newey have taken a number of design decisions that may now be making life difficult for them.Just a conspiracy theory..
