F1technical.net

andrew wrote:KERS should be ditched and forgotten about.

It is just pointless and adds nothing really. Just a Max Mosley mind-fart.

On the other hand, we want F1 to be at the forefront of technology, and don't want to end up with dinosaurs like those push rod engines used in Indy racing?

KERS and F-ducts together? Monza times will fall lol

andrew wrote:KERS should be ditched and forgotten about.

It is just pointless and adds nothing really. Just a Max Mosley mind-fart.

EFI engine must be droped
Cap should be back just like NASCAR

andrew wrote:KERS should be ditched and forgotten about.

It is just pointless and adds nothing really. Just a Max Mosley mind-fart.

Exactly like every single one of your posts on this Forum

ISLAMATRON wrote:

andrew wrote:KERS should be ditched and forgotten about.

It is just pointless and adds nothing really. Just a Max Mosley mind-fart.

Exactly like every single one of your posts on this Forum

Why? Care to explain yourself?

Is it beacuse I disagree with your opinion on KERS?

That was completely uncalled for.

I was under the impresion that this was a technical forum.
So if somebody has objections to the use of Kers perhaps they can give sensible technical reasons for their opinions and stop insulting Max Mosley.
Max has forgotten more about F1 technology than most people on this forum.
Insulting him simply shows a shallow mind set and drags this forum down to the level of other less palatable and puerile F1 sites.

KERS will not solve the problem of overtaking in F1. All it will do is increase costs along with fuel consumption and tyre wear due to the extra weight in the car.

I cannot see how it will improve F1 at all as it is the aero that is the main problem, not the acceleration. I'll admit it seemed like a good idea but it really isn't.

andrew wrote:KERS will not solve the problem of overtaking in F1. All it will do is increase costs along with fuel consumption and tyre wear due to the extra weight in the car.

I cannot see how it will improve F1 at all as it is the aero that is the main problem, not the acceleration. I'll admit it seemed like a good idea but it really isn't.

Kers was never suggested as a cure for the overtaking problems, that is an obvious result of increased wake turbulence caused by ever higher downforce.
It is no good saying "I'll admit it sounds like a good idea but it realy isn't" on a technical site like this, the statement means absolutely nothing and is just non qualified opinion.

I do not understand why F1 does not use this opportunity to create something spectacular ,along the lines of :
reduce the amount of fuel you are allowed to use to 150l and give unrestricted go for Energy recovery systems .
we would still have the sound and the speed but the development of energy recovery systems would blossom.
With the recource cap very soon the teams would have to decide just how much worth you get back with ongoing aerodevelopment instead of pullling out all stops with their kers units.

autogyro wrote:

andrew wrote:KERS will not solve the problem of overtaking in F1. All it will do is increase costs along with fuel consumption and tyre wear due to the extra weight in the car.

I cannot see how it will improve F1 at all as it is the aero that is the main problem, not the acceleration. I'll admit it seemed like a good idea but it really isn't.

Kers was never suggested as a cure for the overtaking problems, that is an obvious result of increased wake turbulence caused by ever higher downforce.
It is no good saying "I'll admit it sounds like a good idea but it realy isn't" on a technical site like this, the statement means absolutely nothing and is just non qualified opinion.

All opinions are valid and the point of a site like this is to exchange technical information and for us not so technically knowledgable users to learn if our thoughts are incorrect.

How on earth can 'all opinions be valid', an opinion is just an opinion not fact.
If you have no idea about a subject and want to learn more, then your post should be structured as a question.
Posting an opinion instead is attempting to mislead the reader and this is not a political thread.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83541?

AUTOSPORT understands that teams will be allowed free choice on which system they use - so they will not be forced to run a standard unit – while smaller teams are likely to be given the option of buying KERS from a manufacturer team or from independent supplier like Flybrid.

It sounds to me like they have avoided the worst case that KERS becomes a spec item.

My second concern is that KERS will remain a push to pass application restricted in power and energy and to the rear wheels. I want the all wheel KERS and a multi torque system under the control of the SECU.

As we have gone head to head on so many times before WB, to give KERS some intellectual value, you basically need to replace conventional brakes as far as possible. Energy will always be mass times speed squared over two, which means that a 700 kg object at 300 km/h holds 2400 kJ to xploit.

xpensive wrote:... you basically need to replace conventional brakes as far as possible. Energy will always be mass times speed squared over two, which means that a 700 kg object at 300 km/h holds 2400 kJ to xploit.

Which means you have to have AWKERS and multi torque in brake and acceleration mode to make it significant.

WhiteBlue wrote:

xpensive wrote:... you basically need to replace conventional brakes as far as possible. Energy will always be mass times speed squared over two, which means that a 700 kg object at 300 km/h holds 2400 kJ to xploit.

Which means you have to have AWKERS and multi torque in brake and acceleration mode to make it significant.

You have your days WB, I'll give you that.