Why is KERS restricted?

[autogyro]

And Islamatron, the F1 regulations for Kers state 'under braking', they do not specify what kind of braking. Front wheel brakes, rear wheel brakes, engine braking, gearbox braking, aerodynamic braking? Take your choice.

Quote the rules autogyro ..... or stop throwing out chaff, its tiresome.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0CLEAN.pdf

Read the definition yourself and 'do not' call me tiresome simply because you are to bone idle to research an issue before posting criticism on it.
Islamatron should do the same.

[autogyro]

Such comments further strengthen my opinion, that F1 has lost the innovation of people like Chapman, Gardener and others and is simply a sterile computer motivated shadow of it's former self.
Rules, Peeerleeease.

[xpensive]

Perhaps it's wise to go back to the initial Q of this thread, before things goes completely out of hand?

I realize its a bit late to debate KERS, since the teams have a "gentlmen's agreement" not to use it in 2010 (unless we want to debate whehter that really means none of them will use it).

I don't understand why KERS is limited to 60 kW and 6.6 seconds per lap. Seems like they should be allowed to use all the energy they can capture. That way a more efficient system would be rewarded, and isn't that the development goal?

I think the answer is something like the following; When this was unchartered territory, without restrictions it seemed likely that a team could, and some probably would, spend a gazillion EUR on it, which at a time of budget limitation wouldn't synch.

[autogyro]

You did not hint at the Fota teams when you said 'gentlemens agreement' did you?
Contradiction in terms that has proven.
Concorde? Oh yea.

[gcdugas]

As I read the title of this thread "Why is KERS Restricted?".... I see it as a philosophical question such as.... Why? Not: What is the technical thinking behind...? Because it was never specified as an electrical system therefore battery technology, charge rates etc. have no bearing upon the reason for the energy limitation/lap rule. Remember Williams is still developing a flywheel/gyro system which has none of limitations from battery technology but it does have other limitations such as a clutch system etc.

So back to the philosophical "WHY?" question. Why not place no limits? Why not let energy be captured from all 4 wheels if the engineers decide that the advantages out-weigh the disadvantages etc. Let them decide based upon purely mechanical or electrical reasons rather than some artifice dictated in the rules arbitrarily? If F1 is to be a "proving ground" and a "seed bed" of new technologies, then why put all these constraints upon the engineers. Just say that BMW could make a 650 Kg AWD car lap quicker that a 2WD 605 Kg car which used twice the fuel... well then I would say that F1 would then be regarded as a technical series and give us all something to boast about rather than wasting countless hours chasing 0.04% aero gains in the wind tunnel. And the real world road car application is immediately transferable to road cars and it is "green" because of the extra efficiency gained by the energy reclamation with better fuel mileage. And then say they couldn't... let the real world "laboratory" of F1 determine the direction development goes in rather than some arbitrary limitation imposed by the rules. Let the Williams design be pursued to the fullest. If the flywheel system can capture and store energy quicker and with more capacity than electrical based systems, then why should their superior design by strangled by the rules of "output/lap"? What if battery technology takes a great leap like this? Clicky What if suddenly all the energy of the brakes could be reclaimed? Should we still have such a rule?

The presence of such a output/lap limitation rule can only limit the desirability of an honest-to-God regenerative system that would benefit mankind. "City" mileage would approach that of "Highway" mileage for road cars. That alone could reduce the fuel usage of cars on the order of 20%. (I arrive at this figure because an average car traveling on "highways" almost never use the brakes and may get 32MPG while the same car typically may get 23MPG "city" when the brakes are used frequently. That leaves 9MPG available for "capture". If you can get even 66% of that number you still gain 6MPG which is near 20% of the effective 29MPG [23+6]. Or if you prefer, it could raise the power/acceleration gained per unit of fuel a similar amount.

Another side benefit of going in this direction has to do with the Williams approach. What if they were able to develop a "electronic clutch" wherein the engine shaft is electrically "gripped" by a "stator sleeve" in a true CVT fashion and all they had to do to alter the "drive ratio" from the flywheel to the engine output shaft was make some electronic "rheostat" type variable that the KERS ECU could adjust at 1000 times/sec. Such a clutch could theoretically be capable of astronomically high RPM and the "flywheel storage unit" could approach several hundred thousand RPM. Such a "clutch" would also have applications in the rest of the drivetrain replacing the gearbox as we know it. Should such technologies be banned from even being pursued even though they hold great promise for benefiting mankind and impacting every road car built?

So the philosophical "Why?" question remains unaddressed by members of this forum even though that is the title of this thread. Don't get mired in the details of each system's viability and limitations under the present rules. Ask what system would best be used assuming no limits other than those imposed by nature rather than some artificially imposed rule by man.

[machin]

Brilliant post =D>

[ISLAMATRON]

You want the answer to why? here is is.... KERS is restricted because if it wasnt the cars would be too fast for the current tracks and secondly KERS is restricted to where it was for this season because that was the level that Ferrari agreed to allow without using their veto.

There are your answers to why.

BTW the williams flywheel system does not use or need a clutch, the flywheel is connected to the MGU electrically not mechanically. Much more efficient like that.

[ISLAMATRON]

dp

[Richard]

And Islamatron, the F1 regulations for Kers state 'under braking', they do not specify what kind of braking. Front wheel brakes, rear wheel brakes, engine braking, gearbox braking, aerodynamic braking? Take your choice.

Quote the rules autogyro ..... or stop throwing out chaff, its tiresome.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0CLEAN.pdf

Read the definition yourself and 'do not' call me tiresome simply because you are to bone idle to research an issue before posting criticism on it.
Islamatron should do the same.

I already have a copy of the rules on my laptop. I was asking that when you make comments about what the rules say, it would be helpful if you quoted the rule in the post ...

Article 11 defines the brake system, no mention of engine or gearbox as part of the braking system. More explicitly 11.1.1 says the front and rear brakes work off the same pedal (but different circuits) so that excludes your front/rear suggestion.

[xxChrisxx]

...and 'do not' call me tiresome

You ARE tiresome though.

Now on topic:

KERS is restricted for no good technical reason as far as I can see. It's just so that the FIA have something to govern about it.

[Richard]

KERS is restricted for no good technical reason as far as I can see. It's just so that the FIA have something to govern about it.

Agreed

[gcdugas]

Now on topic:

KERS is restricted for no good technical reason as far as I can see. It's just so that the FIA have something to govern about it.

Finally an honest answer. And what a sad statement about the sport we love.

[xpensive]

However mindboggling it might be for us tech-geeks, I still believe you guys forget about the financial part, when an unrestricted scenario would most likely benefit the Grandees and leave the Garagistes helpless.

[Fil]

However mindboggling it might be for us tech-geeks, I still believe you guys forget about the financial part, when an unrestricted scenario would most likely benefit the Grandees and leave the Garagistes helpless.

In development maybe. Aside from Williams, all contracted engine packages in 2009 had KERS bundled in with the contracts.

Thru the severe restrictions imposed on KERS, innovation was limited to refinement by the time the season began..

Bang for buck, innovation surely is a better rewarding spend than refinement.

[Giblet]

Now on topic:

KERS is restricted for no good technical reason as far as I can see. It's just so that the FIA have something to govern about it.

Finally an honest answer. And what a sad statement about the sport we love.

If KERS was unrestricted, the teams with unrestricted bank accounts would spend unrestricted amounts on unrestricted gains, and the teams that could't afford to do so, might as well hang up their coveralls and quit.

I think that HP number that were imposed were correct for the first year. My reasoning is that at the beginning, KERS was an unknown, and it took the might of Ferrari and Mclaren to show how it could be done, and show that it was advantageous to have on many tracks.

I think, maybe wrongly, that if was not restricted, that teams would produce massive units with huge amounts of power, and then have to play the refining game next seasons anyways.

The problem was KERS needed to be introduced as an official 3 year plan.

First year, 80HP allowed, just like now. Next season, allow to double, then double once more the following year.

This way, teams could plan it out better, and budget it better. That would spread the R&D costs across the term, and the refinement dollars would be less each year as the system doubling in power is more of a design shift than a refinement is.

Life cycle needs to be included as well. A life of batteries lasting say 6 races or something similar to the engine might have made sense.

Brilliant idea, horribly implemented.