Why is KERS restricted?

[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.

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.

I don't know were you got your information, but Renault, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW and Ferrari each reported to have spent at least a 50 MEUR on the development of a very limited crank-driven KERS, which was only ran by the factory-teams anyway.
The battery cost alone were said to be around 100 kUSD per car and race. Toyota didn't even get their system to work properly, why one can only imagine the cost of individually developing a full-blown four-wheel system with ten times the capacity.

The question is somewhat academic however, since the manufacturers are leaving anyway and nobody else could afford it.

[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.

I don't know were you got your information, but Renault, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW and Ferrari each reported to have spent at least a 50 MEUR on the development of a very limited crank-driven KERS, which was only ran by the factory-teams anyway.
The battery cost alone were said to be around 100 kUSD per car and race. Toyota didn't even get their system to work properly, why one can only imagine the cost of individually developing a full-blown four-wheel system with ten times the capacity.

The question is somewhat academic however, since the manufacturers are leaving anyway and nobody else could afford it.

i agree, and you're numbers & facts are overwhelmingly accepted.
it is the cost of development that caused severe KERS restrictions. i'm just saying if the rewards were greater, thru more (not absolute) technical freedom, it would've had a greater chance of success.

Grow 1 tomato, or grow 6 tomatoes..
Both need dirt & water, just varying amounts. You get 6x more tomatoes, but not 6x more dirt & water.
If you fail the 1st time, you may not keep trying for 1 tomato, but for 6, its worth it, and you've already got most of the dirt & water you need.. greater incentive!


The manufacturers may be leaving, but KERS is returning in '11.. MTS & Saft are front-runners as suppliers. Wonder what the specs will be.. KERS v.2 will show what the FIA learnt 1st time round.

[xpensive]

I don't think 400 kJ was chosen arbitrarily, when you only have 15-20 seconds of braking-time to play with, a 60 kW MGU can not recover more than 900 - 1200 kJ per lap even in theory.
With aggregated efficiencies in and out, imagine a 2-3 sec burst of 60 kW charge, 400 kJ might actually be pretty reasonable.

A 120 kW MGU should in theory double recovery, but then we are getting into a considerable part of rear-braking power.

[Fil]

again, yup, i agree with you.
and there-in lies the challenge that could have been posed to the teams!
rather than go for what is achievable, let the rules go beyond what is thought to be realistically possible and into what is compromisable.. i bet we'd be surprised what would happen!

so tell me xpensive, what do you think will happen with KERS' reintroduction in 2011? what do you think the rules for it should have been, and should be in 2011?

[xpensive]

I think they will go back to the original intention from the manufacturers, a standardized system with the teams just doing the programming, which was only opposed by two German competitors which were both eager to beat the other.

But probably with a lttle more capacity, say 600 - 800 kJ discharge per lap. 60 kW for two times 5-6 sec would be reasonable?

[Fil]

actually, with new engine regs around the corner, i wouldn't be surprised if they change nothing at all, apart from standardising it.

plus, with the front tyre issue out the way & increased weight, weight distribution penalties won't be magnified as much as they were in 09.

it would be good to see the boost be stronger tho, not necessarily for longer.. better still, leave this up to the drivers and limit capacity to 800kj.

..pressure-sensitive KERS Trigger anybody?

[autogyro]

A standard Kers system would be a further nail in the F1 coffin.
It would show the manufacturers ability to prevent on going development in an essential area of future vehicle technology for their own financial reason.
Completely unacceptable.

[xxChrisxx]

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 don't know why people keep saying this becuase it's a rubbish argument.

F1 teams have a budget, they will spend said budget on something. Some tems have enormous budgets (McL with like 300million), some don't (FI with whatever pittance they have), that is the way of life.

This unlimited spending = unlimited gains is bullshit though. It's not a linear correlation, development has dimishing returns.

So the first 10 million spent may give you a second, the next 10 million may give you .25 second, the next 10 mil may only give you a few hundredths.

Freeing up the regulations allows teams to spend less for more gain.

In the currant climate everyone is already at 99% develpoment in everything, so are spending huge amounts of money on such small gains.

If you freed up several areas of develpoment, you could spend less and get more overall performance. As after reaching the 99%, it then pays you to develop another area, as opposed to continuing to blow money on gains that noone sees.

If they can do double next year, you can gaurantee they could do double now.


The only problem iwth technical freedom is precisely that, you get cars that go tremndously fast.

[Richard]

A standard Kers system would be a further nail in the F1 coffin.

Agreed. I can imagine it would be possible to have a FOTA agreement to supply customer teams on a cheap rate, like Brawn/Merc this year. That would lead to 3 KERS on the grid (Merc, Fer, Williams) plus a possible external supplier?

[autogyro]

I completely agree Chris
However, the FIA was hoping that industry outside F1 would take up Kers development and associated hybrid, without using the limited F1 budgets.
Williams did achieve this connection to a limited degree but Fota then forced things to slow right down.

[WhiteBlue]

....so tell me xpensive, what do you think will happen with KERS' reintroduction in 2011? what do you think the rules for it should have been, and should be in 2011?

First of all I don't think that KERS will come back in 2011. It will probably come back with a new propulsion formula that includes KERS and the engine. Due to the recent developments we can pretty much exclude that the money for a new propulsion formula will be found in the next two years.

We have Merc, Ferrari Renault and Cosworth who will have to get into that debate and sort it out prior to a go ahead for a new formula. It is questionable that Renault will be of much use with their reluctance to confirm their 2010 and 2011 participation.

Cosworth could be a complicating factor but I also see opportunities particularly in a tie up with Williams who own a proprietory KERS system and have shown considerable influence on F1/FIA politics.

So the political side will be devilishly difficult and financially it will not be viable for some time.

Ideally I would like to see an AWKERS system without any limitations and free of push button technology. On top HERS systems should also be allowed without restrictions. Engines should be limited by power output and longevity only and no other technical restrictions. Homologating engines and mandatory supply contracts at fixed maximum price levels should insure that all teams have access to competitive engines. Development cost beyond basics should not be recoverable by customer engine sales.

[xpensive]

Regardless of people's opinion on this forum, if the FIA's ambition is to limit spending to allow for the independent teams to compete, free KERS development is a contradiction in terms, exponential cost - value relation or not.

[xxChrisxx]

Regardless of people's opinion on this forum, if the FIA's ambition is to limit spending to allow for the independent teams to compete, free KERS development is a contradiction in terms, exponential cost - value relation or not.

Unless you set a hard cost cap, those with money WILL spend it. Those without will have to make do.

It's been that way since the very birth of racing. It will be that way until the end of time.

[xpensive]

Regardless of people's opinion on this forum, if the FIA's ambition is to limit spending to allow for the independent teams to compete, free KERS development is a contradiction in terms, exponential cost - value relation or not.

Unless you set a hard cost cap, those with money WILL spend it. Those without will have to make do.
It's been that way since the very birth of racing. It will be that way until the end of time.

So if I read you correctly, all those cost-cutting measures, either by FIA of FOTA, has been futile? Until the end of time?

[machin]

what do you think will happen with KERS' reintroduction in 2011? what do you think the rules for it should have been, and should be in 2011?

Can I answer this?

For me the only thing I don't like about the current rules is the 400kJ per lap rule... the reason is that it means the cars are carrying around equipment which they can't use to a 100% of its capbility, and this means money outlayed for no gain;

We know that the McLaren system, according to Hamilton, could recover 640kJ per lap without the 400kJ restriction and WITHOUT SPENDING ANY MORE MONEY ON THE SYSTEM, so we know the 60kW and 400 kJ rules are obviously incompatible and actually make the system LESS cost effective (performance gain per pound spent). My suggestion would either be:-

1, Limit only the MGU. 60kW seems fair, but without the 400kJ per lap rule the system would be freed up so car isn't carrying around redundant equipment for some of the lap; it would recover as much as 60kW and whatever "braking duration" was available and then use it all up in the lap without restriction. That way all the technology onboard is used to its maximum and the team's aren't paying for capability that they then can't use....

or

2, Limit only the storage capacity. If for example the storage at any point on the track could only be 400kJ maximum then the team's would be freed up to determine what MGU to use for the best gains... e.g you'd want to recover as much as possible in each braking zone and then discharge it all again afterwards, allowing you to do the same at the next corner... In this respect 400kJ probably seems a bit high... but we've debated that enough on here already for me to get into it again!