Why is KERS restricted?

[dp35]

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?

Also, why isn't KERS allowed to re-fire a stalled engine? During the Speed TV broadcast of practice at Brazil, when Fisi stalled at the pit exit & ended his session - the announcers went on about how the car's should be fitted with starters - I was screaming at the TV how THAT CAR IS equipped with a starter. Just put it in neutral and press the KERS button. Except this is apparently not allowed. Why not?

[Giblet]

Actually a good question I have never seen addressed. The first half of the post has been discussed here, in full. A search of the forums will produce far more results than I.

I figure 80hp should be enough to start a motor

I'm wracking my brain trying to find a reason that technically it wouldn't work.

[autogyro]

Actually a good question I have never seen addressed. The first half of the post has been discussed here, in full. A search of the forums will produce far more results than I.

I figure 80hp should be enough to start a motor

I'm wracking my brain trying to find a reason that technically it wouldn't work.

Simple reason that I think applies to all systems at present in use.
The electric motors fitted on the geartrain between the engine and the rear axle would need the manual clutch engaged to be able to turn the engine, which in turn would need an extra cluch at the rear to diengage drive.
Any motor on the front of the crank would need a reduction gear very different from the Kers requirement ratio and this would not allow the available Kers power to turn the engine. Eh sorry, there is an alternative.

[ISLAMATRON]

plus the fact that rules dont allow KERS to engage at less than 100kph

[autogyro]

plus the fact that rules dont allow KERS to engage at less than 100kph

Can you point out the 2010 F1 regulation that states this?

[WhiteBlue]

It is difficult to prove but there have been long standing suspicions that KERS was castrated by Ferrari vetoing the technology. Following the FIA/GPMA peace deal between Göschl and Mosley in 2006 KERS was urgently pursued by the big automotive teams like Merc, BMW and to a lesser extend Renault. Ferrari had much to loose because unlimited KERS could shift the power balance against them and they certainly could not afford to invest almost unlimited resources into it like the huge automotive parent companies could. But these things are kept secret and unless someone talks in his book about it it will remain speculation.

[dp35]

Simple reason that I think applies to all systems at present in use.
The electric motors fitted on the geartrain between the engine and the rear axle would need the manual clutch engaged to be able to turn the engine, which in turn would need an extra cluch at the rear to diengage drive.
Any motor on the front of the crank would need a reduction gear very different from the Kers requirement ratio and this would not allow the available Kers power to turn the engine. Eh sorry, there is an alternative.

Not sure what you're conclusion is, but if its that it's too difficult, I don't believe that.

plus the fact that rules dont allow KERS to engage at less than 100kph

Good point, I forgot about that. This is another rule that has no purpose IMO. Why not allow KERS under 100 kph?

[fenix4life]

plus the fact that rules dont allow KERS to engage at less than 100kph

I presume even if you would be able to engae it would be pretty usefull as the wheelspin would be to great.
It would maybe be used a a kind of traction control tool

[joseff]

Slightly OT: Even though KERS is not utilized next year, it's still written in the regulations, right?

Here's my take: What about the front wheel motors? Is it still possible to mount them and create an electric 4WD system? Without the 400kJ battery, you still have the 30kJ energy recovery allowed @2kW (CMIIW), just about enough for buffering power to the front wheel. With modern Tilkedromes emphasizing low-speed corners, a 4wd system might come in handy.

What do you guys think? Same old 60kW motor/generator at the back, 30kW motors at each front wheel. Coming out of a hairpin, that could mean up to 20% torque to the front. There's the 100km/h rule to overcome, but you could argue that it's not "recovered" energy that's being used to drive the front wheels.

[Ciro Pabón]

It's not only the low speed curves: Yas Marina has a 1.250 m long straight. KERS works very well there.

[joseff]

Yeah, but I'm just wondering out loud: What if you don't have the 400kJ battery but take advantage of the front wheel electric drive permitted in 2010...

[kreuzberg]

I though the 4wd rule died a while ago when the teams didnt agree to the budget cap?

[joseff]

Perhaps... I haven't gone through the 2010 regs yet.

[Richard]

plus the fact that rules dont allow KERS to engage at less than 100kph

Good point, I forgot about that. This is another rule that has no purpose IMO. Why not allow KERS under 100 kph?

Where does that come from? I've had a look through the tech regs and couldn't find any mention of it.

[xxChrisxx]

Perhaps... I haven't gone through the 2010 regs yet.

I don't see anything expressly allowing electric 4wd. However I don't see anything disallowing outright.

9.1 Transmission types :
No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven.

Is about the closes thing to 4wd being made illegal but you could argue that it isn't going through a transmission system.


The only problem with a front wheel motor is that they must be independent. Outboard motors increase the unsprund weight massively. An inboard system with driveshafts could fall foul of other regualtions or torque transfer between the front rotation axes. Although that rule was written to ban stuff like those passive diffs that BAR ran.

9.8 Torque transfer systems :
9.8.1 Any system or device the design of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a slower to a
faster rotating wheel is not permitted.
9.8.2 Any device which is capable of transferring torque between the principal axes of rotation of the two front

wheels is prohibited.