Will anyone bother with KERS ?

[Marbot]

How the cars work on slick tyres will have a big impact on the effect KERS will have on car performance.Toyota have already said that they won't be starting the season with KERS.Will there be any more?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72024

[courageous]

I think it is great that the teams have a technological choice in 09 - like a tyre war or in the good old days of V8 vs V10 vs V12 engines.

I wonder if anyone will go down the road of designing their car so they can run KERS for one circuit and take it out for the next where a heavy car would be a big penalty (I don't know if this would be feasible or even worth it - answers on a postcard...)

[Satorian]

Wouldn't be surprised if all but BMW started the season without KERS. BMW seem like the only ones hell-bent on introducing KERS this season. Toyota has been the second biggest KERS-proponent -- of the system itself even though not its current specification and implementation -- and they jumped ship it seems.

Going to be interesting.

[zac510]

Currently the only disadvantage is the weight of the KERS which I believe is upto around 60kg, depending. The extra power is always welcome and the extra front grip will have to be balanced anyway.

In 6mths time the team that is developing KERS that can get that weight down to 50kg or maybe even less as they hone the system will see more of the benefits and less of the disadvantages.

Which team would want to get caught snoozing and be stuck with a heavy KERS? (or maybe they'll just whine like Renault this year and get a rule change)

[RaiseYourFist]

If the teams wont bother with it they will after they see the BMW's blitz past them on the starts....

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RaiseYourFist

If the teams wont bother with it they will after they see the BMW's blitz past them on the starts....

....and then watch it oversteer into the kitty litter at the first corner.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by zac510

Currently the only disadvantage is the weight of the KERS which I believe is upto around 60kg, depending. The extra power is always welcome and the extra front grip will have to be balanced anyway.

In 6mths time the team that is developing KERS that can get that weight down to 50kg or maybe even less as they hone the system will see more of the benefits and less of the disadvantages.

Which team would want to get caught snoozing and be stuck with a heavy KERS? (or maybe they'll just whine like Renault this year and get a rule change)

Competitive systems will need to be alot lighter than 50-60kg, probably in the 30-40kg bracket before they start bringing benefits over the whole lap.

[Naruto]

But how much does the KERS help a car.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Naruto

But how much does the KERS help a car.

Reduces lap time by about 0.3 seconds,but if the car doesn't handle so well because of the extra weight,then that could easily be negated,even made worse!

We should remember also that after the 2009 season there is a proposal for a standard KERS.So which team is going to throw a whole load of cash at it for just one season?

[neilap]

I think most teams will use KERS. The ones that don't will be the ones lacking the tech to make it work well. I know for sure that Honda will be using it. Williams want it and BMW too. Toyota were against the way it was being implemented, I am sure that's because they are behind with it.

[zac510]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Competitive systems will need to be alot lighter than 50-60kg, probably in the 30-40kg bracket before they start bringing benefits over the whole lap.

Yeah but 30-40kg is far better if all your competitor's systems weigh 50-60kg which was my main point You don't want to get caught behind in the development and the primary scope for development on this is weight and mass.

If they all weigh the same then there isn't really any advantage at all.

[JamesH]

Isn't 40kg still about a tenth of the weight of the car - that's a hell of a lot. Can they shed mass elsewhere to make up for it (i.e. do they run ballast already to make the minimum weight?)

James

[NiG_21]

I think the current regs say the F1 cars must weight 650Kg with driver. However, much of that weight is made up from ballast (I think) which allows the teams to distribute the weight as best fits their deisgn.

I seem to recall an unrestricted F1 car could weight a little as 400Kg so adding an extra 60kg as a mandatory item could essentially just dictate where some of the distributin is.

*I accept no responsibility for my facts... as it's all basically made up...

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Isn't 40kg still about a tenth of the weight of the car - that's a hell of a lot. Can they shed mass elsewhere to make up for it (i.e. do they run ballast already to make the minimum weight?)

James

The cars are somewhere around the 500kg mark despite running at 605kg in the race. Ballast and the driver bridge the gap however.

[Oldtony]

There would appear to be no problem fitting KERS within the overall weight limit of the car. Thus the decision is whether the addaed recycled power from KERS (thus power weight ratio) outweighs any loss in chassis balance because of the extra concentration in weight in a specific area.
Again the ridiculously restrictive tech regulations regarding KERS mean that designers are effectivly limited in placement of the device as well as its capacity and method of power delivery.
Seems that FIA introduced KERS to provide an area of road relevant development, then effectively killed off it's use for that purpose with a badly though out set of regs.
I still think most teams will start the season with a system in place, and they all should be using it by the start of the European rounds.

[duke_toaster]

The minimum mass is 605kg including driver. Most motorsport weights include the driver as you rarely see a car racing without one - I haven't.

Lewis Hamilton weighs 68 kg, Kovalainen 66, Pedro De La Rosa 74 and Gary Paffett 76kg (source : McLaren's site. Would I be sad enough to know this off the top of my head?). Let's say the average weight of an F1 driver is 70kg. I don't think there's much variation. The reason I chose McLaren as they are the first team I checked that have that info. Rather Ron-style thing to do really.

That leaves a driverless car including ballast at 535kg. How much ballast does an F1 car take usually? Probably more than the total mass of a KERS system. The problem is that it will not be affecting total mass, but the distribution. Why not simply have minimum front and rear axle weights like trucks?

[zac510]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Again the ridiculously restrictive tech regulations regarding KERS mean that designers are effectivly limited in placement of the device as well as its capacity and method of power delivery.
Seems that FIA introduced KERS to provide an area of road relevant development, then effectively killed off it's use for that purpose with a badly though out set of regs.
I still think most teams will start the season with a system in place, and they all should be using it by the start of the European rounds.

How do you say that? I would say the physics of racecar engineering restrict the area of KERS development more than the rules.. that is, the compromise of engine placement, fuel tank placement, KERS battery location, etc etc all of which are fighting to be in the same spot.
The output limit you cite means that instead of absolute output the teams will pursue decreasing the weight of the unit to increase its efficiency instead of increasing the output - much the same as the fuel tank limit that many fans think should be implemented. The weight of KERS is one of the main limitations of KERS in road cars so anything F1 can do to improve that acutally has relevance to road cars rather than sheer output. (most road cars aren't interested in lap times).
The only other significant KERS restrictions in F1 are the deployment (push to pass) and single axle limitation. From what I have researched, the FIA have left some avenues open, perhaps unintentionally, particularly in the area of the power absorbtion (think variable brake bias/engine braking again).
The method of delivery is a shame and pandering to the fans who want to see exciting 'racing' rather than engineering.
But overall I stand by my original statement that this allows some engineering flexibility and ingenuity that in the recent years has been outlawed. To outlaw it now would put half of the teams out of a lot of time and £ development. I think a ban would be vetoed - it's too late.

I still don't understand why so many enthusiasts who think that technological diversity and engineering prowess is paramount in F1 still don't take KERS seriously.... it's almost all we have left!

[zac510]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Why not simply have minimum front and rear axle weights like trucks?

If you homogenise them that much there will be barely any characteristic left that will make one car faster than the other!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by zac510

I still don't understand why so many enthusiasts who think that technological diversity and engineering prowess is paramount in F1 still don't take KERS seriously.... it's almost all we have left!

Well you'd better make the most of it in 2009,because in 2010 we get a 'standard' system.

[RF_Racer]

Modified version of Autosport picture

They should have made the rear wing 2 inches lower and 3 inches wider on each side. Also why didnt they bring back 18" rear slicks and make teh track wider to that of 93-97 cars!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by zac510

If you homogenise them that much there will be barely any characteristic left that will make one car faster than the other!

And then we will be back to square one, wont we...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RF_Racer

They should have made the rear wing 2 inches lower and 3 inches wider on each side. Also why didnt they bring back 18" rear slicks and make teh track wider to that of 93-97 cars!

Apparently the wing is that high and that wide to facilitate overtaking.

And Bridgestone did suggest using a smaller size front tyre,but the teams refused.

[Oldtony]

Zac the limitation to single axle delivery is the main design restriction that makes F1 KERS development less relevant than it should be. If you are going to recover Kinetic energy from braking, instead of just producing heat, the logocal place to recover that energy is from the front wheels which deliver the greater proportion of deceleration. The "single axle" rule, together with the outmoded ban on 4WD effectively mean that KERS can only be considered as part of the engine transmission package. Thet in turn means that the placement in the chassis is limited to the area which already has the greatest proportion of wieght.
The limitations placed on delivery under the limits on electronic control in the traction control ban also make the system less relevant. Lets face it, these days F1 cars are, in most cases, dumber than road cars.

[zac510]

Yeah I agree and understand that. Still, any new tech will be good for the industry and the collective brains and wealth of F1 is sure to turn up some.

However so many of the teams have complained about how much of a
challenge it has been so perhaps the FIA's modest starting rules are well placed for the time being.

[zac510]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well you'd better make the most of it in 2009,because in 2010 we get a 'standard' system.

I gotta say my cycnicism has considered that too