[Tech Issue] KERSwatch I : Who'll be running KERS at Melbourne?

[Dutton]

If the alleged two row gain advantage off the line of a KERS car versus a non-KERS car turns out to be true, well, it could get interesting running down to that first corner.

It looks like Renault might be back in the pack a bit: given their traditional advantage at the best of times, does this mean they are going to fly past a load of people (or straight into the back of them)? I'm guessing the front three rows are going to be battled out between Brawn, Ferrari, and Williams: given Ferrari don't seem like favourites to be grabbing the front-row, it could make for an interesting between the three teams into the first turn?

In the end, of course, it'll probably not be anything like as dramatic as two rows (we can but hope, though).

[ralf fan]

So interestingly of the 7 cars using KERS, 5 were knocked out before Q3 and the Ferrari struggled quite badly. Should be interesting to see what type of advantage it gives the teams on the start, but at this point it hasn't given the teams running the device any sort of advantage.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ralf fan

but at this point it hasn't given the teams running the device any sort of advantage.

Except for maybe that added 'buzz' of expectation.

[Pingguest]

Only Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, BMW (Heidfeld only) and Red Bull (Webber only) are using KERS?

[Dutton]

I thought Williams were? According to earlier in this thread, at least.

***
OK, scartch that. I see that is not the case that it was said earlier in the thread. I must've been imagining things. Probably tiredness. It is 0425, and all.

Ferrari, Renault, Mclaren, with BMW and RBR one one each? That seems right, then. I am afraid I cannot remember off-hand exactly who was from watching qualy.

[duke_toaster]

I didn't hear anything about RBR using KERS.

[safc_fan89]

That would be because they are not using it It'll be interesting to see what difference it makes tomorrow, because if there is no notable difference, especially off the line, then the teams who haven't started using it yet may decide not to bother altogether.

It does seem ridiculous to use such a 'primitive' (to quite Toyota) system. If it gains a couple of tenths a lap at best, what is the point in spending x millions on it?

[fourWheelDrift]

To my mind the KERS concept has been mismanaged completely, they restrict the amount of energy in the first year so that cars without KERS can compete but as a result all the teams have done their sums and decided battery systems are the way to go but they only work at the current levels of energy storage as the battery weight is roughly proportional to the energy stored and they are already marginal. If the original commitment to up the energy available next year is followed the batteries will simply be too heavy so they will have to start again with something else. As they are not stupid they must all know this so I guess that is what most teams intended.

Williams are the only team who have gone for a scalable solution which will still be viable with two or four times the energy storage allowed this year.

The fact that FIA seem likely to U turn on KERS and make it standard rather than keep it free and up the energy storage year on year as originally planned is a huge blow to Williams long term plans. It also wrecks the argument about driving the technology so removing the whole reason for doing it in the first place.

I think this is a waste as the flybrid KERS unit has huge development potential for both racing and road use which now seems likely not to be realised.

[Dutton]

Yeah, it is baffling why the FIA have decided to regulate it to death. You'd the figure the whole point would be to give the teams freedom on it. That would fit in with their supposed interest in developing road relevant green technology.

Alas, the FIA is full of contradictions and hypocrisies.

[bestfit]

Nick Fry was interviewed on our telecast yesterday and had some interesting things to say about KERS. He said that the systems are capable of harnessing up to 1000hp, 10 times what they currently do. He said that it has been decided by the teams/FIA to spend 2009/2010 developing and stabalising the systems. From 2011 onwards they will begin to allow more power to be used.

[Dutton]

Surely harnessing upto 1000 means the boosted TOTAL would be 1000? Giving a 1000 boost on top of the base engine power would be mental. I would love to see it, but I find it hard to imagine the systems are capable of producing it.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Surely harnessing upto 1000 means the boosted TOTAL would be 1000? Giving a 1000 boost on top of the base engine power would be mental. I would love to see it, but I find it hard to imagine the systems are capable of producing it.

I can't beleive the battery is not sized for the energy they are allowed to store as they would be carrying around a load of weight that they were not allowed to use. Of course he might have meant the rest of the system could handle it and all we need to do is plug in a bigger battery.

[the.cosmic.pope]

Well for the system the other teams use it is possible. But not for Williams. The idea of the 50,000 RPM flywheel scares me enough. But 1000 times more than what it is currently at would either be physically impossible for the flywheel, or turn it into a deathwheel. I'd feel scared watching the BritishGP at Donington whilst in my house in Scotland if Williams ran a system like that. I'd be worried about it taking out entire countries.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I can't beleive the battery is not sized for the energy they are allowed to store as they would be carrying around a load of weight that they were not allowed to use. Of course he might have meant the rest of the system could handle it and all we need to do is plug in a bigger battery.

He definitely meant the system method could potentially do it - there is no way they would have the extra weight there given they cannot harness the extra potential. That would be utterly dense.

I was meaning to get clarification on:

Originally Posted by bestfit

Nick Fry...said that the systems are capable of harnessing up to 1000hp, 10 times what they currently do.

That wording says that bestfit is saying Fry was saying the systems could produce an extra 1000 (roughly ten times the 80-90 they do now). I was simply saying that surely the potential 1000 would refer to the boost bringing the TOTAL upto 1000, as opposed to the boost itself being 1000 (which is what the wording makes it seem was meant).

[parkingjedi]

who will be running "KERS" this race.....I think the answer has become quite clear all the "Waynes" in the field......;-)

[bestfit]

I took it to mean that their KERS system has the potential to Harness/Capture 1000hp. The "ten times what they do now" line were Nick's words, so I assume he means 1000hp boost.
I assume that capturing 1000hp does necessarily mean storing 1000hp, with excess energy above a preset limit being immediately discharged by some method.
Nick Fry certainly indicated that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg at the moment and there was a LOT more to come from KERS in a couple of seasons.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by parkingjedi

That wording says that bestfit is saying Fry was saying the systems could produce an extra 1000 (roughly ten times the 80-90 they do now). I was simply saying that surely the potential 1000 would refer to the boost bringing the TOTAL upto 1000, as opposed to the boost itself being 1000 (which is what the wording makes it seem was meant).

I'd say If he was talking about the underlying technology he may well have meant 1000 hp on top of the engine power. The problem with either KERS system is not how powerful you can make it but that you get to a point where weight and packaging constraints make it very difficult to fit into the car and that as you look at more and more powerful units this point hurts you sooner and harder with a battery system than a flywheel one.

Of course the current KERS cars could probably blow the non KERS cars away if they were not limited to six seconds use a lap. The best way to use it is to charge it as much as possible in every braking zone and discharge it in every acceleration area. This is currently not allowed.

On the subject of flywheel based KERS and safety I would say there should be a mandatory test where the flywheel is made to break at maximum speed and the casing is required to catch all the pieces. If you doubt this could be done remember that jet engines have this exact test (known as the 'blade off test') for the fan and if they don't successfully catch all the bits the engine cannot be put into service. The energy stored in the spinning compressor on a large engine is orders of magnitude more than in a F1 KERS and of course in Aviation light weight is as critical as in F1 so it can be done.

[zac510]

edit: sorry fourwheeldrift I didn't see your post on page 2.

I agree, as you said because the input is limited they can only fill it once. If they could charge and use it on every corner straight they'd get at least 6-7x more energy on one lap and collectively that would add up to closer to 1000hp in a lap. This is free because they've already fitted the system with the capability to recharge along as they can discharge it immediately (ie regulations will allow).

that's how I interpret his quote.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by zac510

edit: sorry fourwheeldrift I didn't see your post on page 2.

I agree, as you said because the input is limited they can only fill it once. If they could charge and use it on every corner straight they'd get at least 6-7x more energy on one lap and collectively that would add up to closer to 1000hp in a lap. This is free because they've already fitted the system with the capability to recharge along as they can discharge it immediately (ie regulations will allow).

that's how I interpret his quote.

That's not quite what I meant. Power is energy divided by time so if you could use it six or seven times a lap you would still get the same power but you would have it for six or seven times as long in total which would make a much bigger difference in lap times.

[zac510]

Yeah but I think Fry is probably adding up those 6-7 times to come up with a 'fancy' figure for TV