[Tech Issue] KERS : The Second Coming? Bigger rear tyres?

[duke_toaster]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82593

FOTA appear to be talking about bringing back KERS for 2011, with various options from having it unrestricted to a standard unit. Neither are particularly good ideas to be honest.

They are also talking about larger rear wheels for next year, however the rear wheels are currently 380mm wide (15 inches for the luddites), not 13 inches as Autosport claim. Perhaps they are talking about the rims, which are currently 330mm (13 inch).

Wider rear tyres would be a good move for aesthetic and sporting reasons, however in the case of KERS I think there are some advantages to bringing it back, but they need to tread carefully - possibly considering the KERS part of the engine for engine changes and homologating it.

[wnut]

Think Rubens told us how good KERS was for defending an overtaking manoeuvre and push to pass should be just as good.

Further into the hell of watching parades - sigh!

regards

wnut

[bjohnsonsmith]

Processional racing and now the prospect of big rear tyres, it would seem Formula 1 is slowly returning to the 1970s. All that's needed is a major kerb on the aeros, as suggested by many people and we'll be nearly there.

[duke_toaster]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82641

Renault come out in support of KERS, possibly with 800 kJ (!!!) and possibly Magnetti Marelli supplying it to those that don't want to build their own.

[Fox89]

I like the idea Anthony Davidson was talking about in FP on the beeb. Instead of KERS, give them an adjustable rear wing to minimize the drag on straights. Much greener technology then KERS as it'll save fuel, and much better for slipstreaming towards the end of the straight.

[duke_toaster]

Probably the biggest thing that would help with regards to aero packages is simplifying the front wings a lot, stopping what James Allen describes as the outwash wings. That, the ban on the DDD and the use of wider, lower profile tyres (especially the rear) would help.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Fox89

I like the idea Anthony Davidson was talking about in FP on the beeb. Instead of KERS, give them an adjustable rear wing to minimize the drag on straights. Much greener technology then KERS as it'll save fuel, and much better for slipstreaming towards the end of the straight.

If F1 is to have any green credentials at all it will be becuase it promotes the development of a green approach to automotive technology, the development of KERS for F1 cars does precisely this. The amount of fuel used by F1 cars is so incredibly miniscule that only the very naive will view any saving as important in it's own right.

In any event a trimmable rear wing will not be used to save fuel (although it could) it will be used to allow more downforce to be carried through the corners and a slightly higher speed on the straight with virtually no effect on fuel consumption.

[duke_toaster]

The issue is keeping both straight line and cornering speeds under control. That is something that would have to be considered very strongly with an adjustable rear wing. The first aero tweaks needed, IMO, are front wing simplification (single element plus adjustable flaps, no outwash things, simpler endplates) and the DDD elimination which we're going to get next year. Banning barge board wing mounting things and totally banning wheel covers aren't too difficult.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Not wanting to appear cynical but the 'Green' agenda is merely lip service. F1 and the FIA have been going on about going Green for ages and nothing concrete or lasting has happened. At least CART/Champcar was green to the extent that they used methanol.

[Fox89]

OK, good points, mebbe an adjustable rear wing isn't viable. Either way, I don't think KERS is the way forward. They're discussing things like a "standardised supplier" for all the teams... how is this going to aid the overtaking again? The only reason KERS worked last year was because some teams had it and some teams didn't. If all teams have it then they'll just use it in the same place in the lap as those around them and negate the effect.

I can't believe we're having this talk again. I thought this was all over at the end of last year... (not a KERS fan)

[OZ_HCR32]

Why KERS, why not just allow them o run an extra 1500rpm or so for a few seconds per lap

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Not wanting to appear cynical but the 'Green' agenda is merely lip service. F1 and the FIA have been going on about going Green for ages and nothing concrete or lasting has happened. At least CART/Champcar was green to the extent that they used methanol.

I very much tend to agree, F1 can't really claim to be green and in so far as it could it was because of the involvement of the manufacturers which is now gone. But insofar as anyone wants to sell the idea of F1 as green it makes much more sense to sell KERS which in some form or other is increasingly being used to save fuel on road cars than adjustable rear wings which aren't and won't be.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by OZ_HCR32

Why KERS, why not just allow them o run an extra 1500rpm or so for a few seconds per lap

That's just push to pass with no additional green business, defeating half the reason for KERS. In my opinion, provided it's able to be provided to all the teams that want it at a reasonable cost there is no reason why it can't come back. If that means Magneti Marelli or Zytek or whoever providing it to all the teams running the Cossie, that's fine.

[OZ_HCR32]

F1, ridding the world of fossel fuels. Its never going to be green

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I very much tend to agree, F1 can't really claim to be green and in so far as it could it was because of the involvement of the manufacturers which is now gone. But insofar as anyone wants to sell the idea of F1 as green it makes much more sense to sell KERS which in some form or other is increasingly being used to save fuel on road cars than adjustable rear wings which aren't and won't be.

That's a fair point, though I'm not convinced that the reintroduction of KERS is necessarily a 'Green' inititive but more of the revamping of a technology that wasn't implemented properly the first time round and now they've got a second bite, they intend to use it to save money on fuel and use it as a push to pass system.

[Pingguest]

With the current set of rules containing an engine homologation the use of KERS looks quite artificial to me. KERS is the only technology to gain a power performance advantage throughout the entire season. I've no doubts that non-artificial power boosts will be good for the racing, but the FIA shouldn't regulate were that boost will come from.

[JagtechOhio]

'Scuse me in advance, I always yell when I smell something really bad..

BIGGER REAR TIRES INCREASE TURBULENCE FOR THE TRAILING CAR TO RUN IN. That makes the problem worse.

Thanks, I feel better now. Carry on.

[Adam43]

Minimise the problem by reducing the rear tyres as much as possible. In fact get rid of them, that'll do it.

What is the right size of rear tyres?

[JeremySmith]

Are we talking bigger or wider?

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Not wanting to appear cynical but the 'Green' agenda is merely lip service. F1 and the FIA have been going on about going Green for ages and nothing concrete or lasting has happened. At least CART/Champcar was green to the extent that they used methanol.

I remember from the CART days that methanol burns clear, so you can't see the fires. That might have been seen as an issue but now that we have no refuelling during the race, why not make the switch?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

I remember from the CART days that methanol burns clear, so you can't see the fires. That might have been seen as an issue but now that we have no refuelling during the race, why not make the switch?

I don't think Bernie would be prepared to put the noses of the big oil companies that sponsor F1 out of joint. It would also mean altering the engines to take methanol, which will cost. As a long term plan it's a good idea.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think Bernie would be prepared to put the noses of the big oil companies that sponsor F1 out of joint. It would also mean altering the engines to take methanol, which will cost. As a long term plan it's a good idea.

Not only that but also although CO2 emissions from actually burning it are lower per litre than for petrol it is produced from fossil fuels (natural gas or coal) so you are still burning fossil carbon and it's green credentials in a racing context are not that impressive. It's energy density is less than petrol, to produce the energy you get from 1l of petrol you need to burn 1.8l of methanol so for the same performance tanks would have to be 80% larger. A major reason it is used in the states is safety, following a spill or accident (compared to petrol) methanol is less likely to ignite, burns more slowly and less energetically and can be easily extinguished with water, F1 has such a good handle on fire risk now that I would have thought these benefits are not important.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Not only that but also although CO2 emissions from actually burning it are lower per litre than for petrol it is produced from fossil fuels (natural gas or coal) so you are still burning fossil carbon and it's green credentials in a racing context are not that impressive. It's energy density is less than petrol, to produce the energy you get from 1l of petrol you need to burn 1.8l of methanol so for the same performance tanks would have to be 80% larger. A major reason it is used in the states is safety, following a spill or accident (compared to petrol) methanol is less likely to ignite, burns more slowly and less energetically and can be easily extinguished with water, F1 has such a good handle on fire risk now that I would have thought these benefits are not important.

Methanol is also highly corrosive, especially with Aluminium and human skin, which are a couple of reasons why they eventually stopped using it. Also you when it burns you can't see the flame, in daylight. So no, you're right not a good long term prospect.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think Bernie would be prepared to put the noses of the big oil companies that sponsor F1 out of joint. It would also mean altering the engines to take methanol, which will cost. As a long term plan it's a good idea.

Petrobras is producing alcohol (ethanol/methanol) and biodiesel at production scale for the market, and have the technologies to make the switch easier. I believe that the others may also have similar solutions. That won't be very hard to the companies if necessary.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Petrobras is producing alcohol (ethanol/methanol) and biodiesel at production scale for the market, and have the technologies to make the switch easier. I believe that the others may also have similar solutions. That won't be very hard to the companies if necessary.

Petrobras have been involved in an ethanol program with the Japanese as well as producing biodiesel in their own right. Then again the Brazillians have been involved in ethanol production for sometime. Apex another ethanol producer supplies the IICS. Engines have to be adapted to a certain extent so they can use ethanol. For example the Indy Honda engine was upgraded to 3.5L because the original 3.0L engine was underpowered. Anycase it will be interesting to see how the ethanol program develops.