Tech Issue K.E.R.S Friend or Foe

EBXR8 · 3 Mar 2009, 22:45 (Ref:2408489)

Seb Vettell has just stated in a Q & A on F1.com that Red Bull will not run KERS for at least the first 3 races.
Is this a reliability issue??
Will other teams follow suit until a more efficiant and reliable system can be deveolped to run a full race distance??

Crazy_Pigal · 3 Mar 2009, 23:02 (Ref:2408501)

The regs make KERS very marginal, but as soon as it's seen to win races then they'll change their minds, I don't think it'll make much differenece to lap time, but hopefully to the racing.
Lets face it this is new technology, & completely different to what F1 teams have been used to, it's not meant to be easy!

Marbot · 4 Mar 2009, 00:36 (Ref:2408548)

Force India won't use KERS until the Barcelona GP and I would imagine anyone using the battery type KERS will do the same.

Williams could be in the pound seats (sorry) for the first few races!

JeremySmith · 4 Mar 2009, 02:48 (Ref:2408603)

It's rubbish...

JeremySmith · 4 Mar 2009, 03:13 (Ref:2408610)

Money wasting nonsense..

ECW Dan Selby · 4 Mar 2009, 09:06 (Ref:2408666)

I like the idea, it's just the sheer cost that's the problem.

Selby

the.cosmic.pope · 4 Mar 2009, 09:28 (Ref:2408687)

Waste of money developing irrelevant technology in an effort to seem green.

tkm81 · 4 Mar 2009, 09:40 (Ref:2408693)

effort could be spent better elsewhere thats for sure, but its here for now so we might as well get used to it at least for this season until max has another brain wave

Crazy_Pigal · 4 Mar 2009, 20:23 (Ref:2409106)

So what do you dislike about KERS? I don't understand the problem, basically it's an area of relative technical freedom, we don't have many of them & you don't have to run it!

Yes it's expensive, & the timings pretty bad for anything that costs money, but as engine development has been effectively banned that budget can go on KERS.

It's nowhere near as irrelevant as 20,000 rpm 2.4 litre V8s!

The downsides are the power limit, energy storage limit & rear wheels only, we need more KERS not less.

With next years engine rev reduction (effectively power reduction) they should up the KERS power to compensate.

Long live KERS, it's the future, & you'd better get used to it!

Oldtony · 8 Mar 2009, 05:16 (Ref:2411362)

Agreed Pigal!!!
Perhaps the Luddites who always think 10 year old technology is superior should go to the Racing Technology section of this Forum and download and listen to the institute of engineers presentation on KERS.
While that promotes the Flybrid soloution it becomes quite clear that the technology is relevant to both F1 and other transport vehicles.
It would be interesting to hear a similar presentation from someone involved in the Toyota GT project on the electronic soloution.
Meanwhile if you don't understand it, don't knock it, do some research.

Marbot · 8 Mar 2009, 10:58 (Ref:2411505)

I can see the benefits of KERS,but maybe F1 isn't quite the right platform for it ?

It's also due to be standardised next season!

The teams have already spent huge amounts of money and time on these devices and still we hear from the teams and drivers that they're "not safe yet","still have issues",just a few weeks from the start of the season at which it is expected that more than half the teams won't be using it! What kind of message does that send out to the people that may want to purchase a vehicle fitted with such devices ???

And to put a real stick in the spokes all it needs is for one commentator to mention that last year a BMW mechanic was electrocuted by such a system!

Unfortunately publicity so far has been bad and not good.

Pingguest · 8 Mar 2009, 11:07 (Ref:2411509)

The regulations make KERS very maginal. Teams are spending a lot of money on something that gives almost no advantage. Free up the regulations and teams will use KERS.

Marbot · 8 Mar 2009, 11:15 (Ref:2411514)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Free up the regulations and teams will use KERS.

The problem is that the batteries are already "very marginal" with the systems as they are!

JeremySmith · 8 Mar 2009, 20:03 (Ref:2411584)

My biggest problem with KERS is the HUGE amounts of money that have had to be spent to develop systems for F1 cars, which is why have rather negative feelings towards it..

Flavio Briatori has also said that he thinks it's a terrible idea.

Oldtony · 8 Mar 2009, 21:54 (Ref:2411663)

Agreed Pinquest, free up the regs and it becomes much more usefull, both for F1 and for spin off (no pun intended Mr Williams) purposes.
The idea of standardising the unit is plain stupid and defeats the whole object of allowing it in the first place.
Why the obbsession with batteries Marbot? Flybrid uses none, Toyota used supercapacitors in the GT system, and battery development is going ahead at a great rate anyway.
OK Jerremy F1 is spending money but on a usefull technology. Far more usefull to the manufacturers than all the wind tunnel and CFD computer work which is probably more expensive anyway.
As for Flabio, as usual he was talking through his wallet, and at a time when Renault was behind in development. He has gone very quiete on the subject now that the Renault system is apparently up and working.

Marbot · 9 Mar 2009, 02:35 (Ref:2411781)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Why the obbsession with batteries Marbot? Flybrid uses none,

Which only means that it'll probably be chosen as the 'standard' system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Toyota used supercapacitors in the GT system,

Do they cost much and can they use them in F1 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtony

and battery development is going ahead at a great rate anyway.

Not according to Max Mosley.He reckons that manufacturers are moving away from the 'battery' idea,citing that current lithium battery technology is not as suitable for F1 KERS use as once was thought.

Dutton · 9 Mar 2009, 07:32 (Ref:2411879)

The problem with F1 KERS is the ludicrously restrictive regulations. It has been regulated to the point of marginalism.

If F1 is meant to be going the "green" route ultimately, then the regulations should be free as possible in this region. Let the teams have the freedom to go nuts.

It seems we are heading for increasing standardisation in everything in F1. If we must go this route, then at least let the "green" stuff be open. Be as draconion as you feel you must with the other stuff, but with green stuff (inc. KERS) leave the regs as open as is sensibly possible.

If the only alternative is the eventual total standardisation of F1, then I would much rather it was standardised with the exception of "green" things. Leave the "green" regs as utterly open and free as is reasonably rational in the context of single-seater formula racing.

Marbot · 9 Mar 2009, 09:06 (Ref:2411943)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

The problem with F1 KERS is the ludicrously restrictive regulations.

The battery technology currently cannot cope with most of the teams systems as they currently are.More power will,for the time being,require more batteries.The intention of the FIA was to allow more powerful systems over the years,but it seems that the battery technology being used is not keeping up with the pace.

Max on KERS.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73208

"Thermal runaway".....

Pingguest · 9 Mar 2009, 18:40 (Ref:2412385)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

The problem is that the batteries are already "very marginal" with the systems as they are!

That's not a justification for the rules being too restrictive, is it? Without the current rules teams would be able to do the necessary development work. Currently though, development is made impossible in virtually all areas.

Marbot · 9 Mar 2009, 19:18 (Ref:2412405)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Currently though, development is made impossible in virtually all areas.

It's all to do with cost-cutting though isn't it.

Car sales figures have worsened even further this month,and some are saying that mergers between large manufacturers is the only way ahead now.Think of it! It's quite possible that at the end of all this that BMW and Mercedes for example,could be one and the same!

Daniel Pinnegar · 9 Mar 2009, 19:55 (Ref:2412438)

I've just read all of your comments and might I just say the whole idea of it costing too much is ridiculous!! The battery system is majorly flawed as they need to be working in "perfect" conditions for them to work correctly!!

I went to a KERS in motorsport lecture up in London that was presented by Flybrid's Jon Hilton and his flywheel KERS. Here's the link to the Racing Technology section on Ten-tenths and my notes are at the bottom if you're interested!!

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113152

I had a talk with Jon at the end of the Lecture and he thinks that one of the main reasons that they are in KERS development for F1 is becuase it can be very easily transferred accross to road cars!! Believe me I'm doing an A2 Physics project on KERS in motorsport and HAVE done my research!!

I hope you find my post imformative and not arrogant in anyway!

Pingguest · 9 Mar 2009, 20:21 (Ref:2412454)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's all to do with cost-cutting though isn't it.

It is widely assumed that free regulations will costs to rise. But I disagree.

From the http://www.the-mia.com/assets/eems_report73239.pdf

Quote:

There are two fundamental ways to constrain power namely:
1. By limiting peak airflow into the engine. This is already used throughout motorsport, but it results in fuel/air mixture strengths significantly richer than stoichiometric. The engine exhaust will contain high levels of toxic carbon monoxide, and un-burnt hydrocarbons, which are toxic and carcinogenic.

2. By limiting peak fuel flow. This technique is used to limit the power with gas turbines engines, but it is not used with competition reciprocating engines. The advantage of this approach is that emissions immediately improve, and engines are driven towards cleaner, lean burn technologies.

Using the second technique provides additional useful spin-off. Competition engine makers will start to focus more on improving specific fuel consumption than on specific power output, and this has considerable relevance to production engines. Engine rpm will be reduced in order to improve specific fuel consumption, engine noise will improve as frequency is lowered and engine life and durability will also improve with reduced rpm.

A reduction in engine rpm by limiting peak fuel flow will encourage the use of gasoline direct injection (GDI) in racing engines. Engine manufacturers would clearly like to use GDI in Formula One but ultra high engine speeds make the application extremely difficult. GDI was last used in Grand Prix racing by Mercedes-Benz on their victorious W196 cars in the mid 1950's. However Audi has now won Le Mans three times and on the last two occasions used GDI (albeit whilst using mandatory air-restrictors).

Free up the engine and KERS regulations, limit the fuel consumption to 20 litres per 100 kilometres and we might see smaller teams to use engines for almost the entire race season.

Marbot · 9 Mar 2009, 20:23 (Ref:2412458)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Pinnegar

The battery system is majorly flawed as they need to be working in "perfect" conditions for them to work correctly!!

Which kind of makes you wonder why everyone except Williams went down that road!?

Large contracts with battery manufacturers springs to mind.

Daniel Pinnegar · 9 Mar 2009, 20:31 (Ref:2412467)

Indeed!! I mean a facts that I can't remember if I put in the notes on the thread is that the flywheel can store the rotational for 40 minutes after it has been dissconnected from the rear wheels!! Just incredible really!!

It does seem that F1 has become more of a business and contracts that can only be bought out of. It's definitely less of inovation and is getting on my nerves!

JeremySmith · 10 Mar 2009, 00:41 (Ref:2412662)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtony

OK Jerremy F1 is spending money but on a usefull technology. Far more usefull to the manufacturers than all the wind tunnel and CFD computer work which is probably more expensive anyway.
As for Flabio, as usual he was talking through his wallet, and at a time when Renault was behind in development. He has gone very quiete on the subject now that the Renault system is apparently up and working.

If Flavio Briatore is talking through his wallet concerning KERS then good, I thought that was part of his job? But I could be mistaken.. I do think it's more involved than that though...

I agree the wind tunnel 24/7 routine is completely out of control, and should and will be stopped, at least I am hopping for this..

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Greetings to marshalling friend.	Brian Mac	Marshals Forum	6	6 Mar 2003 17:29