Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_l
I do wonder how safe the KERS type system will be in a BTCC car.
In F1 the systems are not subjected to the bash 'n' crash of touring car racing.
The F1 marshals have to wear insulating rubber gloves and have to look at the indication on the roll hoop to see if the system is safe. The F1 drivers can also jump clear of the car in the event of the problem with the system, a touring car driver won't be able to do that.
If the BTCC car hits the bare armco barrier and the system malfunctions then the whole length of the armco could become live.
I know KERS is relevant to car manufacturers but I believe introducing it to the BTCC is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
|
One at a time: In F1, the stresses involved in crashes are likely to be much higher than in the BTCC due to the speeds involved. The cars themselves are designed to destroy themselves in order to remove as much energy as possible from the survival cell, ultimately the rear end of the car (PU included) can separate from the tub. The connectors for fluids and electrics are designed to safe/dry break.
In prototype racing, where KERS is also used, the drivers have similar challenges with exiting the tub but they manage it safely.
If a car was to contact an armco barrier, which is buried in the earth, with an HV cable from the KERS system then there's a direct path to ground for the energy from the batteries. More than likely they'd discharge so fast that their fuses would burn out, leaving nothing live.
Mr Gow has already stated that they're not solving a problem at all; they're making the cars more relevant to both the manufacturers and the road-going public, and that it'll be used as a "push-to-pass" system.
So far as I can tell from the news articles, it's going to be a small pre-pack system which regenerates from and is likely to drive the non-driven wheels as a boost to the existing drivetrain. I think it'll be fun, personally.