Weight limit and KERS

[Adam43]

I couldn't find a thread on this - martyn you're sliiping.

It seeems the new KERS systems maybe a little heavy, at least at first. Some of the teams want to increase the minimum weight to allow for this.

Others (that aren't scared of a challenge) don't mind and say that they will try to make theirr KERS systems as light as possible and work out what is best; to find the comprimise between weight, position, reliability, effeciency, etc...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66521

I think you can tell what I think from the above!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I couldn't find a thread on this - martyn you're sliiping.

So is your spelling.

I was going to post it yesterday but there didn't seem to be anyone around to take notice of it!

I agree with you,that it should be up to the teams to accommodate their devices as best they can into the current weight limit.

[FPV GTHO]

It wasnt that long ago they were talking of lowering the minimum weight limit for 2008, due to most cars carrying around 50kg of ballast which is usually extremely dense, expensive material. They figured it'd be a good way to save some money there.

I'm wondering how heavy these systems will be though. The current cars are currently carrying about 50kg downforce to get them heavy enough, meaning the empty cars are probably less than 500kg. Some teams seem worried the systems will take up all of their ballast so its a serious argument that the balance will be completely different.

An unfortunate consequence would be to see the teams run their chassis strength right on the limit where they only just pass the crash tests. IIRC a fair few people thought the BMW F1.07's safety and chassis strength was more than the crash tests dictated it needed to be based on Kubicas crash.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Well if the system are heavy its up to the teams to lighten them, the minimum weight is the weight that the car as a whole should be, not just a regulation to be ballasted up to, if u cant meet the minium weight its TS.
We dont want some sort of Audi, Le Mans conspiracy where the weight limit is changed to the benefit only a few teams.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

An unfortunate consequence would be to see the teams run their chassis strength right on the limit where they only just pass the crash tests.

That risk will always exist regardless the minimum weight. It is FIA's main task to keep the cars safe and therefor increase the crash test standards.

[Oldtony]

The only technical challenge for designers of KERS systems for F1 is in getting the weight down to a level that is practical in an F1 car.
All other potential technical challenges have been eliminated by the restrictive (and counter productive) tregulations dreamed up by someone at FIA.
Increasing the weight limit to accommodate KERS would make the whole excercise a complete waste of rations.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Increasing the weight limit to accommodate KERS would make the whole excercise a complete waste of rations.

Agreed.

The whole point of KERS is that it provides an additional source of energy.One of the ways to make it more efficient and therefore free up more energy is to 'add lightness' as Colin Chapman would say.So it is (or should be) up to the teams to develop these systems and make them as efficient as possible within the current regs.

[Marbot]

It doesn't actually say in the current 2009 regs that a KERS device has to be fitted.I wonder if this is the reason that 'some' teams want the weight limit to be raised?

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

[Adam43]

Thinking about this more and considering your point that it doesn't have to be fitted it almost seems more sensible to have a weight limit increase only for those without KERS (I presume that this wasn't the original suggestion). Assuming you want to bias the rules to having one.

It is possible that it is better to have a car without KERS than with. Without you get more ballast to move around. With KERS you have weight that is higher up, but a power gain. You carry the weight all the time, but the power is temporary. If you are struggling with the weight limit it could be really bad. Even if you aren't you may be effecting the handling due to not being able to tune the weight distribution as much, all for a bit more power on the straight.

However R&D into these to make them lighter and more effecient pushes the comprimise towards having them rather than not. I'll be interested to know what teams chose to do. And how their opinions change as these devices get better.

[bludvl_x19]

So teams have a choice whether or not to use KERS? I had assumed that it was compulsorary.

Mick

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bludvl_x19

So teams have a choice whether or not to use KERS? I had assumed that it was compulsorary.

Mick

Looking through section 5 of the current 2009 regs,it doesn't actually say that you have to have this device fitted.It is merely listed as "Other means of propulsion" a device which can be used in addition to the normal engine.

Maybe the wording is a little vague (it wouldn't be the first time!) or perhaps it is deliberately vague.

[Adam43]

If you weren't given the choice you could just develop a light system that didn't work very well. Now that is pointless.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

If you weren't given the choice you could just develop a light system that didn't work very well. Now that is pointless.

Like one of those bolt-on tyre driven dynamos that I had on my bike to power the lights many years ago.

There's nothing new under the Sun.

[Oldtony]

The interesting thing about the weight penalty of installing KERS is the need to provide crash or failiure protection for the stored energy, and the weight and bulk of that protection.
In most likely case, a capacitor, the potential ignition flash of that size capacitor suddenly shorting out in a crash situation is a bit frightening alongside an F1 cars fuel load.
In the less likely situation of a flywheel system, where do a flywheel or two spinning at up to 60,000 rpm finish up if jolted out of their mountings by a crash or other failiure.
What is the weight penalty of the requisite safety cladding????

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The interesting thing about the weight penalty of installing KERS is the need to provide crash or failiure protection for the stored energy, and the weight and bulk of that protection.
In most likely case, a capacitor, the potential ignition flash of that size capacitor suddenly shorting out in a crash situation is a bit frightening alongside an F1 cars fuel load.
In the less likely situation of a flywheel system, where do a flywheel or two spinning at up to 60,000 rpm finish up if jolted out of their mountings by a crash or other failiure.
What is the weight penalty of the requisite safety cladding????

An interesting article on that very subject.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...s-flybrid.html

[Oldtony]

Certainly sounds safer than I had anticipated. I wonder if with the single flywheel are there any gyroscopic effects.
Anyone hear anything later than this article?

[Marbot]

FIA sets out KERS 'timetable'.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66676

[Nicholosophy]

Off topic comment alert I have to type this or my brain will explode! At least Max is getting on with the job Thanks for reading, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to try the veal and tip your waitress. We now return you to the topic

The heat energy system sounds very interesting. Imagine using such a system to cool cars down. The further you drive the less fuel you need to use as heat output increases. Maybe even to a point where heat replaces the need for fuel (perhaps towards the end of long trips (urban-highway-urban) where heat production is still high whilst speeds reduced).

[Marbot]

Force India are to use Ferrari's KERS system for next season.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/m...i-kers-system/