Kers

[hellnback]

Kenetic Energy Recovery System or <insert your own anagram here> ???

Now I admit I haven't read the regulations, but seriously... 6.7 seconds per lap at Melbourne??? I presume it's a percentage type limitation based on the lap time of the track... so that works out to about 7.5%

Anyhow...

The big push for this environmental 'wonder' was so it'd eventually filter down to the normal daily commuter. Fair enough, I can see the logic in that. But 6.7 seconds...??? per lap...??? I can see why some teams have not even bothered with this 'passing revolution'. Although that's said in jest, those cars with it, did use it quite effectively to do that, and/or defend their position.

Now, and this is just my opinion, IF the F.I.A wanted to get serious about this technology they'd open up the restrictions...

Use KERS as much as you want or can...

This way there's a clear motivation for the F1 teams to make the technology as efficient as possible to gain maximum benefit per lap. The drivers would still need to push a button to get the power boost, or push it a second time to stop its use. Heck, this might even create a driver mistake as between the rapid gear changes and all the other buttons they have enough to do... just wait until inclement weather and them trying to use it... could be a big advantage or a wheel spinning nightmare.

Sure the counter-argument would be opening it up would just lead to all teams endlessly hitting the boost button, sure I accept that too. To me though it seemed the drivers were only 'boosting' when traction was certain & there was a full throttle section of track. Part of this was to avoid spinning and part because 6.7 seconds is a non-issue to where you use it.

More available time to use boost, would lead to more aggressive selection of it coming out of the corner, the brave would gain maximum advantage.

In short greater allowance of use = motivation to make the technology more efficient = better technology = eventual better benefits to commuter cars

Your thoughts???

 

[prisonermonkeys]

KERS only offers 6.6 seconds per lap because it is deliberately restricted. If it wasn't restricted, a driver could do a hard burn and use the reserve up and then regenerate the battery in the space of a few corners, which would offer an unfair advantage to those who have it. Restricting it to just under seven seconds' worth per lap is also designed to introduce strategy into its use. Without a restrictor, drivers would simply burn it up at the earliest possible opportunity and not had to worry about the strategy. But here we've seen them use it to give them a little extra speed out of corners, to attempt a pass or defend against one, or in sectors they are strong in to give them a better lap time and in secotrs they are weak in to minimise the ill effects.

Whereas in 2008 a car had to be travelling at least two seconds a lap quicker to stand a reasonable chance of passing another, the new aero regulations were designed by the teams in such a way that you only have to be going a second a lap quicker (and less and probles would arise because everyone would be dogfighting off the line, and when you do that your lap times are always slower because you're not on the optimal line). KERS grants you an extra eighty horsepower; I'm not sure of the exact mathematics behind it, but I daresay that additional eighty horsepower would narrow that gap further to make it easier to pass.

 

[Metar]

I don't know where that complicated theory came from, but no. The plan to restrict it to 400kJ and 60kW respectively was done in order to ease the introduction of the system. Considering how hard teams are struggling to implement them now (most teams want KERS - even Williams and Toyota - but didn't manage to get it ready in time), I shudder to think what would've happened if it was capped at 100kW and 1000kJ per lap.

It was brought as a "green element" to a fuel-burning sport - that also happened to serve the new overtaking-focused rules well. Plans were originally to extend the time and power of KERS systems over each year - though the future of these plans is unknown, due to the financial crisis and the focus on cost-saving.

 

[Peter]

KERS doesn't help much at all. The added 80 pounds is equalled by an extra 6.7 secs of 80 hp a lap

 

[niky]

KERS doesn't necessarily add weight, in actual practice. Most F1 cars are well below the minimum weight allowed, and have ballast to bring them up to "fighting weight".

What KERS does is minimize the amount of movable ballast the team has.. which hurts car balance when you're going for that final tenth. But the effect of this difference is still pronounced in situations where KERS is not active.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think we could see this be more of a disadvantage in the next few rounds since Melbourne is unlike most tracks in that the car is setup against the fronts grip capabilities, so the generally more compromised rearward weight bias of the KERS cars may not have had such a pronounced effect.

 

[Tired Tyres]

KERS doesn't necessarily add weight, in actual practice. Most F1 cars are well below the minimum weight allowed, and have ballast to bring them up to "fighting weight".

What KERS does is minimize the amount of movable ballast the team has.. which hurts car balance when you're going for that final tenth. But the effect of this difference is still pronounced in situations where KERS is not active.

It wouldn't hurt if they put the minimum weight up another 20KG to help out the heavier drivers with more moveable ballast.

 

[Metar]

It wouldn't hurt if they put the minimum weight up another 20KG to help out the heavier drivers with more moveable ballast.

Which is what BMW are campaigning for: They have a good, functional system, but Kubica is too tall and heavy to use it.

 

[Ardius]

I think I'll wait till Malaysia is over before completely believing this but:
I feel the current rules are fairly balanced, with the KERS and non-KERS cars appearing to have different tracks where they are strong at, very much alike to the Turbo vs N/A era, where Turbo wasn't such an advantage in the tight circuits. Same case here, KERS won't be good in tight or bumpy circuits with few straights like Melbourne (though it did see some good use anyway, Hamilton certainly used it to good effect).
I'm expecting the system to be more pronounced in Malaysia, though the wet weather may make it difficult to work out.

Also, the choice is essentially between better laptimes or better overtaking/defending ability for the car. I think with some more reliable races from Ferrari and the like, we may see the system having a better effect. It doesn't help that KERS is being used by teams with unreliable drivers or dodgy cars (Piquet? McLaren's car?). But Hamilton and Alonso at least showed its benefits last weekend, so it is in the hands of some very capable drivers and I don't think we should make conclusions on it just yet.

 

[mu22stang]

I quite like how KERS is limited, castrated if you will, and just able to offset its weight "disadvantage". Many teams want to increase the minimum weight of cars to counteract KERS weight. But that defeats its purpose as a strategic and developmental element of the racecar. These rules, or formula if you will, are put in place to make it hard to run fast lap times, have a reliable car, and be competetive. That drives the enginuity of the sport. The amount the ballast weight is reduced because the static weight of the KERS brings the racecar closer to the minimum weight requirement - good. We've seen teams that aren't running KERS have difficulty passing cars with slower lap times - good. I believe this resistance to change is driving some of the complaints, but with the formula unlikely to ever remain static, these changes will improve the sport while making it more difficult to be competitive. That to me is the point of the sport after all.

 

[hellnback]

Now only three cars running KERS... wow what_a_big_waste_of_time.

I reiterate this would not be the case if they weren't limited to a pathetic 6.6 seconds per lap... if you don't restrict the technology, they will find a way for it to become more efficient so they can use it more, they will find out how to make it lighter. This will eventually flow down to commuter cars.

F1 has always been about technology.

Wait and see what the diffusers decision will end up doing, open slather, bring on the ground effects.

But nooooo, 6.6 seconds.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Wait and see what the diffusers decision will end up doing, open slather, bring on the ground effects.

It's far more likely that the FIA will close that loophole for 2010 s that the cars will only run single-piece diffusers.

 

[Ardius]

Well, to be fair, Ferrari didn't run their's because of a safety concern. McLaren and Renault's system is seemingly very very effective, though Renault seem to be ok without it.

Also, other teams still plan on using the system later, I believe Williams are still developing their flywheel solution and Toyota may be using a similar system too.

Its not a dead technology - its a developing technology, sure we don't see huge benefits just yet but we will in future once they been made lighter, safer and more efficient in terms of how they affect the braking ability of the car.

We still have proof today that KERS is effective in race conditions, as we saw Hamilton rocketing off on the back straight ahead of Raikkonen.

 

[Metar]

KERS, when fully optimized, will be worth 0.2-0.3 seconds per lap - plus the obvious tactical advantage when battling for positions. This, in a field separated by tenths, is an advantage worth chasing - even if it'll take a while until it's ready.


Seems a bit of a battle between the Colin Chapman and Enzo Ferrari approaches: KERS-less teams are going for the lighter weight and therefore more optimal placing of ballast (and the obvious advantages in packaging, and thus slimmer sidepods and effective aerodynamics), while the KERS system is "a more powerful engine" - at some expense in handling.

 

[niky]

But once it's required, the advantage will go to teams that are further along in developing the packaging. Teams which have sacrificed pace at the start of the season to push their KERS along will find themselves closer to the front.

I sincerely hope they increase the amount of time KERS can be activated. The teams will face a practical limit to the amount of KERS energy that can be stored, anyway, due to car packaging... so an artificial limit is absolutely unnecessary.

-

That's if they're really serious about making this white elephant work...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then maybe a KERS supply deal is in order, kind of like engines. The three (full) teams to run the system - Ferrari, McLaren and Renault - also happen to supply seventy percent of the grid; BMW only supplies the works outfit and Toyota and Williams would have to their own thing for the time being. Ferrari would supply Toro Rosso, McLaren would give theirs to Brawn and Force India and Renault could offer it to Red Bull.

 

[niky]

Basically, just like the engines. It would work. Having non-works teams with "customer" engines and a limit on testing is starting to give us an ultra-competitive grid. When full implementation happens, it wil be a very interesting series, indeed.

 

[Metar]

Yep, once KERS becomes an advantage, those that worked on it will be the only ones able to use it as one - others will have to catch up.

Then maybe a KERS supply deal is in order, kind of like engines. The three (full) teams to run the system - Ferrari, McLaren and Renault - also happen to supply seventy percent of the grid; BMW only supplies the works outfit and Toyota and Williams would have to their own thing for the time being. Ferrari would supply Toro Rosso, McLaren would give theirs to Brawn and Force India and Renault could offer it to Red Bull.

It already happens. Magnetti Marelli and Bosch, for example, offer kits for any takers. Magnetti's system was used by Ferrari and Renault, with plans to use them on the RBR and STR eventually. The Bosch system, if I'm not mistaken, is used by McLaren.

Honda and Williams opted to go for in-house flywheel systems, though - and Williams said that as soon as it's ready, they might offer leases on it.

 

['11R' Skippy]

With my Opinion on KERS, It was brought as a Green Element for Formula 1, and a bid to increase Overtaking and all and make racing more interesting...

But If all teams have a KERS (regardless of how powerful that teams system might be), it might be a bit pointless... because if someone is going to use KERS to overtake, the driver in-front of him will use KERS to speed up a bit and defend his position.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But If all teams have a KERS (regardless of how powerful that teams system might be), it might be a bit pointless... because if someone is going to use KERS to overtake, the driver in-front of him will use KERS to speed up a bit and defend his position.

Depends on how you use it: you only get a few seconds' worth, and the other guy may have already used his rseve up for that lap.

 

[Metar]

Some drivers favour a laptime-centric approach to KERS, and prefer to use it in short boosts at the points calculated and deemed to be most beneficial to their laptime (Hamilton). Others view it as a weapon, and stated that, in a battle for position, they will use it at the point that eases blocking/overtaking the most, in a single burst (Alonso).

 

[Tired Tyres]

I noticed in the Hamilton in-car footage in the Chinese Grand Prix that he didn't use all his KERS up in a lap. He used most in the straight before the last corner but he always had some left by the time he got to the finishing line and it got replenished.

 

[simracerworld]

I noticed in the Hamilton in-car footage in the Chinese Grand Prix that he didn't use all his KERS up in a lap. He used most in the straight before the last corner but he always had some left by the time he got to the finishing line and it got replenished.

I suspect that would be due to the rain; though Heidfeld was using it all on the back straight, so maybe the graphics on Hamilton's car just didn't work?

No clue.

 

[HUGHS1E]

Can anybody please explain how they get the stored electricity and turn it into power bhp, is it just a motor fixed to the drivetrain to help to turn the wheels so its more effiecent? thus making more power at the wheels and not at the crank, I cant understand how else it could increase actual bhp,

 

[simracerworld]

Simple answer: Yes.

Complex answer:

The motor functions as both the generator, used as regenerative braking, and as the motor. It recharges the batteries under braking(which causes weird issues due to the difference in braking when it is recharging or not), before changing functions to boost the car on the straights.

Williams, on the other hand, use a flywheel with a clutch. Under braking the clutch is engaged to spin the flywheel faster, and under acceleration it is again engaged(I believe with a different gear ratio) to boost the car.

 

[mu22stang]

I have noticed an interesting change in RPM that seem inconsistent with engine RPMs of years past. The sound is almost as if the driver accidentally downshifts for a moment. I though at first this was KERS power boost causing a quick shift in power and engine tone, yet I noticed this on cars such as the Brawn that have no KERS system. Can anyone confirm what this is, or point me in the direction where it's discussed?

 

[Metar]

Williams, on the other hand, use a flywheel with a clutch. Under braking the clutch is engaged to spin the flywheel faster, and under acceleration it is again engaged(I believe with a different gear ratio) to boost the car.

Nope. Williams use an electro-mechanical system: A generator gets electrical energy off the rear wheels under braking, and sends it to a separate motor connected to the flywheel. This motor accelerates the flywheel via a CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission). When the boost is used (and it hasn't - Williams opted not to install their system during races), the flywheel is connected via the CVT to a generator, which sends electricity to an electric motor connected to the wheels.


BrawnGP/Honda had plans to install an in-house solution that involved a flywheel connected to the crankshaft via a CVT, but they didn't race it.

 

[KSaiyu]

So I'm guessing the only advantage could be reliability, or is the flywheel package more beneficial for weight distribution than batteries?

 

[HUGHS1E]

OK I think I grasped that, so it doesnt make more bhp at the crank it makes the drivetrain more effiecent by helping over come forces so less bhp is lost in resistance, am i also correct in thinging that kers is charged with braking time rather than bracking force eg car braking harder or car braking for longer

my second question is could this technolgy be used to help fuel economy, surely over 60laps they could get a few free laps by using the system to help pressuve fuel and not use as much when kers is in use so they have a little extra to go a lap longer, im just curious with it especially after finding out a certain 125cc bike used it last year, where braking distances are much greater and dry weight is down so i would think its even more effective

 

[Metar]

Thing is, they could use it to save fuel - but instead, they'd rather spend that extra power to augment, rather than replace, then engine: Have more power, and thus more acceleration. In Formula 1, drivers are at the limit at all times - so you're either braking, or accelerating with as much throttle as possible. There's no coasting - coasting is wasted time. So, there's no time during which the KERS system might replace the V8 engine to save fuel - it's not nearly powerful enough, and even if it was, teams would rather use it in addition to it, thus gaining in acceleration and top-speed, therefore achieving better laptimes.

Unless the FIA put a cap on the total amount of fuel for the race, teams will never save such minuscule amounts of fuel if it comes at the expense of laptimes.