Are KERS safe ?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ITCCTouringCars

I don't like ideas like this, it has no place in F1.

After taking away driver aids they are basically levelling it out again by giving boosts to overtake, I can't imagine there being much driver input in pressing a boost button and driving around someone.

Why can't we got back to the rules of the 70's? Except with modern safety. I believe designers are clever enough to find new ways to go faster, if rules are written strictly.

I agree with you...I would like to see the time spent on "how can we make these cars easier to pass during a race" without having to resort to pit strategy to get around the chap in front and also without the use of any driver aids at all...

I believe that to most race fans KERS is going to be a case of "so what".. My own opinion of course, I welcome a (pounding) or your further comments on the subject will do just fine..

[jedrinck]

If the flywheel, and it would have to be of considerable weight and spin at very high rpm to make a difference for energy return, lay flat in the car like the spare wheel in your trunk, its axis would be parallel to the axis around which the car turns and thus would not hamper turn in. It would however have a stabilizing gyroscopic effect acting against body roll and dive/squat. As I said, maybe people will be able to use that for performance gains other than the actual energy return thing.
I think the KERS idea in F1 is rather funny in the way of trying to make the sport look more environmentally friendly. However, with the freedom given to the teams in development of their individual systems we may get to see greater differences in performance than we have now. Maybe the force india is gonna fly past all the others next year with an innovative solution no one else thought of!

[Teretonga]

Jedrinck:

Maybe the force india is gonna fly past all the others next year with an innovative solution no one else thought of!

Maybe.
However the system will probably put paid to close competitive racing such as what we have seen this year, and why introduce a suystem that is going to cost millions to develop effectively yet charge those competiting within the sport with the responsibility with a programme to reduce costs???

It has no place in F1

Quite right Jeremy. It doesn't.
We'll soon see how it works though, if at all.

"how can we make these cars easier to pass during a race" without having to resort to pit strategy to get around the chap in front and also without the use of any driver aids at all...

Right again...

[Armchair Enthusiast]

I wonder if there will be any teams who wont run a KERS next year. Personally, if I was an underfunded team, I would give it a go from a reliability/potential performance stance.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Armchair Enthusiast

Personally, if I was an underfunded team, I would give it a go from a reliability/potential performance stance.

There aren't any "underfunded" teams anymore,only those that don't have quite so much as the ones that have more than enough.

What you might see is the likes of McLaren and Ferrari making two cars-one with and one without KERS.How's that for energy saving and cost cutting!

[MarkkuAlen86]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I agree with you...I would like to see the time spent on "how can we make these cars easier to pass during a race" without having to resort to pit strategy to get around the chap in front and also without the use of any driver aids at all...

I believe that to most race fans KERS is going to be a case of "so what".. My own opinion of course, I welcome a (pounding) or your further comments on the subject will do just fine..

I havn't enjoyed Formula One as much since Senna left us, for many reasons.

I realise the object of Formula One maybe to showcase the best machinery and drivers in the world, but it's now, thanks to Bernie, too businesslike in my opinion.

I realise sponsors are important, they always have been. But because of this, Kimi Raikonen can't go over to Piquet Jnr car and have a conversation, because one car has 'Elf' on the side, while the other has 'Shell'. Unlike the 60's, 70's etc drivers could talk all the time, regardless. I think the comerardery in F1 has been lost. If there was a big accident (God forbid) LH wouldn't stop to help a fellow driver, because Ron Dennis would give him to much of a argument after.

And can you imagine what would happen today if the Lauda Super-License episode repeated itself?!

What I'd like to see:

Engines not restricted to one type, V8's, V12's, V10's and turbocharged 1500cc(I miss how the drivers themselves had to have a strategy in-car, deciding on which turbo boost is best for which part of the race), just levelling it out by finding out which capacity for each type would level the playing field.
One hour qualy again.
Longer races with no refueling, just tyre stops.
No driver aids.
Slicks.
Forget about the enviroment, I know it's important, but this is Formula 1! It's not right.
And bring back the older tracks, re-vamp them, anything. Just get the bandwagon back to the Ostereichring, Nordshleife and Kyalami! (Upto modern safety standards of course)

I also miss how Frank Williams could just 'decide' to turn up one weekend with Piers, and race in a world championship event.

If rules like this were introduced, I realise team designers would moan endlessly about it not pushing technology anymore. I'm positive they are clever enough people to find new ways to go faster mechanically and aerodynamically, they always have and always will find new ways.

It actually angers me this topic! I miss the heyday too much.

[RotorFan]

Originally Posted by ITCCTouringCars

Engines not restricted to one type, V8's, V12's, V10's and turbocharged 1500cc(I miss how the drivers themselves had to have a strategy in-car, deciding on which turbo boost is best for which part of the race), just levelling it out by finding out which capacity for each type would level the playing field.

Or maybe a formula that limits the fuel you can use. I know this didn't work too well in Group C but in theory it sounds right. Manufacturers know more now about fuel economy and "fuel-saving" during the race might not be such a problem nowadays.

But why limit it to petrol piston engines???

Rotary, turbo rotary, hydrogen rotary, diesel rotary, turbo diesel rotary, turbo diesel piston, rotary-valve piston! The possibilities are endless!

Each fuel type has an energy rating, the only thing that needs to be controlled is the maximum amount of fuel you can use for each type. If one engine configuration (e.g. rotary) provides better performance for the fuel consumption then a constructor has an advantage, and the others develop their engines to match them until finally we discover piston engines are not the most effective design after all! Everyone drives rotaries and we live happily ever after.

Originally Posted by ITCCTouringCars

If rules like this were introduced, I realise team designers would moan endlessly about it not pushing technology anymore. .

On the contrary, but opening the engine regs we'd see more technology pushing and innovation than ever before.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RotorFan

Each fuel type has an energy rating, the only thing that needs to be controlled is the maximum amount of fuel you can use for each type. If one engine configuration (e.g. rotary) provides better performance for the fuel consumption then a constructor has an advantage, and the others develop their engines to match them until finally we discover piston engines are not the most effective design after all! Everyone drives rotaries and we live happily ever after.

The thing is that they won't need to find out by building and racing such engines,it can all be done on their super computers.

What's the betting that rotaries won't even figure in it.

[Malfunction Junction]

Sometime in 2007 Ross Brawn gave his opinion that the limitation he would place upon engines was fuel flow. In this way, you could avoid the volume problems of the group C era, avoid the capacity equalisation problems of the turbo era and with configuration free, the manufacturers could choose which configuration suited them best.

Brawn's own view was that a small capacity turbo engine at ridiculous revs would be ideal. He was in favour of limiting the materials used in the engines to reduce cost.

I think he might be right, but I'm unsure about whether I'd be too willing to allow hair dryers back in.

Previously I'd favoured Turbo Diesels, but I still can't tell you what I was thinking at the time.....


On the topic of the thread, I wonder if the gyroscopic effects of the Williams flywheel may bring maximum gain in ways other than via a power boost button

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Malfunction Junction

On the topic of the thread, I wonder if the gyroscopic effects of the Williams flywheel may bring maximum gain in ways other than via a power boost button

They may use twin flywheels that cancel each other out.

Since the flywheel will be speeded up when braking and the rear of the car is the most unstable,then a flywheel that settles the rear end would be advantageous....but what the hell do I know.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by RotorFan

But why limit it to petrol piston engines???

Rotary, turbo rotary, hydrogen rotary, diesel rotary, turbo diesel rotary, turbo diesel piston, rotary-valve piston! The possibilities are endless!

Absolutely. There are a number of engine designs out there that are not getting enough funding to be put in to full scale testing for road use. Opening up F1 engine design to allow any engine type and limiting fuel flow would *probably* bring huge benefits in fuel economy to road cars, perhaps with completely different engine designs. And F1 cars would still be faster than they are now.

[duke_toaster]

The difficulty is a rule set with cost control, sensible power levels, parity and technical interest.

[RotorFan]

Well by limiting fuel flow you'll be limiting power. You can only get so much power from an amount of fuel.

Then when teams develop their engines to use fuel more efficiently and develop more power, reduce the fuel flow again!

Originally Posted by Marbot

What's the betting that rotaries won't even figure in it.

I think we'd be amazed at what they developed if the rules were open. Rotaries have received so little development effort that the potential to improve it is huge. The only reason rotaries aren't used more is because they are banned for being TOO GOOD!

[speedy jon]

f1 teams should be spending thier millions on developing a car that can overtake on the track (not the pitlane) and make for better racing.
whats the point in spending millions for 0.3 of a second off a lap time. whats wrong with just having low down force and slick tyres? that would be more the 0.3 off a lap time and much cheaper too.


rant over

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by speedy jon

whats wrong with just having low down force and slick tyres? that would be more the 0.3 off a lap time and much cheaper too.

rant over

Coming in for 2009.

[thebear]

Originally Posted by mark_l

If the car had done a 'racing pitstop' would the driver of received a shock when the car hit the earthing strips used to remove static for the refuelling, as the driver would normally be insulated by the tyres.

Here is a video of the BMW incedent.

If someone could provide a translation summary of the commentary it might prove intersting.

[Oldtony]

Surely solving this sort of problem in very quick time should not be beyond the nous of all those supposed design, data, engineering and other experts in F1.
In fact it is very good to see F1 involved in something useful for a change instead of sitting in wind tunnel cubicles testng yet another useless wingy thingy.
Interesting how different combinations of materials and their uses can spring a surprise. It would appear that the potential for Carbon fibre to act as a plate for induced potential when in proximity to high voltage AC was not forseen. The answer should be simple in bonding all sections ofthe car to a common earth, and in ensuring the car is earthed at pitstops as already required for refeuling. While the static voltage discharge from an incident as seen in the footage would give a pretty fair jolt, it would be unlikely to cause real harm. The problem as always is mainly with the possibility of mixing a spark with fuel.
The use of this as an excuse to delay KERS away from the start of next year would be a huge insult to the technical expertise of the F1 engieering teams IMO.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The use of this as an excuse to delay KERS away from the start of next year would be a huge insult to the technical expertise of the F1 engieering teams IMO.

Only BMW,Honda and Williams were against a move to delay the introduction of KERS.Honda and Williams are believed to be using flywheel systems,whereas BMW are obviously confident of sorting theirs.As for the others,well I guess some don't benefit from it anyway and maybe one or two 'have' to get it right first time.

[mattt]

there now using KERS in alms so surely there could be some liason between the Zytek and the F1 teams to get it to work safely

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by mattt

there now using KERS in alms so surely there could be some liason between the Zytek and the F1 teams to get it to work safely

I believe that Williams (could be wrong) have a deal with Zytek.

Found this article.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...brid-kers.html

Is Zytek part of AHP?

[zac510]

Originally Posted by mattt

there now using KERS in alms so surely there could be some liason between the Zytek and the F1 teams to get it to work safely

In the Autosport article Zytek did say that they are working with an f1 team but they wouldn't say who.

I don't think AHP and Zytek are related. They seem to be pursuing different paths anyway - one flywheel, one battery.

[ss_collins]

Williams are definatley not using Zytek! Flybrid will 99% not be used in 2009, despite having been tested in at least one car leaving Williams the only known flywheel runner.

Also the most powerful motorsport KERS yet seen is fitted to a World Rally Car - http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...ybrid-wrc.html