Briatore: FOTA seeking to ban KERS

[sirtyro]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74793

Shame really considering Mclaren system seems to be doing very well. Is this another Briatore sour grapes story trying to get it banned? Would Mclaren and FIA be willing to provide generic system to all teams like the ECU?

[rdjohn]

I am sure the answer to that question is yes.

If it is not banned next year, I think that McLaren will have a big advantage when all teams have to have one fitted.

[mchammer89]

sirtyro said:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74793

Shame really considering Mclaren system seems to be doing very well. Is this another Briatore sour grapes story trying to get it banned? Would Mclaren and FIA be willing to provide generic system to all teams like the ECU?

It's a shame, but I have to agree with him, think of the amount of money that's been poured into it, and on several occasions the teams have decided not to run their KERS system because it slows them down to much, usually it makes little difference, it has no green credentials at all and it's just another thing to go wrong, with the aero regulations as they are the racing is fine, we don't need this silly power boost idea in F1. If anything else, it stinks of hypocrisy shouting to the teams to reduce costs while encouraging them to pour millions into KERS research.

[RichB]

IMO KERS always was and still is a daft idea, it's a gimmick and I'll be pleased to see it go.

[sirtyro]

Still you cant fault Mclaren for have the tech genius to come up with a system that works.....even though it prob cost a fortune why should they loose all that investment when they followed the brief?

[zac510]

RichB said:

IMO KERS always was and still is a daft idea, it's a gimmick and I'll be pleased to see it go.

It's definitely the latest trendy thing to whinge about isn't it?

[RichB]

zac510 said:

RichB said:

IMO KERS always was and still is a daft idea, it's a gimmick and I'll be pleased to see it go.

It's definitely the latest trendy thing to whinge about isn't it?

Perhaps, I've always thought it was a gimmick.

[SamHH]

mchammer89 said:

It's a shame, but I have to agree with him, think of the amount of money that's been poured into it, and on several occasions the teams have decided not to run their KERS system because it slows them down to much, usually it makes little difference, it has no green credentials at all and it's just another thing to go wrong, with the aero regulations as they are the racing is fine, we don't need this silly power boost idea in F1. If anything else, it stinks of hypocrisy shouting to the teams to reduce costs while encouraging them to pour millions into KERS research.

Isn't the performance advantage limited by the rules on how much power can be discharged, not by the system itself? If so, one of your complaints could be rectified by allowing more power to be discharged (as I believe was planned for future seasons).

[Holst]

SamHH said:

mchammer89 said:

It's a shame, but I have to agree with him, think of the amount of money that's been poured into it, and on several occasions the teams have decided not to run their KERS system because it slows them down to much, usually it makes little difference, it has no green credentials at all and it's just another thing to go wrong, with the aero regulations as they are the racing is fine, we don't need this silly power boost idea in F1. If anything else, it stinks of hypocrisy shouting to the teams to reduce costs while encouraging them to pour millions into KERS research.

Isn't the performance advantage limited by the rules on how much power can be discharged, not by the system itself? If so, one of your complaints could be rectified by allowing more power to be discharged (as I believe was planned for future seasons).

That was my thinking.

If did away with the per lap KERS limit and allowed higher storage capacity (whatever is considered safe) then KERS would be more effective and there would be more insentive to run it.

[rdjohn]

sirtyro said:

Still you cant fault Mclaren for have the tech genius to come up with a system that works.....even though it prob cost a fortune why should they loose all that investment when they followed the brief?

I am sure that I read somewhere that McLaren first proposed the system early in the decade. It is not really leading edge technology.

I think that it does need to stay though, because most of the aero reductions intended to allow overtaking have been negated by the double deck diffuser.

Flavio is right to be really fed-up with the whole fiasco. Personally, I doubt that Renault will be there next year so McLaren Merc. could be supplying a lot of Engine/transmission/KERS packages.

My other prediction for this year is that Brawn will run out of money before McLaren Merc. And tomorrow may be the day to find out who is the better Brit driver.

[mchammer89]

SamHH said:

mchammer89 said:

It's a shame, but I have to agree with him, think of the amount of money that's been poured into it, and on several occasions the teams have decided not to run their KERS system because it slows them down to much, usually it makes little difference, it has no green credentials at all and it's just another thing to go wrong, with the aero regulations as they are the racing is fine, we don't need this silly power boost idea in F1. If anything else, it stinks of hypocrisy shouting to the teams to reduce costs while encouraging them to pour millions into KERS research.

Isn't the performance advantage limited by the rules on how much power can be discharged, not by the system itself? If so, one of your complaints could be rectified by allowing more power to be discharged (as I believe was planned for future seasons).

Not really, at the minute it seems like a shoddy rip-off of the "push to pass" idea in other less successful series, if they upped the power, then it would be just like FPA/A1GP and whatever other series use them, my point is that we don't need this, the current rules are fine without it, and it's just another thing to cloud the actual racing like the different fuel loads in qualifying, why not keep it simple?

[Waiter]

Flav said:

To this day I don't yet understand what the FIA means by hole in the diffuser, so I can imagine the embarrassment for the viewers

Embarrassment..? None at all for this viewer.

Flav said:

today in F1 there are some racing with KERS and some without, some with the super diffuser and some without. That's not good.

Yes it is.

[Derek Smith]

The justification for KERS was to give overtaking opportunities but it not only has failed to do this, it has actually aided slower cars to keep much faster ones behind them, Ferrari most notably.

The only thing you can say about KERS is that it fulfilled its promise.

[pies]

KERS is not compulsory,so no need to ban if you don't think it will improve your car then dont spend money on it

[AlpineWhite]

pies said:

KERS is not compulsory

It is next year, I believe.

[skinny]

it was going to be when first introduced... who knows now! wouldn't surprise me to see the FIA take another backward step on yet another regulation that's cost millions to implement.

[SamHH]

mchammer89 said:

Not really, at the minute it seems like a shoddy rip-off of the "push to pass" idea in other less successful series, if they upped the power, then it would be just like FPA/A1GP and whatever other series use them, my point is that we don't need this, the current rules are fine without it, and it's just another thing to cloud the actual racing like the different fuel loads in qualifying, why not keep it simple?

I was responding to your criticism that some teams aren't using KERS because there isn't enough of a performance advantage by pointing out that this might be solvable by allowing more power to be provided by KERS, rather than getting rid of it all together. Correct?

As for it clouding the racing, I think that's a good thing. I like lots of different things mixing up the racing. That's why it's exciting when it rains; it adds more unpredictability.

[stephen300o]

In truth no one here much liked the idea of Kers...until Flavio decided to lay into it of course

edit: Although Flavio suggesting some teams have an advantage and some don't is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure F1 has never been closer in it's entire history.

Edited by stephen300o on Saturday 25th April 17:50

[AlpineWhite]

You are such a cynic!

[mchammer89]

SamHH said:

mchammer89 said:

Not really, at the minute it seems like a shoddy rip-off of the "push to pass" idea in other less successful series, if they upped the power, then it would be just like FPA/A1GP and whatever other series use them, my point is that we don't need this, the current rules are fine without it, and it's just another thing to cloud the actual racing like the different fuel loads in qualifying, why not keep it simple?

I was responding to your criticism that some teams aren't using KERS because there isn't enough of a performance advantage by pointing out that this might be solvable by allowing more power to be provided by KERS, rather than getting rid of it all together. Correct?

As for it clouding the racing, I think that's a good thing. I like lots of different things mixing up the racing. That's why it's exciting when it rains; it adds more unpredictability.

That is true too, to me it's a crap idea that is badly implemented, now they're saying they're gonna implement it better, but it's still gonna be a crap idea if you get me, all imo of course.