Discussion
Its not been imposed, but without it a top team especially will be at a significant disadvantage and be vulnerable to being overtaken, particularly at the start.
Red Bull seem to have come up with a clever compromise from the stories coming out this morning, a lightweight KERS system that they use off the start but then doesn't charge much, if at all, through the race. That way they can make the KERS system a lot lighter which then means they can use weight in other areas of the car to balance it better, but don't suffer at the start where it's most important.
There is certainly a drive for F1 to be seen as "greener" though, hence KERS being allowed and the mooted introduction of 2L four cylinder turbocharged engines in 2013, which will use about 30% less fuel.
Red Bull seem to have come up with a clever compromise from the stories coming out this morning, a lightweight KERS system that they use off the start but then doesn't charge much, if at all, through the race. That way they can make the KERS system a lot lighter which then means they can use weight in other areas of the car to balance it better, but don't suffer at the start where it's most important.
There is certainly a drive for F1 to be seen as "greener" though, hence KERS being allowed and the mooted introduction of 2L four cylinder turbocharged engines in 2013, which will use about 30% less fuel.
Edited by LocoBlade on Saturday 26th March 13:08
LocoBlade said:
Its not been imposed, but without it a top team especially will be at a significant disadvantage and be vulnerable to being overtaken, particularly at the start.
Red Bull seem to have come up with a clever compromise from the stories coming out this morning, a lightweight KERS system that they use off the start but then doesn't charge much, if at all, through the race. That way they can make the KERS system a lot lighter which then means they can use weight in other areas of the car to balance it better, but don't suffer at the start where it's most important.
There is certainly a drive for F1 to be seen as "greener" though, hence KERS being allowed and the mooted introduction of 2L four cylinder turbocharged engines in 2013, which will use about 30% less fuel.
new engines will 1.6 not 2L.Red Bull seem to have come up with a clever compromise from the stories coming out this morning, a lightweight KERS system that they use off the start but then doesn't charge much, if at all, through the race. That way they can make the KERS system a lot lighter which then means they can use weight in other areas of the car to balance it better, but don't suffer at the start where it's most important.
There is certainly a drive for F1 to be seen as "greener" though, hence KERS being allowed and the mooted introduction of 2L four cylinder turbocharged engines in 2013, which will use about 30% less fuel.
Also, yes KERS is part of the green agenda, but it saves no fuel relatively (in F1)
Scuffers said:
new engines will 1.6 not 2L.
Also, yes KERS is part of the green agenda, but it saves no fuel relatively (in F1)
For now anyway, KERS doesn't save fuel. But imagine if a bit down the line the IC engines were limited a bit more, and KERS was allowed to be used all the time. The much smaller engines would use less fuel, but the cars would still be as fast.Also, yes KERS is part of the green agenda, but it saves no fuel relatively (in F1)
davepoth said:
Scuffers said:
new engines will 1.6 not 2L.
Also, yes KERS is part of the green agenda, but it saves no fuel relatively (in F1)
For now anyway, KERS doesn't save fuel. But imagine if a bit down the line the IC engines were limited a bit more, and KERS was allowed to be used all the time. The much smaller engines would use less fuel, but the cars would still be as fast.Also, yes KERS is part of the green agenda, but it saves no fuel relatively (in F1)
all the power still comes from petrol, if you have the fuel, but a less powerful engine, you will end up running it longer (at max power) to make up the deficit, using KERS to achieve this.
Roo said:
Slightly O/T but in relation to fuel saving Brundle said that if they're that concerned about being green and saving fuel just make the races 10% shorter.
Did he say that during the gp weekend? Didn't hear it myself. I was wondering what his and dc's opinion was on the 'green' b
ksRoo said:
Slightly O/T but in relation to fuel saving Brundle said that if they're that concerned about being green and saving fuel just make the races 10% shorter.
Or, if they want to save a lot of fuel, drop one fly-away race like Bahrain - they did that, so why not follow Red Bull and drop KERS all together.I like the idea of KERS in F1 but at the moment it seems to be a bit of a half hearted attempt. If we are going to have KERS lets really have KERS and do away with the artificial restrictions on the amount of energy that can be recovered and its release rate. Problem is that 'umlimited' KERS would be rediculously expensive, but on the other hand 'limited' KERS has also proven to be rediculously expensive and isn't that exactly what the resource restriction agreement is supposed to prevent anyway?
I wonder that if KERS hadn't been specifically banned by the regulations up until 2009 whether it would have naturally made its way into F1 anyway.
Scuffers said:
no, think about it...
all the power still comes from petrol, if you have the fuel, but a less powerful engine, you will end up running it longer (at max power) to make up the deficit, using KERS to achieve this.
The current KERs system only captures a very small proportion of the energy shed under braking. If you were to beef up the system, you could theoretically increase the amount of energy recaptured quite dramatically and hence reduce fuel usage whilst maintaining the same overall performance. I'd imagine it could have quite a considerable effect, if your energy storage medium is efficient enough and can take charge fast enough. all the power still comes from petrol, if you have the fuel, but a less powerful engine, you will end up running it longer (at max power) to make up the deficit, using KERS to achieve this.
You'd probably have to put the generators on the front wheels, though.
IndyAndy777 said:
Okay, I am confused. KERS is compulsory this year, isn't it? I thought Horner said in a post race interview that they didn't have the KERS system on the Red Bull cars at all last weekend.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Its not compulsary no. The technology became legal (but not required) for the start of 2009, but only about half the grid bothered and only really Mclaren got it running reliably. As there was so much financial turmoil and with a lot of manufacturers leaving F1 (Toyota, BMW and Honda, plus Renault were undecided at the time), in 2010 the teams agreed amongst themselves to temporarily not use it for cost reasons even though it was still permissible within the regulations, but for 2011 they always intended to revert back to the regs and use KERS if they wanted to.Can someone clear this up for me?
None of the three "new" teams at the back have any kind of KERS at the moment, everyone else does though, or at least has a system available even if it's not always used
Edited by LocoBlade on Monday 28th March 15:57
Strangely Brown said:
LordGrover said:
I may have it wrong - it was very early for me on a Sunday and I was verrry drunk later in the day. 
Feel free to ignore my comment.
Leaving it on and not using it wouldn't have been very sensible. Taking it off saves 30kg. Feel free to ignore my comment. ewenm said:
So KERS cars are 30kg heavier than non-KERS? Unlikely as all the cars have ballast to get the to the minimum weight IIRC. Taking it off may allow you to put that 30kg in more sensible places for the balance of the car though.
Yes, that's what I would have thought too but I seem to recall him [Horner] saying that it was 30kg saved, or words to that effect. Anyway, the point is that they were better off with the system removed from the car rather than just not using it.Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff