KERS or no KERS?
Discussion
No benefit on weight distribution, but less impact on aero consistency, heat management and load on other systems.
But surely, somewhere like Monza would make it a disadvantage not to run it?
Don't forget that only a couple of teams ran it consistently in 2009, McLaren being one of them, so the argument that Red Bull were able to run at the front then doesn't really hold any water.
My money is on Red Bull introducing it from the European races. It will be interesting to see what effect it has in Malaysia which has a couple of major straights....
But surely, somewhere like Monza would make it a disadvantage not to run it?
Don't forget that only a couple of teams ran it consistently in 2009, McLaren being one of them, so the argument that Red Bull were able to run at the front then doesn't really hold any water.
My money is on Red Bull introducing it from the European races. It will be interesting to see what effect it has in Malaysia which has a couple of major straights....
They'll introduce it no doubt, but not until they've got the batteries small and cool running enough that they can package them without affecting the aerodynamics adversely. Lithium-poly battery tech has advanced massively over the past few years, so no doubt the batteries available in a few months will be 10% lighter and 10% cooler running for the same capacity. Might just be enough to nudge it into the space available.
I had thought that KERS was mandatory this year. But since some lower-order teams don't have it, clearly it isn't. The only way out of that impasse would be to mandate the fitting of ballast of equivalent size, shape and position, but, since there is no standardised KERS system, that isn't possible.
It doesn't, overall, seem awfully good without compulsion.
It doesn't, overall, seem awfully good without compulsion.
Red Bull must have designed to car to take it...no way could they redesign the car for obvious reasons. SO it ought to just slot into the space that must currently be ballasted....unless there's something onbstrucing/already occupying that space of course....that confers a far greater adnvantage than KERS does.... 
skwdenyer said:
I had thought that KERS was mandatory this year. But since some lower-order teams don't have it, clearly it isn't. The only way out of that impasse would be to mandate the fitting of ballast of equivalent size, shape and position, but, since there is no standardised KERS system, that isn't possible.
A mandatory ballast for non-KERS cars would be grossly unfair. First, KERS is optional, not mandatory; so whether a team uses KERS is a strategic decision for them. Second, a non-KERS car already suffers from not having an additional weapon for overtaking or defending against an overtake; there is no need to penalise them even more by mandating extra ballast. Thirdly, the minimum weights of the cars have already been increased to offset the centre-of-gravity disadvantage suffered by larger drivers in KERS cars.I think KERS is definitely an advantage this season. We saw how Mark was struggling to get past Alonso in an identically-paced car, due to Alonso's use of KERS. Mark's DRS alone was no match for the combined defence put up by Alonso's KERS + DRS. Then there is always the risk of getting jumped during the drag race to T1.
Non-KERS teams will probably have to find a way of making KERS work eventually, at least for fast tracks like Monza and Spa.
The Red Bull ran KERS in practice, they opted to remove it for the qually/race.
All the cars have a minimum weight, so taking KERS off the car means they put ballast weight back in, but the ballast will drop the C of G relative to it, so is a handling advantage not running it.
Alonso didnt have the low drag rear wing advantage to help defend, as only the car behind has it enabled during the race in the "overtaking" zone.
All the cars have a minimum weight, so taking KERS off the car means they put ballast weight back in, but the ballast will drop the C of G relative to it, so is a handling advantage not running it.
Alonso didnt have the low drag rear wing advantage to help defend, as only the car behind has it enabled during the race in the "overtaking" zone.
skwdenyer said:
I had thought that KERS was mandatory this year. But since some lower-order teams don't have it, clearly it isn't. The only way out of that impasse would be to mandate the fitting of ballast of equivalent size, shape and position, but, since there is no standardised KERS system, that isn't possible.
It doesn't, overall, seem awfully good without compulsion.
Also, a standardised KERS would sort-of defeat the (ill-conceived) purpose, of giving competing F1 engineers an incentive to device a better KERS.It doesn't, overall, seem awfully good without compulsion.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff