Monaco GP 2009 - Monte Carlo

[DaveKillens]

Monaco does have straights where KERS may be an asset in attacking or defending. It's just that almost every corner is so darn tight. Kers just does not provide as much a benefit as other track configurations.
There are many reasons for McLaren to retain KERS. First off, if KERS was to be ripped out, it is for balance purposes. KERS comes out, and the entire car would be changed by re-ballasting. I don't even know if McLaren have run their current car in such a configuration. Any major change in balance would be a LOT of work.
It's not about the immediate situation at Monaco, but more about long range thinking. It would take more than just removal of KERS to make their car a potential winner. But by retaining it McLaren adds to a huge database on KERS that other teams do not have. And notwithstanding all the present politics, next year McLaren would enjoy a major advantage because they have run it (and learned) at every track. KERS will be mandatory next year, and what they learn today will stand them very well in the future.
And if KERS becomes a spec component next year, like the ECU, McLaren look likely to land that contract because of their success and experience with KERS.

[Giblet]

Mclaren has such an advanced simulator they should have all the data they need to quickly see if KERS will have a penalty or not.

It's crazy on this site sometimes, with armchair experts thinking a formula 1 team of the caliber of Mclaren would run the wrong car, based on what? Your first impluse?

[wesley123]

Also remember that mclaren has a ultra low weight kers system, much lighter then others, thats why they can run it

[ringo]

KERS looks plausible coming outa 19 up to 3. nice jump on anyone coming out the pits too.

Not so sure about the tunnel; it looks pretty hairy trying to pass in there then coming down side by side down to the chicane.

[roost89]

Mclaren has such an advanced simulator they should have all the data they need to quickly see if KERS will have a penalty or not.

It's crazy on this site sometimes, with armchair experts thinking a formula 1 team of the caliber of Mclaren would run the wrong car, based on what? Your first impluse?

I read what other F1 technical directors said, what the other KERS teams did (abandon the KERS) and thought. They also must be doing that for a reason, like KERS would be of little use around Monaco.

However, I can also see why McLaren would stick with theirs, knowing how vital it appears to be for their performance also when I found out how light it was. The short "Straights" can make use of kers. How ever the track is only full throttle 45% of the time.

Williams Flyby states

With speeds dipping to as low as 28mph on the entry to corners such as the Lowes hairpin, good traction to power the car out of the exit is also crucial to set a competitive lap time. With just 45% of the circuit driven at full throttle, the longest period lasting just eight seconds through the tunnel where speeds peak at 180mph

KERS doesn't seem to have many opportunities to deploy. 2 short bursts, saving the KERS for the tunnel and the start/finish.

[Conceptual]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

In Gran Turismo 4, the cars had the opportunity to be equipped with NOS, and what we found was that turning it down to a 20 shot, and just bumping it on corner exit made a huge difference in lap time. I understand that Monaco doesn't have alot of long straights, but a .1s bump of the KERS exiting each corner, and dumping the rest down the straights would be how I would use it.

But, of course, that would need to engage it below 100kph.

Is this number arbitrary, or is there an actual technical reasoning for it?

[timbo]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

It is not that it is restricted, it is that there's excessive torque from engine below 100-150 kph anyway.
KERS would help if it doesn't mess with balance too much, it is only that there's little sense to use it in race - there's too little space to overtake so it won't make a difference.

[Scotracer]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

In Gran Turismo 4, the cars had the opportunity to be equipped with NOS, and what we found was that turning it down to a 20 shot, and just bumping it on corner exit made a huge difference in lap time. I understand that Monaco doesn't have alot of long straights, but a .1s bump of the KERS exiting each corner, and dumping the rest down the straights would be how I would use it.

But, of course, that would need to engage it below 100kph.

Is this number arbitrary, or is there an actual technical reasoning for it?

But Gran Turismo 4 is a horrible simulation.

[cba_]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

In Gran Turismo 4, the cars had the opportunity to be equipped with NOS, and what we found was that turning it down to a 20 shot, and just bumping it on corner exit made a huge difference in lap time. I understand that Monaco doesn't have alot of long straights, but a .1s bump of the KERS exiting each corner, and dumping the rest down the straights would be how I would use it.

But, of course, that would need to engage it below 100kph.

Is this number arbitrary, or is there an actual technical reasoning for it?

But Gran Turismo 4 is a horrible simulation.

ARCADE [-X

[Scotracer]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

In Gran Turismo 4, the cars had the opportunity to be equipped with NOS, and what we found was that turning it down to a 20 shot, and just bumping it on corner exit made a huge difference in lap time. I understand that Monaco doesn't have alot of long straights, but a .1s bump of the KERS exiting each corner, and dumping the rest down the straights would be how I would use it.

But, of course, that would need to engage it below 100kph.

Is this number arbitrary, or is there an actual technical reasoning for it?

But Gran Turismo 4 is a horrible simulation.

ARCADE [-X

Just because something isn't an accurate simulation doesn't make it arcade - you are assuming a false dichotomy. A poor simulation is just that.

An arcade game in my interpretation would be a game that intended to be one (such as PGR).

[ISLAMATRON]

KERS will be strong up the hill after turn 1

[PNSD]

Just because something isn't an accurate simulation doesn't make it arcade - you are assuming a false dichotomy. A poor simulation is just that.

An arcade game in my interpretation would be a game that intended to be one (such as PGR).

Agreed.

They do after all GT the 'perfect driving simulation' do they not?

Got to say though, the prologue is by far a massive improvment over previous versions. It is getting there!

[roost89]

Why is KERS restricted below 100kph?

In Gran Turismo 4, the cars had the opportunity to be equipped with NOS, and what we found was that turning it down to a 20 shot, and just bumping it on corner exit made a huge difference in lap time. I understand that Monaco doesn't have alot of long straights, but a .1s bump of the KERS exiting each corner, and dumping the rest down the straights would be how I would use it.

But, of course, that would need to engage it below 100kph.

Is this number arbitrary, or is there an actual technical reasoning for it?

The drivers already use KERS to stabilise the car on exit and most probably entry to a corner. Ant mentioned this on Radio 5 coverage a wee while ago.

[Giblet]

I haven't seen a driver use it on entry.

Any corner that entry speed is less then 100kmh you can't use it, and why would you want more power when you are slowing for a corner?

If the corner is a flat out, then it doesn't really have an entry/exit and KERS could be used as if on a straight.

[roost89]

I haven't seen a driver use it on entry.

Any corner that entry speed is less then 100kmh you can't use it, and why would you want more power when you are slowing for a corner?

If the corner is a flat out, then it doesn't really have an entry/exit and KERS could be used as if on a straight.

I've no idea. I was merely passing along what I'd heard from an F1 driver.