FOTA agrees to drop KERS from 2010

[WhiteBlue]

Sounds like a recipe for desasters on track. It tastes like figure 8 racing.

[flynfrog]

Sounds like a recipe for desasters on track. It tastes like figure 8 racing.

nice constructive discussion you have going there

[safeaschuck]

Thought I'd save some topic pollution and get onto this one, the name is almost as good as:
'The death of KERS'

So, in the wake of the FIA/FOTA truce this still stands, KERS is gone next year?
That's a shame if you ask me (which obviously no one did).
I guess KERS may still be seen in Le-Mans and some lower formula's?? maybe DTM???
Surely it's popularity and credibility must have taken a massive hit after being so roundly slagged off by some of the most respected figures in the industry?
Will this even have a trickle down effect into manufacturers performance road car strategy?
Whereas before it could have been argued that performance cars were adding value with 'green' performance by offering F1 style technology with KERS, surely now the less technically inclined viewers of 'the most watched motorsport competition in history' (FIA) must be thinking that it is an unnecessary, inconvenient and generally a waste of time and money. Great.
Maybe even the Type R's and STI's of the world would have started featuring it sooner.

I think FOTA, ought to grow up and accept a bit of responsibility, even to the extent of promoting the use of KERS to the public to make amends for the damage already done. As for some others on this forum, KERS may only be a gesture at present, but it's an important one, a trend setting one.
Getting rid of the ridiculous 'overtake' button does no harm at all but KERS should defiantly stay, and grow.

Stephen Dunham, Senior Consultant in the Sports Business Group comments further: “While F1 is already a sporting financial superpower, issues such as the location of Grands Prix, sanction fees to host races, team costs, sponsorship deals and environmental aspects must constantly be evaluated if F1 is to continue to maximise its audience appeal, brand value, and ultimately revenues.”
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_relea ... 18,00.html

Also thanks to Porsche's lobbying many low volume or 'niche' manufacturers selling in Europe, i.e. most sports cars are exempt from tougher emissions regulations so the pressure to go a bit greener is even less now. Nice one Porshce, you ---.

And I won't hear any grizzling on behalf of the little guys, the Noble's etc trying to make 50 cars a year and being forced out of business because they can't afford to make their engines clean enough, Lotus managed it with Toyota engines, Ariel are using Honda and they are all probably better cars for it.

Sadly this is the only link I can find that doesn't involve paying to see the article, it mentions manufacturers (possibly could be stretched by using different brand names within the same group???!) selling less than 10,000 units per year will be able to negotiate their own emissions targets, HA (and I believe this is within the E.U. only).
That's some niche they have there.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425823/1978367

Also see how Porshe are trying to skew overall emissions targets in their favour:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... boast.html

And see how they are trying to get around a 'Chelsea Tractor' tax aimed at reducing the amount of idiots commuting in London in a Cayenne. Or at least making the idiots pay for their stupidity.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/26 ... uch-calls/

Oooh I hate em... Nice cars though!

Anyway, KERS, Gone?, Booo

[RacingManiac]

Somehow, I doubt the fact that you are replacing the batteries after every GP weekend and for a total of maybe 500 sec of recovered energy per car is the solution to F1's green problem. F1 aferall, is carbon neutral. The technology has potential, but it is so tied down and limited that it really is just a gimmick at the end, and a costly gimmick at that. When car companies are trying to save money but cutting people's benefits, pay and work, while spending multi-million dollars on technology that has arguable environmental benefits and most aren't even using? On the big picture as a whole that doesn't sound that responsible to me...

[machin]

Yeah I agree Safaschuck..... this is a massive backwards step.... the first "big" technological advancement and it was strangled by stupid rules.... (i.e. limiting its use per lap) and now people think its a stupid technology.... when infact it could be fantastic.... lets just hope Le Mans/sportscars can keep the technology alive....

[Ciro Pabón]

The technology has been "kept alive" and kicking, not in F1 but in UPS for computer servers.

Here you have the first article (nice, btw) I googled for "UPS flywheel": http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/ ... 92,00.html

The article mentions a data center with 6 Mwatts (for 15 seconds?).

AFAIK, things like the bearings, suspended on air or magnetic, axis of rotation controlled by computer, frictionless empty cases (airbearing integrated with pumps in the rotor that keep the vacuum), as well as carbon fiber rotors (that work both as generators and motors), were implemented in commercial (sellable) form by those UPS guys.

An example of an UPS flywheel energy storage, by Active Power


They are good to ride transients and allow you to have a generator in standby for power outages.

As happens with flywheels, I think the latest advances in battery powered KERS come from the same source: portable PCs and UPS storage sources of energy.

I think it is evident that one of those two technologies HAS to be used by hybrid vehicles, or my logic doesn't work anymore: hybrids either use batteries or flywheels.

I also think that FOTA, FIA, karts and SuperV8 or whoever, will use them when they become more attractive (and less heavy).

I think those racing cars of the future will be hybrids too, but I might be mistaken. Perhaps FIA some day will admit electric motors in future hybrid Formula cars, that is, cars that are designed from the top to be hybrid, not simply as a boost button.

For an "engineering-ly" twisted point of view, the calculations are simple: you have two sources of energy.

One (electric motors) gives you torque. Kilo for kilo, they have large torque, higher than the one an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) has, with less inertia.

Torque is good in racing. Torque in electric motors can be handled precisely by a computer that controls the field energy of the rotor, so you get automatic braking system (ABS) and Traction Control (TC).

Other (ICE) gives you high density energy: the weigh of the engine PLUS the weight of fuel is small.

The fuel of electric motors (batteries) weighs a lot, a no-no in racing.

Flywheel systems weigh more or less the same as batteries but they are more compact (occupy less space) and are excellent at handling large power for short periods in a relatively clean way (at least for the final user: acid batteries and greasy diesel generators are not to be kept right in your server room).

So, in the far, far future, you would expect to see a car that uses those (if no more) three sources of energy, each one at the moment (and with the power) that creates the fastest car with less energy input.

[xpensive]

And guess who's back, alive and kicking, just what the doctor orderd I guess?

Missed you Ciro, and I mean that. Seriously

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, thanks. I didn't miss you, guys... Sorry, I was moving my house. So, I'm grumpy, treat me gently, pleeze. In F1Technical, more Technical and less F1 would be OK to me.

Of course I cannot resist to give a political solution: what would happen if you open the engine and limit the energy input?

I don't mean to limit the fuel, but the input.

You would say that no car can store more than XXX Joules and be done with engine rules. Use motors, ICE, diesel, whatever. If speeds go too high, you reduce the XXX joules. This way, racing would be following energy efficiency.

Before someone accuses me of lunacy (I would do it myself if I wouldn't know better) I know that LeMans has kept the highly esteemed prize for energy efficiency since the 1950's, if I'm not mistaken.

That prize, to me, is perhaps the real World Constructor Championship.

If this prize exists no more, someone should do a race based on that principle: more for less.

Maybe this has been the principle all the time, since Marathon and the chariots.

[xpensive]

Love you too Ciro, but I guess you know that by now?

So now you expect your audience not only to recall the ancient ways of giving a "Concour d'elegance" prize, but also remeber the "Index of performance"?

Are you not asking for a lot here, or are you just relying on us old geezers?

[safeaschuck]

Well, I know there are people who will never be sold on so called 'hybrid power' when the I.C.E. seems to be doing just fine thanks, but for me F1 is so far removed from the realm of the classic petrol head as to be almost irrelevant anyway. If you like the sound of a lumpy American V8 or a fizzing Japanese straight four, great, there are motorsports to cater for your requirements.

F1 for me should be about what can be achieved not what has been achieved. I'm sure there is another 50bhp/litre to be had out of a spark ignition engine but lets face it, we are not going to see it in F1 with a rev limit in place; Perhaps we will see a coruption of the traditional 'rev's mean power' philosophy but so what, is it as exiting as 25,000rpm? no, is it going to be a worthwhile excercise, no, it's being done to comply with rules that try and fail to compensate for the reality of the situation, so lets move on.

It's sad that a WRC car would be utterly useless in a ERC Rallycross race because the regulations (in partucular the mandated turbo restrictor) have strangled power output, yes there are structural issues with the bodyshell and running gear too but these are partially linked to the difference in power output.
It's a reality that it is too dangerous and possibly expensive to let these cars fulfil their true potential on the courses they are designed to race so why would you continue to add false impediments to performance like an air restrictor, or rely on national government emissions standards to force the use of things like a catalytic converter when you can use this excess of wasted power to demonstrate fantastic supplemental/alternative technology like KERS which will one day be essential no matter whether you are powered by petrol, water, or your own gaseous emissions. I certainly wouldn't mind having on my pushbike when it comes to those hills!

[Richard]

Yup, it is shame it's gone. Once mature, it would have enabled road cars to have a power surge available (just like a turbo), hence a smaller engine for pottering around town or cruising on the motorway.

[Patriiick]

Yup, it is shame it's gone. Once mature, it would have enabled road cars to have a power surge available (just like a turbo), hence a smaller engine for pottering around town or cruising on the motorway.

It is mature as it is... the road car implementation does not have the same constraints about chassis weight, balance, and 6.6sec limit of such.
The question is how you dimension it (in terms of what it can recuperate and what it can provide power-wise), and how you will use it and set it up.

Implementing it on a road car is critical in that you have to decide how you want to use/market it to the masses:
- As a "green" energy recovery system that would help initial acceleration to save fuel or improve performance
- As a turbo but once again, the benefits would be negligeable vs a traditional well setup turbo.... and the idea is not "the vtec just kicked in yo!" (know your internet meme..)

In any case, the more performance you plan on it giving, the less mainstream it will be.

[Richard]

Implementing it on a road car is critical in that you have to decide how you want to use/market it to the masses:
- As a "green" energy recovery system that would help initial acceleration to save fuel or improve performance
- As a turbo but once again, the benefits would be negligeable vs a traditional well setup turbo.... and the idea is not "the vtec just kicked in yo!" (know your internet meme..)

In any case, the more performance you plan on it giving, the less mainstream it will be.

Both! As with most F1 echnology transfer, it could have gone to high sepc cars first, then trickle down to others.

You can imgaine the Merc tagline "Buy an SL with the same power boost as Lewis Hamilton, without burning fuel" Unfortunately, events nnow make that sound ilke "Buy an SL with the same dead duck power boost as Lewis Hamilton that even Lewis has given up on"

[safeaschuck]

"the vtec just kicked in yo!"

Hahahaha. Indeed.
Despite my earlier rant about emissions targets being relaxed for certain sportier cars they will still be an issue. If Kers does make it into widespread use on road cars a power boost button would almost certainly be used less effectively than having the ECU managing power delivery.
If said boost button were used under hard acceleration, as I would imagine would be the temptation at the traffic light grand prix, the grip would probably not be available anyway and traction control would quash it.
I can see a reserve power indicator on the dash, as is popular at the moment but this would most likely be bled off periodically during 50-80mph dash's etc. overtaking on motorways. I'm told by the marketing blurb that an automatic transmission can 'learn your driving style' no doubt a Kers system could too.
Even on performance cars I see it as being a good way to lessen fuel use when stabbing the accelerator rather than an out and out performance device, however with so many systems tied in to the ubiquitous 'sport' button nowadays it would be simple to switch the Kers to a performance enhancing only mode rather than fuel saving.

[Ian P.]

I expect the concept of KERs for road cars being primarily for the manufacturer's to reduce their CAFE Ratings. Not for the consumer who wants better economy. When did you see someone purchasing an SUV on the basis that this one gets better mileage than that one....not likely. "This one has more cup-holders".
The "Super-Mileage" folks will tell you the best way to improve mileage is to stay off the brakes and drive smoothly. Not going to charge up the KERs very quickly doing that.
Overheard at a gas (sorry....Petrol) station...
"I pumped up the tires, I had it tuned up, I drive sedately and smoothly and it STILL costs me $100 to fill the tank....!!!"