FOTA agrees to drop KERS from 2010

[WhiteBlue]

I might be the ignorant one here, but I fail to see the connection between the DDD's and KERS?

To catch up on DDD was more important than developing KERS for the likes of Red Bull and BMW. So without the DDD isue much more effort had gone into KERS and there would be a lot more KERS powered cars on the grid. As it stands the money has been wasted on yet another useless hunt for downforce that was not intended to be available.

[roost89]

Well i wanted to see KERS with unlimited power , greatly increased usage time per lap , but a limited battery size .

Williams would be sorted then, just need to add more revolutions to it and only the materials would be the factor which would stop it becoming more powerful.

[xpensive]

It's actually not that simple, you need to pick up the energy as well, just a generator unit connected to the drive-line doesn't take you that far really.

[PNSD]

I might be the ignorant one here, but I fail to see the connection between the DDD's and KERS?

To catch up on DDD was more important than developing KERS for the likes of Red Bull and BMW. So without the DDD isue much more effort had gone into KERS and there would be a lot more KERS powered cars on the grid. As it stands the money has been wasted on yet another useless hunt for downforce that was not intended to be available.

DDD has nothing to do with it. The cars were slow because of KERS and because they developed it for it not because they did not have the DDD.

RBR did not develop KERS and currently have the quickest car, and in the first half had easily the 2nd quickest car and even the quickest at times.

Even without the DDD the teams would have put more into aero development than KERS because that's where the biggest area of gain has been. Take Mclaren for example. Through aero-development and little KERS development (as far as I know) they have gained well over 1.5seconds / lap! Why waste money on KERS to gain tenths when you could gain seconds on aero development?? With or without DDD nothing would have changed imo.

[djos]

I might be the ignorant one here, but I fail to see the connection between the DDD's and KERS?

To catch up on DDD was more important than developing KERS for the likes of Red Bull and BMW. So without the DDD isue much more effort had gone into KERS and there would be a lot more KERS powered cars on the grid. As it stands the money has been wasted on yet another useless hunt for downforce that was not intended to be available.

DDD has nothing to do with it. The cars were slow because of KERS and because they developed it for it not because they did not have the DDD.

RBR did not develop KERS and currently have the quickest car, and in the first half had easily the 2nd quickest car and even the quickest at times.

Even without the DDD the teams would have put more into aero development than KERS because that's where the biggest area of gain has been. Take Mclaren for example. Through aero-development and little KERS development (as far as I know) they have gained well over 1.5seconds / lap! Why waste money on KERS to gain tenths when you could gain seconds on aero development?? With or without DDD nothing would have changed imo.

Rubbish, RBR even tested their KERS System (Renault supplied) in pre-season testing!

[WhiteBlue]

I might be the ignorant one here, but I fail to see the connection between the DDD's and KERS?

To catch up on DDD was more important than developing KERS for the likes of Red Bull and BMW. So without the DDD isue much more effort had gone into KERS and there would be a lot more KERS powered cars on the grid. As it stands the money has been wasted on yet another useless hunt for downforce that was not intended to be available.

DDD has nothing to do with it. The cars were slow because of KERS and because they developed it for it not because they did not have the DDD.

RBR did not develop KERS and currently have the quickest car, and in the first half had easily the 2nd quickest car and even the quickest at times.

Even without the DDD the teams would have put more into aero development than KERS because that's where the biggest area of gain has been. Take Mclaren for example. Through aero-development and little KERS development (as far as I know) they have gained well over 1.5seconds / lap! Why waste money on KERS to gain tenths when you could gain seconds on aero development?? With or without DDD nothing would have changed imo.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree. Red Bull did make significant investment in KERS development. And most of the in season aero development of Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, BMW, Renault, Toro Rosso and FIF1 this season was devoted to catch up on DDD. Even the teams like Toyota and Williams who started with DDD have devoted most of their resources to improve those aspects that benefitted DDD. It impacts around the whole car from nose to floor, gearbox and rear wing.
If the OWG had done a good job closing that loop hole all that would not have happened because the development potential would have dropped to 10% of what we saw after that bull manure decision.

[Richard]

Well i wanted to see KERS with unlimited power , greatly increased usage time per lap , but a limited battery size .

Williams would be sorted then, just need to add more revolutions to it and only the materials would be the factor which would stop it becoming more powerful.

I think it would be limited "energy" as opposed to "battery".

Anyway, if it becomes an integrated power/brake cycle then the only limit need be on the input energy (ie combustion engine), the KERS should be limitless.

[xpensive]

Storage is perhaps an even bigger problem than paractically picking-up all of the conventional breaking-energy?

If we make a rough estimation that the total braking-energy available over one lap, based on m*(v1^2 - v2^2)/2, is between 5000 and 10000 kJ, one can begin to imagine the size of the battery when comparing with the 400 kJ batteries of today.

Perhaps a fly-wheel would have higher capacity, anyone?

[djos]

Storage is perhaps an even bigger problem than paractically picking-up all of the conventional breaking-energy?

If we make a rough estimation that the total braking-energy available over one lap, based on m*(v1^2 - v2^2)/2, is between 5000 and 10000 kJ, one can begin to imagine the size of the battery when comparing with the 400 kJ batteries of today.

Perhaps a fly-wheel would have higher capacity, anyone?

I dont mind the flywheel technology as a solution for KERS one bit but I do object strongly to batteries (LiPo, LiIon tec) as they have an incredibly short lifespan under the conditions F1 subjects them too and they apparently get tossed after each weekend. This imo is hardly "green" and frighteningly expensive if the guesstimates of $100,000+ per battery pack are true - then there are all the batteries that need to be recycled/disposed of properly!

If F1 is going to keep KERS and a standard system is adopted it should be flywheel based imo (not based on chemical batteries).

NOTE: I'm not objecting to electric cars etc, just to the blatant and expensive greenwashing attempt perpetrated on F1 by Mad Max.

[xpensive]

If it's true that the current 400 kJ batteries are 100 kUSD a piece and gets thrown away after each race, it's truly preposterous to my mind and FOTA dropping KERS for 2010 most understandable.

[Richard]

Storage is perhaps an even bigger problem than paractically picking-up all of the conventional breaking-energy?

I dont mind the flywheel technology as a solution for KERS one bit but I do object strongly to batteries (LiPo, LiIon tec) as they have an incredibly short lifespan under the conditions F1 subjects them too and they apparently get tossed after each weekend.

Problems? Difficulties? Impractical? Seeing how teams tackle those technical challenges is one of the main reasons I follow F1! If anyone can solve the battery problem, it is likely to be some bright chap in F1. If it is impossible, then we'll see them all switch to fly wheel. Its very Darwinian and I'd love to see it played out to a conclusion.

[tok-tokkie]

While knowingly running the risk of repeating myself into absurdity, it's something like that you need to make KERS viable.

A 700 kg car reducing its speed from 250 to 100 km/h, five times over one lap, is still only 7000 kJ of kinetic energy.

At the same time, an F1 car spends more than 500 kJ of wheel-energy per second when at full power.

One liter of gasoline holds 34 000 kJ and the car spends some 3.5 to 4 liters per lap.

In a way Mario Theissen was right on KERS, but you need to let the dogs out of their boxes.

Using those figures I get this:
KERS can get 7 000 kJ per lap
1 litre = 34 000 kJ
3,6 litre per lap
Engine efficiency 33%?
So the 7 000 kJ from KERS would replace 21 000 kJ from the fuel
So it will save 21/34 litres per lap = 0.61747
The race is 60 laps
So it will save 60 X 0.61747 litres = 37.06
Density of fuel about 0,737 kg per litre
So the weight saved is 37 x 0.737 = 27.269 kg

So a KERS car (without restricted use) would start off 27 kg lighter next year when there is to be no refueling. That would be a great advantage.

[xpensive]

Quite correct and most engineerish tokkie, I'm impressed. I think 33% engine efficiiency is perhaps an overestimation however, why I would rather think 20-25%, which only reinforces you arguments really.

Remaining is to build a generation-system, replacing the conventional brakes, as well as a storage solution for the 7000 kJ.

[ISLAMATRON]

The xtreme cost and complexity of such a system was soon realized by most teams in FOTA, why they wanted to stall for furter evaluation, but for some reason BMW insisted.

I think the "push-to-pass" could have been far easier achieved by a six second rpm-increase, which is what they do in the IRL as we speak, and from a "greener" viewpoint, 400 kJ is nothing really.

An unlimited KERS, eliminating conventional brakes on all wheels would be technically xiting, but the complexity a nightmare, completely out of reach for the smaller teams.

Completely wrong again, if you didnt notice KERS is optional this year, teams were not forced to spend any money for it this year. Some teams(Ferrari & Toyota) wanted to delay it till 2010 when it would be mandatory(stupid rule if you ask me). BMW's argument(a rational one) is why pay for a system(and its development) and not use it? Teams would still be paying for it and not using it, total stupidity. BMW was totally correct.

The only reason Ferrari & Toyota wanted to delay it was because their systems were not ready yet. Ferrari lucked out and Magnetti Mirelli came thru in the clutch, after RBR abandoned their own system and threw in their hat with MM. 3 teams Ferrari, Renault & RBR(STR) paid into the MM system and all did testing for them which helped improve the system.

And I doubt any push to pass system could give you a 80hp boost in a highly stressed N/A engine... if you watch the IRL they say the boost is between 5-20hp depending which fuel map you are on.

[xpensive]

As usual, you have a very polite way of xpressing yourself.

An xtra 2000 Rpm would probably not be very far from another 80 Hp.