Is KERS going to be around next year?

[Dukeage]

If it would be possible to a car to eight KERS units per season like engines, keep it limited as per 2009 rules (mainly for safety reasons with regards to straight line speed) and ensure that all teams can get one at reasonable cost along with their engines, I wouldn't mind.

However, it would have to be road relevant (with regards to component life), appropriately limited (to keep already high straight line and cornering speeds at sensible levels) and cost sensible (F1 is a sports league as well as a technological test bed).

[WhiteBlue]

Andrew Benson of Autosport had an interview. I also take some voices from Chris Lines Auto racing AP.

There's general agreement it should have a place in Formula One. I believe it should be compulsory or not at all. It's heavy work unless you're a manufacturer and several manufacturers didn't do it in the end, and it wasn't relevant to the development of their own motor cars. It's appropriate if it's not too expensive. The drivers fuel tank is three times what it was two years ago, and if they want to put KERS in there, you'd have your car longer than a London bus.

I wouldn't say it's a divisive issue. A lot of the teams cannot afford Kers next year - probably the majority can't. We've got to find something that's affordable and worthwhile for the sport. McLaren support the idea of Kers in F1 and we'd love to have it. What we have to do is look at the bigger picture as F1 has to be sustainable for a minimum of 10 teams and if we are to reintroduce Kers we have to decide the speed which we reintroduce it and make sure it's affordable. Last year was interesting because some teams had Kers and others didn't - maybe in the future Kers should be one of those sporting opportunities i.e. have a number of Kers deployments (per lap) that help overtaking.

We acknowledge that Kers will have a part to play in future technologies. We think the (power) gains available last year were not significant enough and that we should look at Kers in the future with that in mind. We would prefer to look at something that is planned and integrated with the new power-train in 2013. That doesn't mean to say that Kers can only come in 2013 - maybe it can be anticipated (brought forward) - but if we do a system now and another in 2013 it's a shame. The systems we have now, the advantage they offer is probably not enough and we need to look at systems that are substantial enough to help the sporting side of racing. If we had a push-to-pass button that you could only use a certain amount of times then we would have something quite exciting. So I think Kers has a future but we have to be careful not to rush back to what we had last year which we all agreed was not perhaps a huge success.

Renault is aiming to have Kers back in 2011 because for us there are many interests in having this. First of all we already have the system. We have spent the money to develop Kers [for 2009], so to not use it any more is a bit of a waste of money. The second thing is that we believe for the Renault car manufacturer there is a strong interest in using this technology regarding the development of hybrid technology in road cars. It also helps pass on the message that F1 is technological and environmentally friendly, which is a good message. We are asking for the system to recover more energy - more than the 400KJ than the previous generation - because it can become part of the show as well. It will clearly be an advantage to have Kers as well, and it can help overtaking

.

The Ferrari position was pretty much what Renault thought. Williams/Cosworth are most likely to support the Williams system. So it looks like all four manufacturers will support KERS in 2011.

It should also be considered that the new formula will bring more opportunities for integration.

A problem with the Williams system is the need to fit it into the protection of the safety cell. With the new huge fuel tanks the monocoques are going to grow to giant size, hence Sir Frank's reference to busses.

Another problem will be getting a better system than 2009 without limitations and affordable for customer teams. In my view engine suppliers should be mandated to integrate KERS with unlimited capacity. A fixed price should be set for the system covering the manufacturing cost plus x and the energy storage should be bundled with the engine in terms of longevity. For 2011 and 2012 electrical systems should be used which are largely developed and can be integrated in present chassis packaging. If possible the 2013 new power formula should be accelerated (brought forward to 2012).

[autogyro]

There's general agreement it should have a place in Formula One. I believe it should be compulsory or not at all. It's heavy work unless you're a manufacturer and several manufacturers didn't do it in the end, and it wasn't relevant to the development of their own motor cars. It's appropriate if it's not too expensive. The drivers fuel tank is three times what it was two years ago, and if they want to put KERS in there, you'd have your car longer than a London bus.

Just thought I should point out that my ESERU system is intigral with the gearbox, has no clutch and is at least 12cm shorter than a conventional power train even without KERS.

[Edis]

There's general agreement it should have a place in Formula One. I believe it should be compulsory or not at all. It's heavy work unless you're a manufacturer and several manufacturers didn't do it in the end, and it wasn't relevant to the development of their own motor cars. It's appropriate if it's not too expensive. The drivers fuel tank is three times what it was two years ago, and if they want to put KERS in there, you'd have your car longer than a London bus.

Just thought I should point out that my ESERU system is intigral with the gearbox, has no clutch and is at least 12cm shorter than a conventional power train even without KERS.

Doesn't matter, you want the weight as far forward as possible and that means you place the KERS in front of the timing gear cover and connect it to the crankshaft.

Most gearboxes are longer than they have to be in order to increase the wheelbase of the car and move the center of mass forward, so that doesn't matter either.

[marcush.]

There's general agreement it should have a place in Formula One. I believe it should be compulsory or not at all. It's heavy work unless you're a manufacturer and several manufacturers didn't do it in the end, and it wasn't relevant to the development of their own motor cars. It's appropriate if it's not too expensive. The drivers fuel tank is three times what it was two years ago, and if they want to put KERS in there, you'd have your car longer than a London bus.

Just thought I should point out that my ESERU system is intigral with the gearbox, has no clutch and is at least 12cm shorter than a conventional power train even without KERS.

Doesn't matter, you want the weight as far forward as possible and that means you place the KERS in front of the timing gear cover and connect it to the crankshaft.

Most gearboxes are longer than they have to be in order to increase the wheelbase of the car and move the center of mass forward, so that doesn't matter either.

i don´t think this is true anymore.the weight bias was 50+ front heavy...as we heard but now the tip swings towards the back with those tiny fronts..so there is more degree of freedom in placing Kers components further back ,but still as low as possible of course.

[autogyro]

Sorry Edis but I have to disagree.
The geartrain of my ESERU is only 21cm from the back face of the engine (there is NO clutch) and the start of the output shaft. The length of the output shaft is almost irelevent because the diff does not move. The casing is also for suspension mounting and my system would leave more room for this in a much narrower rear gearbox case, possibly allowing a diffuser upsweep after the gear train, with a gap to ground similar to the raised nose.
If there is no motor/generator on the crank nose of the engine it saves that distance to the fuel tank which is on the CofG. This allows a more central weight distribution and or a lower fuel tank.

I would split the Kers energy storage between flywheel and batteries, mount the flywheel which would be smaller than the Williams one in front of the engine where a conventional Kers motor/generator would have been and mount the smaller battery packs and control unit in the side pods.

[WhiteBlue]

Press conference Shanghai 2010 with TEAM PRINCIPALS: Eric Boullier (Renault), Colin Kolles (HRT), Adam Parr (Williams), Peter Sauber (BMW Sauber)

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) And just to follow up on the point that Adam made, do you think that KERS and/or any other energy recovery system is essential for the future?
EB: Formula One needs to be a little bit greener, and as Adam said, with a greener engine, KERS or any hybrid system needs to be back in, because it’s the future on our roads. So Formula One needs to stick to this philosophy as well. We have already developed something in the past which I think we’re all discussing to maybe put it back next year under certain conditions, but it definitely needs to be part of the package.
AP: Absolutely, we think a big KERS is going to be a very important part of the 2013 engine.
CK: Well, I don’t fully agree with this point. I was always against KERS and I am still against KERS. I agree that we have to be a greener Formula One, that’s fine but if you look at KERS - if it’s really green - and you look into the details, then KERS is not really green. So I think that we should look into reality and be realistic and not dreamers. This is my simple point of view. There are certain interests here, obviously from car manufacturers. I agree with this, I have no problem with this, but we, as a small team, are not going to afford to invest such amounts of money into technology, so we are definitely happy to find solutions and I fully agree that Formula One has to become greener to attract sponsorship, to make it more viable for everybody, basically, to make the business more viable, but I don’t think that KERS in the common sense is the best solution. I would agree with the Williams solution which is obviously a different solution than the battery solution. This is a more reasonable solution, but as we are discussing at the moment, to use a KERS based on batteries, people would be surprised which is more environmentally friendly or not if you look at the detail.
PS: Green or not green, I think Formula One has to follow this direction, especially the manufacturers. Maybe we can wait until the engine changes in 2013, together with maybe a world engine, I think it will be easier for everybody.

KERS seem to be a difficult issue for next year. They only agree that KERS must be bigger to harvest the full potential. Kolles is against KERS due to cost reasons. Battery based KERS isn't popular for the waste of batteries. We know that the fly wheel system is too big to fit with the large fuel tanks. So Peter Saubers view to wait for the next engine formula could be popular. I reckon they might as well discuss to bring the new formula forward to run already in 2012. In that case quick decisions are needed.

[autogyro]

No need to worry about batteries or the packaging WhiteBlue.
I am saying no more.

[Richard]

I hope so, but as much energy as they can harvest so it is fully functioning part of the power train. That would lead to it being a performance differentiator.

As for cost, they can adopt the current engine rule that customer teams can buy engines at fixed price. Then you'd get Williams, Mercedes, Ferrari, Cosworth and autogyro as suppliers.

[WhiteBlue]

Then you'd get Williams, Mercedes, Ferrari, Cosworth and autogyro as suppliers.

So can we continue with the press conference by asking autogyro which engine manufacturer he would prefer to team up with for a GRE supply with his wonder box?

[autogyro]

Then you'd get Williams, Mercedes, Ferrari, Cosworth and autogyro as suppliers.

So can we continue with the press conference by asking autogyro which engine manufacturer he would prefer to team up with for a GRE supply with his wonder box?

Two already WhiteBlue, we will see.

[WhiteBlue]

I hope so, but as much energy as they can harvest so it is fully functioning part of the power train. That would lead to it being a performance differentiator.

As for cost, they can adopt the current engine rule that customer teams can buy engines at fixed price.

Very sensible, but what would be the chance of getting it past Ferrari who are likely to be the main opposition? I guess that Cosworth would not object to any engine formula because they would not have marketing issues with it. Ferrari are not using small blown engines in their road cars and would probably try to keep the current formula as long as they can.

The FiA on the other side are pressing for a fuel efficient engine and that will almost certainly be a new engine with recovery fully integrated in the power train. With the smaller 1,6 L turbo engine the space and the weight for a flywheel KERS can be found.

Regarding cost of engines they would have to fix the price and have the manufacturers pick up the tab for development. That will only work if it is road relevant. I can see some viability for the whole scheme and hope that this time there will be no bloody saboteurs who will stop it. They have been discussing this since 2007 and in the meantime there was virtually no progress towards fuel efficiency.

[Richard]

what would be the chance of getting it past Ferrari ....Ferrari are not using small blown engines in their road cars

Ferrari have just announced a hybrid road car, seems a good match for them to have KERS back in F1.

[flynfrog]

Then you'd get Williams, Mercedes, Ferrari, Cosworth and autogyro as suppliers.

So can we continue with the press conference by asking autogyro which engine manufacturer he would prefer to team up with for a GRE supply with his wonder box?

Two already WhiteBlue, we will see.

[andrew]

KERS should be ditched and forgotten about.

It is just pointless and adds nothing really. Just a Max Mosley mind-fart.