BrawnGP

[Conceptual]

This is why KERS should have come in as a 4WD recovery system, with unlimited usage. And they should have raised the minimum weight from 605Kg to 650Kg so the introduction of KERS would not have had such an adverse effect upon the usage of ballast (that is essential to balance the tyres).

When drivers are scraping 2-4Kg off of their already thin frames, and having doctors determine how much muscle mass (heavier than fat) that they can lose, but still retain the strength necessary to drive a full GP, there is a serious problem.

I must say that my larest fear from this year is the hot races like Bahrain, Malaysia and Abu Dhabi may lead to some accidents/hospitalizations due to this fine edge that the drivers have been made to walk in the name of KERS.

Yes, raising the minimum weight from 605KG to 650KG with the introduction of KERS would have been better.

I would not doubt that this may happen for 2010+, especially if the tyres behave really badly, and the drivers faint due to the weight loss.

Who knows, but I DO know that I just can't wait for Australia!

[Carlos]

I found this analysis of the BrawnGP on the web; but without a byline so I can't attribute it to the author although I would have liked to offer proper recognition. One of the details I admire is the suggestion that the front suspension layout is part of it's success - an intuition I share.

EDIT - What? Thanks PNSD. I've blundered here. This can't stand. It's got to come down. It's not right to post without permission. My apologies.

Here it is from it's original source. Technical analysis: BrawnGP BGP 001 by Craig Scarborough
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73700

[PNSD]

Thats Scarbs article !

[donskar]

Thats Scarbs article !

And a fine piece it is. Thanks, Scarbs!!! It takes a LOT of talent to make the technical understandable.

[ISLAMATRON]

This is why KERS should have come in as a 4WD recovery system, with unlimited usage. And they should have raised the minimum weight from 605Kg to 650Kg so the introduction of KERS would not have had such an adverse effect upon the usage of ballast (that is essential to balance the tyres).

When drivers are scraping 2-4Kg off of their already thin frames, and having doctors determine how much muscle mass (heavier than fat) that they can lose, but still retain the strength necessary to drive a full GP, there is a serious problem.

I must say that my larest fear from this year is the hot races like Bahrain, Malaysia and Abu Dhabi may lead to some accidents/hospitalizations due to this fine edge that the drivers have been made to walk in the name of KERS.

Yes, raising the minimum weight from 605KG to 650KG with the introduction of KERS would have been better.

I would not doubt that this may happen for 2010+, especially if the tyres behave really badly, and the drivers faint due to the weight loss.

For once we actually agree... but only partly... yes, if engines and gearboxes are limited & frozen as they are, KERS should have been unlimited, even to the extent of 4WD, but there is no need to raise the minimum weight. Having all that ballast, whether bringing you up to 605 kg or 650 is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous. Think of Kubica's fun ride in Canada and a big chunk of ballast flying off into the stands. There are enough big chucks of mass on these cars, why add another in ballast? If nobody has ballast then nobody truly has an advantage. These 1 or 2 kg the drivers are yapping about are almost negligible. Schumacher nor Mansell were the smallest guys, and they were dominant at times... and the added strength makes up for the heavier weight.

Nobody is gonna pass out, these races are so short now, that they barely look lile they been thru a go kart race out there. Its not like they a dogfighting in fighter jets, stop exaggerating.

[CHT]

First you said both cars weighed the same... then you said the NON-KERS car was lighter... pick 1 please, the correct one, they both weigh the same, both before and after fuel is added.

Moving 30kg of ballast slightly up and slightly to the rear will not make you 1 sec per lap slower. Unfortunately KERS was severely limited by the teams, most especially Ferrari, so it wont have the effect it really could have. They would rather spend 1k on lightweight 1 use wheel nuts than put that money toward KERS research. If they opened up KERS, and made it unlimited in power input and output, every team would be putting in more money into it than into engines and gearboxes right now because it truly would make the cars much faster.

The fact that all cars need to have the minimum weight of 605kg (regardless if they are carrying KERS) is exactly the reason why KERS concept look "greener" and makes people think that it can actually makes the cars go faster.

e.g. Assuming if 2 drivers (A & B) are driving BGP001 that doesnt come with KERS system and have a weight of 605kg. And one day driver A decided to fit the KERS and that increases his car weight to 645kg, while driver B prefer to continue driving without the KERS.

Under such circumstance and assuming KERS is limited to be use for only 6.67 sec per lap, do you think A or B will be faster and "greener" around the track?

The challenge that the teams are facing now is not about knowing where to shift the 30kg ballast, but rather the compromises the designers, engineers and drivers have to make in order to carry the weight of KERS system and still meet that minimum weight limit of 605kg.

Now you are saying IF 'they' (as in FIA?) open up KERS rules etc etc. are you beginning to doubt the effectiveness of KERS IF rules remain status quo?

And btw, the whole idea of KERS is intended to make the cars go "greener" not faster, because F1 cars can INSTANTLY go faster if FIA remove the restriction on engine rev.

[McMacca]

And btw, the whole idea of KERS is intended to make the cars go "greener" not faster, because F1 cars can INSTANTLY go faster if FIA remove the restriction on engine rev.

I agree fully, we all know that revs etc are regulated on saftey issues (as was the reason for groved tyres etc....). The point ISLAMATRON was trying to make was (I think) that with such tight regs it might be a good idea to have one performance area where teams can spend their money making BIG differences not tiny changes chasing 1/100ths of a second.

KERS is going to be a massive factor next year if the refuelling ban goes ahead, imagine if you can start the race with 10-15kgs less fuel than others, because you can reuse so much energy and save so much fuel. And guess what - now you got the greener racing that will filter to road cars in the future.

[xpensive]

KERS as we know it, can store 400kJ per lap. With a 20% mechanical efficiency of the engine, this equals about 0.05 liters of gasoline. Go figure.

[McMacca]

KERS as we know it, can store 400kJ per lap. With a 20% mechanical efficiency of the engine, this equals about 0.05 liters of gasoline. Go figure.

Exactly the point, with the current 400kJ restriction on the KERS its not that significant.

What IF, there was no restriction, how much fuel could be saved?

[joseff]

0.05 liter/lap is what... 3.5 liter over a whole race? That's less than insignificant.

So, WHAT IF there's no energy restriction? Let's assume:
- one F1 lap is 70 seconds
- an F1 car spends 60% of a lap accelerating
- therefore, we can apply full 60kW for around 25 seconds a lap (almost 4x the current limit)
- which means 1500kJ, more or less 0.2 liter/lap.

Adds up to... somewhere around 13-14 liter for a whole race.
But 25 seconds of boost sounds very attractive.

[enkidu]

Why is this being discussed? lol


Why would teams use KERS to power the car and save fuel when they could use both KERS and engine for more power! Its F1 racing not bloody solar powered racing in Australia. haha

[timbo]

- which means 1500kJ, more or less 0.2 liter/lap.

Problem is I'm afraid there's no sufficient storage. Problem with LiIon batteries (actually all batteries in general) is that full charge (which is quite impressive 500-750 kJ/kg) takes around 1 hr. So if you want to use your 400kJ rapidly and then recharge you MUST use only a fraction of total charge.
Flywheels are much better in that respect but as Theissen said it has no relevance to road technology.

[Chaparral]

KERS what a furphy I doubt it will be around in 2 years - why even bother with it if F1 is 'appearing to be going greener' why not go to a E85 fuel (85% ethanol/15% high octane) - same power - 20% less mileage per tank or at least thats what they are finding in the testing for this years V8 Supercar Series about to start downunder - KERS and its application hasnt been thought through by Moley and the FIA.......................

They talk about a 'standardised KERS' - why - if its supposed to be a point of difference - why standardise it - Im sure Frank Williams is real thrilled to hear that - particularly when he went out and purchased a company specifically to develop KERS for a Williams application

[enkidu]

Im sure Frank Williams is real thrilled to hear that - particularly when he went out and purchased a company specifically to develop KERS for a Williams application

Unless they use he's design


FIA is losing the plot eh, we so need some younger fresh people at the top. I just wished they would leave F1 alone for a bit instead of keep moving the goal posts!

[myurr]

- which means 1500kJ, more or less 0.2 liter/lap.

Problem is I'm afraid there's no sufficient storage. Problem with LiIon batteries (actually all batteries in general) is that full charge (which is quite impressive 500-750 kJ/kg) takes around 1 hr. So if you want to use your 400kJ rapidly and then recharge you MUST use only a fraction of total charge.
Flywheels are much better in that respect but as Theissen said it has no relevance to road technology.

There's been a recent breakthrough that I read about using another similar lithium battery technology that can obtain full charge in a fraction of the time: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 11/2222216