Regenerative systems (KERS)

[Scotracer]

Energy recovery is fine (I have never displayed any problem with it) but it's the negative effect on the actually powerplanet I don't like. If the FIA continually downsize the ICE (which they will do with the progression of the KERS/HERS) the cars are going to be less and less dramatic sounding. If they drop the engines to 2.0 V12s I'd be happy as they would still scream but the proposed 1.3-1.5 4-bangers just makes me angry. And don't even get me started on complete removal of the ICE

[Conceptual]

Energy recovery is fine (I have never displayed any problem with it) but it's the negative effect on the actually powerplanet I don't like. If the FIA continually downsize the ICE (which they will do with the progression of the KERS/HERS) the cars are going to be less and less dramatic sounding. If they drop the engines to 2.0 V12s I'd be happy as they would still scream but the proposed 1.3-1.5 4-bangers just makes me angry. And don't even get me started on complete removal of the ICE

It is the future however, and I am glad to see F1 taking the steps to become the forefront in motive technology.

Chris

[timbo]

It is the future however, and I am glad to see F1 taking the steps to become the forefront in motive technology.

Chris

Thing is, KERS technology is already limited. Toyota's engine chief said that the technology they use on their road hybrid cars is advanced more than permitted for F1.

[WhiteBlue]

It is the future however, and I am glad to see F1 taking the steps to become the forefront in motive technology.

Chris

Thing is, KERS technology is already limited. Toyota's engine chief said that the technology they use on their road hybrid cars is advanced more than permitted for F1.

have a look five posts up and you will realise that we already discussed that aspect.

[flynfrog]

I see. It's all about you.

Fortunately, there are several HUNDRED million fans that want to see otherwise.

I'd rather see something that is truly innovative and 21st century, and the internal combustion engine doesn't belong there. I would rather see 5 gram anti-matter batteries driving AWD electric cars instead of the antique and quaint way to harness fire in loud and highly inefficient manner.

Top level motorsport needs to be NEW technology in order to be "Top Level". There is no way to be "Bleeding-edge" using 1800's ICE technology. To believe so is almost moronic.

There is a better way, and what better place to find it than F1? With the amount of combined engineering talent, as well as literally a combined budget of 3Bil+/Year, why would you want to waste that sharpening a bronze knife when we have the combined engineering history of the last 200 years as well as developments in alloy science that could be used to build the ultimate blade?

I don't get off by watching wasted potential, and that is how I feel about the regulations of F1, but I am sincerely sorry if you do.

chris

But is KERS innovative or the future? It is old technology and that's the problem I have with it. It is purely a political stunt as the technology used in some Hybrid road cars is far more advanced than that proposed for next year. And if they are limited (which they most definetely are) how will it really push the industry forward?

Sure, the ICE is an old design and is ridiculously inefficient but all thermodynamic engines are! An electric engine would be a much better candidate but with introducing it you are removing one of the biggest pulls of F1 -- the noise. How would the tracks pull in the crowds with virtually silent F1 cars, only the wind from the aerodynamic appendages whistling as they go by. Sorry, but I wouldn't pay to watch that. I pay to see the fastest and loudest racing cars scream around at a few hundred km/h at over 130dB. It might be "crude" but it IS entertainment -- what the sport should be about, nothing else.

You don't think it would be cool to still watch the cars compete at 320km/h and still chat with the person next to you without having to yell at their ear-muffs?

I think that it would still draw a crowd. Every race is a sellout, and if 1/2 of them didn't buy tickets because of the silence, someone else would buy them.

I don't think KERS as it will be in 2009 will really be that huge, but it is the first step towards the removal of ICE, and I am willing to bear with them on the transition. Once the teams have the KERS part of their operation smoothed out, I'm sure they will open it up to AWD and such, and THAT is where the teams want to be, because it is directly relevant to their road cars. KERS is the beginning, but deffinately NOT the end.

I am very passionate about F1 as are most of the people here. My view is different than many, but the same as many as well.

I just hope that as it moves forward, it gets better. And I'm sure that I will accept whatever that "better" is.

Chris

sure make the electric cars go head to head with the ICE engines. As in inefficient as they may be they are still the most energy dense system we have meaning you get more power per weight.

I would be willing if you polled the current f1 fans if they would rather see an electric f1 car with zero carbon foot print that can be fully recyceled and gave birth to baby puppies as it drove or V12s 98% would pick V12s

[Conceptual]

sure make the electric cars go head to head with the ICE engines. As in inefficient as they may be they are still the most energy dense system we have meaning you get more power per weight.

I would be willing if you polled the current f1 fans if they would rather see an electric f1 car with zero carbon foot print that can be fully recyceled and gave birth to baby puppies as it drove or V12s 98% would pick V12s

We have also discussed the fact that everyone wants to see their own version of F1 that is perfect for them. At this point, I personally feel that the people spending the money, and making it their lifes work should not have to bow to the millions of differing visions of F1's future.

That said, the manufacturers have expressed reducing costs, and using F1 as their proving ground for road-relevant technology.

Remember, if the manufacturers are wasting time, talent and money to compete in a venue that does not increase the value of their core business, they are more likely to leave. If they are able to compete using fuel efficient technology, they can build the value of their core business.

In the end, we will watch, and so will a few hundred million others. It will not matter if they are silent, electric, winged, or pedaled, people will watch.

My personal attraction is the technology, so change and evolution lines up with my personal view of where F1 should go. There has been ALOT of discussion about what that change should be, but in the end, the fans are the most ignorant, and the least competent constituant to poll for answers.

Manufacturers, team bosses, engineers, materials specialists, and logistics officers then become the only viably competent people to ask, but the FIA and CVC have some level of politically motivated veto power, so we end up with disagreement followed by compromise finished up with creative rule interperetation.

Anyways...............

Chris

[G-Rock]

I think what we have to remember here is that F1 is primarily for entertainment. Unless you are into bicycling, entertainment in general is not environmentally friendly, no matter what type of motive system you use. People drive to races, people use electricity to watch F1 on television/computers, people waste time writing on blogs etc.

To avoid hypocrisy, we should just stop worldwide auto racing altogether as an example to the manufacturers/public that the best way to curb climate change and be energy indepentant is to not drive at all...but thats not going to happen of course!

We should just leave F1 that way it is and not worry too much about being an example/test bed of green technology. We need to keep the fantasy alive. Loud engines, physics defying handling, interesting strategies and of course, great racing.

I wasn't at all a fan of the engine freeze but since the freeze, i've seen some of the best racing in years. 07 was awsome!! 08 looks like it could be a real nail biter as well.

[Conceptual]

I think what we have to remember here is that F1 is primarily for entertainment. Unless you are into bicycling, entertainment in general is not environmentally friendly, no matter what type of motive system you use. People drive to races, people use electricity to watch F1 on television/computers, people waste time writing on blogs etc.

To avoid hypocrisy, we should just stop worldwide auto racing altogether as an example to the manufacturers/public that the best way to curb climate change and be energy indepentant is to not drive at all...but thats not going to happen of course!

We should just leave F1 that way it is and not worry too much about being an example/test bed of green technology. We need to keep the fantasy alive. Loud engines, physics defying handling, interesting strategies and of course, great racing.

I wasn't at all a fan of the engine freeze but since the freeze, i've seen some of the best racing in years. 07 was awsome!! 08 looks like it could be a real nail biter as well.

I think that the manufacturers that have spent billions, and the thousands of people that have invested their lives to be the best in the world would take offense to that.

The commercial side of F1 may be purely for entertainment, but I hightly doubt that the entire premise of the top world formula is only answerable to the people watching it on TV.

And about green racing. Someone, somewhere, at sometime is going to have to develop these fuel efficient technologies because what we have now in the civilian world is not sustainable.

Would you rather that the nmanufacturers in F1 pull out so they can divert the 500M+/yr to developing efficient motive power that is required in the real world, or would you rather see who is the best at developing the next generation of high-power, high-efficiency drivetrains on a worldwide stage?

Bottom line is that it needs to be done. I believe that Max and Bernie know that, and that is why KERS is here next year. The worldwide sales of 19000RPM 2.4L V8's is a pittance compared to what the teams will develop over the next 5 years. THAT is what makes sense to the manufacturers in the long run, because BOTTOM LINE SALES FIGURES are what keeps them in business, not ultra expensive outdated technology that has no viable market in the future.

Business is business, and entertaining the fans doesnt increase business... Proven race reliability and power does.

It is hard for the marketing department to spin gas guzzling v8's into an enticing campaign with todays oil prices.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

good points Chris!!

To deliver good racing there should not be a problem to limit all cars to 1.2 tons of downforce and limit all engines to 800 bhp next year. what happens if you do it?

• The teams will do a lot more close racing
• all the development money will be spend to stop the energy losses in order to go faster
• you might have a surprise new winner because he picked a different KERS strategy
• ingenuity is rewarded instead of spending more money
• the circuits are not forced to increase run offs each year
• the fans can be closer to the cars
• the teams may even make a profit
• performance isn't reduced because mechanical grip replaces downforce

[rodders47]

The commercial side of F1 may be purely for entertainment, but I hightly doubt that the entire premise of the top world formula is only answerable to the people watching it on TV.


Ummmmmmm someone should tell that to Bernie

If F1 was NOT for commercial TV rights then why would Bernie be insisting that the Aussie and some asian events be run under lights ??? reason for the european TV audience AND MONEY

[Conceptual]

The commercial side of F1 may be purely for entertainment, but I hightly doubt that the entire premise of the top world formula is only answerable to the people watching it on TV.


Ummmmmmm someone should tell that to Bernie

If F1 was NOT for commercial TV rights then why would Bernie be insisting that the Aussie and some asian events be run under lights ??? reason for the european TV audience AND MONEY

Because that is Bernie's job. He runs the commercial aspect of F1, and the people that he represents make money from ticket sales as well as TV advertising dollars.

But Bernie's job cannot exist without a technical counterpart. There has to be a technical side (R&D) that makes it worthwhile to the manufacturers...

Remember, no one is going to see a BMW F1 car and say, "Wow! I can actually go out and buy one of these from my local BMW dealership!" The brand recognition in F1 is purely based upon the name of the team, not the look of the car, so there needs to be some way that the manufacturers can take internal parts and philosophies that were bought with their F1 budget and use it in their road cars, or it becomes pretty much a waste.

There isnt much than can transfer over to production, but if you read the interviews, that seems to be exactly what the manufacturers want. It is much easier to justify a 500M/yr budget if you can actually apply what you learn to your consumer products. KERS and such is just the beginning, and the consumer marketplace (us) should benefit greatly from it!

Imagine 2011... BMW launch their new line of 500BHP M5's that get 325MPG. Where did that tech come from??? F1 of course! And their marketing campaign is littered with "F1 developed and tested", bringing not only better sales for BMW, but even more exposure to F1.

The manufacturers as well as the commercial interests in F1 both win, and the trend that was set by the new formula leads us away from the global oil crisis that is causing thousands to be slaughtered every year.

It is a win, win, win situation, except for those that only watch F1 for the noise and the wastefulness. Those fans will need to get their jollies elsewhere!

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

...Imagine 2011... BMW launch their new line of 500BHP M5's that get 325MPG. Where did that tech come from??? F1 of course! ....Chris

I actually think that is a bit over the top in terms of milage. 32.5 should be closer.

[Conceptual]

...Imagine 2011... BMW launch their new line of 500BHP M5's that get 325MPG. Where did that tech come from??? F1 of course! ....Chris

I actually think that is a bit over the top in terms of milage. 32.5 should be closer.

With AWD KERS???

I think you could see 200+ mpg by 2011 if they kill the requirement to run v8's.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

by 2011 they will still run V8 and 4WD may or not be introduced.
have you figured what the milage is tody. without much figuring its probably close to 3 mpg. how do you think you improve that by a factor of 100.

[captainmorgan]

There's nothing wrong with the way a 1.5L turbo 4 cylinder sounds. Flat plane V8's, like what F1 engines have, use a firing order of two 4 cylinder engines firing simultaneously, so they will sound alike. KERS isnt necessarily silent, it might have a unique sound to it that would undeniably be associated with go-fast

Yes, with just one bank and with a turbo it would be quieter, and the v8's and v10's sounded great. But sound energy both signifies and equals wasted energy, and all else being equal, I'd rather have the faster car win rather than a louder car.

F1 should be made an open formula with just fuel flow and safety regulated cars. That way, there could be aero dominated naturally aspirated cars, and drivetrain-dominated regenerative energy cars for others, and ranges of other solutions in between for everyone else.