Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Scotracer]

I am sick to death of hearing all this talk supporting standardized KERS systems to suit the car manufacturers, stagnate development in applied electric tachnology and panda to the greedy global warming denier oil companies.
KERS should remain open to development and seperate investment.
The wheel base of 2010 cars is way to long.
If they were to look at my ESERU, they would have a far far superior KERS components, which would eliminate the clutch completely and shorten that silly wheelbase by at least 12cm.
No I will not explain my system,why should I?

Also: @ post

[Pandamasque]

How is that all (including glow-ball-worming) panda's fault?

[autogyro]

Sarrit.
Dinya no.
Global Worming dunt exist, sells more petrol that way.
That is while we still have any.
I see they have lengthfened this years F1 cars, to make sure they can get loads ovit in.
Pity the cars end up looking like the Forth Bridge.
Just as easy to play a compooter game and about as dangerous.

[Pandamasque]

[autogyro]

Not on an F1 car it is not. The end is now a long way from the driver.
No longer a point and squert racing machine more like a racing train.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 commission 1.2.2010

- New technologies

The Commission received a strong mandate from the FIA President to examine the introduction of new environmental technologies in the Championship. The mandate was warmly welcomed by the teams and further proposals will be developed.

2011 FIA Formula One World Championship

- Diffusers

The permitted height of the main diffuser was reduced from 175mm to 125mm and measures to exclude ‘double’ diffusers were agreed.

The cut in downforce for 2011 will be significant. This helps with fuel efficiency and will help the passing problem.

[ISLAMATRON]

hopefully KERS will be back and this time unlimited

[Pandamasque]

hopefully KERS will be back and this time unlimited

You mean standard?

[Richard]

Yes to unlimited, no to standard. They just need FOTA to agree fixed priced customer arrangements, just like they do with engines. You could then 3 or suppliers, probably Ferrari, Merc, Williams and an independent.

That way you get the benefits of competitive design development, and the cost benefits of standardisation.

[ISLAMATRON]

exactly Richard, only an idiot like Luca Meglomaniac would want standard KERS, set a price for it just like they do for the engines and gearboxes

hmmmm and maybe a budget cap

[WhiteBlue]

exactly Richard, only an idiot like Luca Meglomaniac would want standard KERS, set a price for it just like they do for the engines and gearboxes

hmmmm and maybe a budget cap

I think in reality it is already decided that there will be separate resource caps for chassis and engine. So Merc, Renault and Ferrari will have a separate headcount limit for their engine departments in addition to pricing limits.

More speculation can be expended on how they will bring in the FIA demanded fuel efficiency.

Lets for a moment speculate that they will switch to the 1.6 or 2L four cylinder in line turbo charged formula of the global racing engine proposal in 2013. It would also be a pretty safe bet that they will stay with petrol in order to not rock the boat of the noise lovers. Diesel would pretty much piss off Ferrari as well.

The KERS that will run next year should be specified in a way that it can be transferred to that new formula. One way of doing that would be mandating the integration of the primary MGU with a minimum power rating suitable for AWKERS into the stressed engine block. There would be a limited one time expenditure for engine manufacturers to do that but that cost can be recovered over two years until 2013. The MGU will never have to be changed even if they allow recovery from all wheels. The designs can be transferred to the new 2013 formula without much change.

The consequence of such a method would be a restriction to rear wheel drive for the future. But that isn't such a bad idea as additional drive mechanisms in front of the driver would not exactly enhance the safety and would also open Pandora's box of driver aids again.

[WhiteBlue]

exactly Richard, only an idiot like Luca Meglomaniac would want standard KERS, set a price for it just like they do for the engines and gearboxes

hmmmm and maybe a budget cap

I think in reality it is already decided that there will be separate resource caps for chassis and engine. So Merc, Renault and Ferrari will have a separate headcount limit for their engine departments in addition to pricing limits.

More speculation can be expended on how they will bring in the FIA demanded fuel efficiency.

Lets for a moment speculate that they will switch to the 1.6 or 2L four cylinder in line turbo charged formula of the global racing engine proposal in 2013. It would also be a pretty safe bet that they will stay with petrol in order to not rock the boat of the noise lovers. Diesel would pretty much piss off Ferrari as well.

The KERS that will run next year should be specified in a way that it can be transferred to that new formula. One way of doing that would be mandating the integration of the primary MGU with a minimum power rating suitable for AWKERS into the stressed engine block. There would be a limited one time expenditure for engine manufacturers to do that but that cost can be recovered over two years until 2013. The MGU will never have to be changed even if they allow recovery from all wheels. The designs can be transferred to the new 2013 formula without much change.

The consequence of such a method would be a restriction to rear wheel drive for the future. But that isn't such a bad idea as additional drive mechanisms in front of the driver would not exactly enhance the safety and would also open Pandora's box of driver aids again. The best way of recovering the brake energy from the front wheels and any wheel would be a carbon fibre device like the Williams KERS unit, which has integrated circuitry to work as a generator and could go into the wheel hubs. Perhaps that would slightly increase the unsprung masses but not necessarily in a huge way if you consider that they have to use a lot of mass nowadays to get rid of the braking heat.

[Giblet]

I have read more than once in Racecar Engineering and Racetech magazines, that whil;e the GRE is to made for WRC, IRL, smaller single seaters, and other series, it has been said that it is no longer being looked at for F1, as no engine manufacturer wants to be so limited in design.

There has been no official word at all, but there has been little talk of the GRE for months in F1, for this reason.

It is not expected to go through for F1. Maybe a four banger, but a bespoke one, not the GRE.

All speculation of course, but based on articles in current(ish) industry publications from pundits.

[WhiteBlue]

But we have lately had a serious initiative by Todt which was supported by FOTA to get more green. There is no way around KERS and down graded engines to achieve that. They have got to nail that sucker pretty soon and the GRE will then follow what the F1 gurus may decide will be good for them. GRE proponents like VW have always said that there will be no F1 unless F1 will go GRE.

[Giblet]

Buying a standard KERS will makes sense, just like standard engine design. As far as cost that is.

The public sector i already pushing ahead with KERS like in the Williams Hybrid Power project. Whether a team chooses to make their own or not, there will be more off the shelf options for next year.

If I was starting a new F1 team, I would rather buy the KERS unit that already works, than develop one. I would also rather have a KERS partner that takes most of the work to develop the unit further for specifics to cars, tracks, and teams.