Is KERS going to be around next year?

[autogyro]

... you basically need to replace conventional brakes as far as possible. Energy will always be mass times speed squared over two, which means that a 700 kg object at 300 km/h holds 2400 kJ to xploit.

Which means you have to have AWKERS and multi torque in brake and acceleration mode to make it significant.

The problem is, how do the FIA keep F1 at'close' competition and allow the needed freedom to use high powered KERS and other recovery systems?
I fully support the development of AWKERS systems as used by Williams in the Porsche applications. A basic version of this could be easily applied to F1. However, if full braking was harvested and the technology allowed full reign, it could result in a wide gap opening between competing cars.
I suppose the question has to be; how much of a control formula does F1 have to be while still meeting the need to be at the peak of technology?
It is one reason why I have a paper before the FIA AEC at present on the establishment of official electric racing formula'. One such new formula could be an unlimited development formula without conventional brakes or an ice to compete with for power delivery. Run alongside F1 it could meet the future needs for top motor racing and allow a gradual transition from ice. Perhaps I should ask Bernie?

[WhiteBlue]

... you basically need to replace conventional brakes as far as possible. Energy will always be mass times speed squared over two, which means that a 700 kg object at 300 km/h holds 2400 kJ to xploit.

Which means you have to have AWKERS and multi torque in brake and acceleration mode to make it significant.

The problem is, how do the FIA keep F1 at'close' competition and allow the needed freedom to use high powered KERS and other recovery systems?

They say that the minnows would be guaranteed a supply of a KERS system for a base price of 1 mil € per season. Of course that system would not have top figures of harvested kJ. Perhaps the spread of the harvested energy would work out between 1800 and 900 kJ per full speed brake/accelerate cycle. The more expensive top systems would be experiencing a diminishing return on cost which would be ok in my view.

[xpensive]

Now that we are talking. If you can imagine a track where you go from 270 to 100 km/h at six breaking points, you have some 10 000 kJ per lap to play with. Let the dogs out!

[WhiteBlue]

http://en.espnf1.com/lotus/motorsport/s ... MP=OTC-RSS

Lotus will not run KERS in 2011
ESPNF1 Staff
May 25, 2010

Lotus will not run a Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) in 2011, despite the expected return of the technology next season.

KERS was introduced in 2009 but the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) agreed not to run it this year on grounds of cost. FOTA's technical group is currently finalising the details of a cheaper return of KERS, with Ferrari and Renault pushing for a 150bhp boost for 10 seconds each lap. In 2009, the boost was about 80bhp for less than 7 seconds. However, Lotus is adamant it will be better off without the system.

"We will not use KERS next year and we have good reasons for this decision," team boss Tony Fernandes is quoted in Finland's Turun Sanomat. "This year we had to buy nearly all the [car] parts from other suppliers but now we are in a position to build the entire car in our factory.

"So we are trying to take advantage of the experience we have collected with the current car and to make the project more effective. If we were to have KERS, in accordance with the technical working group, we would have to start everything again from zero in terms of weight distribution. The big teams are in a different boat, already with solid experience of KERS from recent years.

"What we saw last season is that it is not easy to get KERS to operate effectively and reliably; it took a lot of time, money and resources. At Lotus we are fully confident that we are going to cope without it."

It is expected the return of KERS will be approved formally by the teams this weekend in Turkey, before the matter is referred to the FIA for inclusion in the technical regulations. It is likely that KERS will remain voluntary in 2011 and 2012 until a new engine formula debuts in 2013.

I don't think that Lotus's decision has a huge effect on F1. It is much more important what Red Bull and other potential front runners for 2011 will do.

The sad thing will be that KERS will still be restricted in many ways and thus will remain a gimmick and not a performance feature. I'm not interested in artificial "push to pass" technology that remains way under the potential it already achieves in road cars.

We will probably have to wait until 2013 until KERS integral engines will become an exciting feature in F1.

[WhiteBlue]

I am a strong supporter of the use of KERS. The automotive industry is working on reducing CO2 emissions, and for that reason alone Formula One must take the lead. But it should be compulsory -- either we all use it, or we all do not. Our system works well and is being used by Porsche in long distance races. But it is bigger than the electrical systems. As we now drive with bigger fuel tanks, it no longer fits in a Formula One car. It would make our car like a London double-decker!

Confirmation that Williams would not use their own system next year.

[Fil]

Any rule implementations between now and 2013 are just bandaid fixes, so of course KERS will be little more than 'green' marketing. What's the point for only 2yrs of use?


All genuine energy & effort by the FIA/FOTA should be aimed at 2013 - F1's biggest rule changes in over a decade. Let's get that right, and write-off the next two years with current outdated framework.

[Richard]

Or how about using the 2 year opportunity to trial some ideas before they get locked into place in 2013?

[xpensive]

I think someone needs to find a more efficient way of storing the energy, the 400 kJ batteries cost an arm and a leg as I understand?

Perhaps the Williams system makes sense after all?

[autogyro]

I hate to say this but the problem Williams has with packaging can be solved so that they can use their flywheel storage device.
It means getting rid of the extra electric motor generator and the gearing that goes with it and getting rid of the complete clutch assembly.
I wont go on, it is their loss.

[Richard]

autogyro - You do make a valid point that KERS will only be truly effective if designed as an integrated power train, and not a bolt on part to a conventional power train.

Perhaps one day we would have a power tain of:

Fuel cell motor - flybrid store - electric motor/harvester - wheels

No gearbox, no clutch, no brakes

[WhiteBlue]

Or how about using the 2 year opportunity to trial some ideas before they get locked into place in 2013?

That makes a lot of sense. As a first step with little implication on the design they should drop the limitations re kW and kJ. That could be done for next year.

For 2012 they could allow AWKERS and for 2013 they should lift all restrictions.

[autogyro]

autogyro - You do make a valid point that KERS will only be truly effective if designed as an integrated power train, and not a bolt on part to a conventional power train.

Perhaps one day we would have a power tain of:

Fuel cell motor - flybrid store - electric motor/harvester - wheels

No gearbox, no clutch, no brakes

How about a seven speed stepped gearbox that is also the KERS system?
I have one that does away with the clutch and only needs a storage and control system?
Cranfield want to do a study on it, are there any teams or manufacturers out there who would like to pay for the best profit maker this century.

[xpensive]

When Guy Negre has been developing compressed air technology for the propulsion of cars, I wonder if ths could be used for KERS in F1?

http://www.guynegre.net/

Driving a screw-compressor at braking to fill a pneumatic accumulator, to be released after every corner to keep components small.
This should perhaps be simplier and more cost-effective than the electrical solution?

[autogyro]

There is some potential in the idea xpensive, at present I believe it is the weight which is a result of containing extreme high pressure which is the down side.

[WhiteBlue]

Using air in fluid power applications usually fails due to power density issues compared to oil. There is also a control issue. With oil you can easily control speed and pressure. With air or other gases flow control is much harder to do. In addition you have efficiency and weight issues that were already mentioned. Fluid storage systems have only been used in very slow and heavy vehicles so far. I think their form factor would be even worse than the Williams flywheel.