KERS Discussion

[mts6800]

I am starting this thread in the hope that we can all exchange thoughts and information about how the Kinetic Energy Recovery System, KERS, rule will affect Formula One and whether and how it might also affect the automobile industry.

KERS already exists in road cars today, witness the Toyota Prius and other cars with energy recovery, storage, and release.

On its face KERS is a bold attempt by the governing body to make Formula One technology and engineering have a positive relevance to the road cars used all over the world. The assumption being that Formula One can improve and develop technology faster than the automotive industry; also there is likely the idea that making Formula One more "relevant" to road cars will somehow increase the popularity of racing.

The KERS rules don't specify how energy will be recovered, stored, or used. It seems that two different methods are going to be used. The motor/generator and electrical storage being one, and it's conceptually like what the Toyota Prius uses. The other a flywheel system that mechanically stores energy into a flywheel and recovers the stored energy mechanically on demand.

In Formula One the most obvious potential benefit of KERS is the "power to pass", but the rules specify a maximum amount of energy that can be stored and a maximum amount of power that can be released per lap so competitive advantage may depend upon the efficiency of recovery and delivery.

Looking beyond the obvious "power to pass" use of the stored energy there is another use that could affect the outcome of a race.That being to increase fuel mileage. As we all know if you can't pass on the track you try to pass in the pits. It will be interesting to see how teams use KERS to affect fuel mileage to enable a car to stay out for another lap in an effort to leapfrog a competitor during pit stops.

There have been some comments by car designers that if the weight of the system exceeds xx kiilos then any advantage of the system is negated by it's weight. Keeping in mind that all the cars add ballast to maintain the minimum weight it's not a matter of the system causing a car to be over the minimum weight, rather the location of the weight on the car versus the ballast.

The development cost of KERS is another factor that will most likely keep the teams with the tightest funding running without a KERS system.

Of the two technologies that teams are planning to use I tend to favor the flywheel, in part because storing electrical energy tends to be inefficient and because I think the flywheel is easier to scale up should the regulations change in subsequent years to allow more energy storage.

I started this thread because I think it will be interesting to hear others viewpoints on the effect of KERS in the following, and probably other, areas:

1) Passing in the race
2) Fuel mileage in the race
3) Team strategy in the race
4) Affect on qualifying
5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages.
6) Effect upon the commercial automobile industry

It will be interesting to see if there is any interest in this thread.

[nthfinity]

less relevance to automobiles, less racing, more politics. Just another reason why I likely wont follow LMS, ALMS, or F1 in the near future.

[RC45]

My personal opinion on the KREP system is just that - its a bucket of bollocks and as pointless as the entire electric autoindustry itself.

We have more than enough golf cart manufacturers

[HeilSvenska]

It's pointless. If they really wanted to give cars "power to pass", they'd just lower the power restrictions that nearly all race cars are stifled with.

I agree with nth and RC. It's all politics. Pathetic attempt to imbue racing series' with insubstantial "green" image, which has no place in any racing series, really.

"1) Passing in the race"
Lowering power restrictions AKA airflow restrictors do the same.

"2) Fuel mileage in the race"
I found that fewer pit stops make a race more uninteresting.

"3) Team strategy in the race"
Can do without KERS. Last thing a team needs is a crew member being shocked for no reason other than that he touched the car.

"4) Affect on qualifying"
"Boost" system during qualifying is extremely gimmicky.

"5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages."
Racing cars used to be simple. Engine + driver + and things that make it turn. It adds another unnecessary element for the sake of shallow image campaign. "Look! We're hip! We're with the times! Our other cars would be Priuses!" Racing's fine without extraneous technology. Advancements in safety, I can appreciate, but not this.

"6) Effect upon the commercial automobile industry"
None. Certain racing series don't have any significant impact in the industry. One is F1. Sure, we get F1 themed Ferraris, but when was the last time you saw a hatchback with 7 speed sequential and an engine that revs to 20,000rpm?

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

While it looks good as a technology, i think this will only be implemented to allow for more penalties based on "he released 35 watts too much on lap 19".

Geez.... can't we have Formula 1 where a driver, a car and an engine win a race??

Regards.....

Thanh

[mts6800]

Originally Posted by HeilSvenska It's pointless. If they really wanted to give cars "power to pass", they'd just lower the power restrictions that nearly all race cars are stifled with. I agree with nth and RC. It's all politics. Pathetic attempt to imbue racing series' with insubstantial "green" image, which has no place in any racing series, really. "1) Passing in the race" Lowering power restrictions AKA airflow restrictors do the same. "2) Fuel mileage in the race" I found that fewer pit stops make a race more uninteresting. "3) Team strategy in the race" Can do without KERS. Last thing a team needs is a crew member being shocked for no reason other than that he touched the car. "4) Affect on qualifying" "Boost" system during qualifying is extremely gimmicky. "5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages." Racing cars used to be simple. Engine + driver + and things that make it turn. It adds another unnecessary element for the sake of shallow image campaign. "Look! We're hip! We're with the times! Our other cars would be Priuses!" Racing's fine without extraneous technology. Advancements in safety, I can appreciate, but not this. "6) Effect upon the commercial automobile industry" None. Certain racing series don't have any significant impact in the industry. One is F1. Sure, we get F1 themed Ferraris, but when was the last time you saw a hatchback with 7 speed sequential and an engine that revs to 20,000rpm?

I didn't mean or expect that people would try to touch on every point, a cogent view on any point is welcome.

As you did comment on each one here are some additional thoughts on each one

1) Power to pass

Although the rules limit the maximum amount of stored energy and the maximum rate of power application systems will differ in their characteristics and the application of power is under the control of the driver. I think it will be interesting to see the effect on passing a hotly contested position, passing when coming through the pack, and passing backmarkers.

Removing all restrictions on engine design will certainly give someone power to pass but the cost will rise and, I feel that as a result, the competitiveness within the field will suffer resulting in pretty much being able to predict the race results before the start.

2) Fuel mileage.

Good fuel mileage is already a consideration in car design because it affects weight and less weight means faster lap times this applies whether you have pit stops or not. I see fuel millage as not about "economy" but about strategy. Since we do pit will KERS have an effect on in laps and out laps?

3) Team strategy.

See above, when to use power for passing, for stretching out fuel to make one more lap before pitting, for fast in laps and out laps.

4) Affect on qualifying.

I wish you would elaborate on your comment. It sounds like you feel it shouldn't be used during qualifying. As far as I can tell the rules don't prohibit it's use during qualifying.

5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages.

I have to take the comment that you see it's disadvantage as being "not simple"

simpler has cost impacts too. Eliminating the pneumatic valve system and reverting back to springs would make the engine "simpler" but F1 engine reliablity with valve springs was much worse that the pneumatic systems, that and performance advantages made everyone switch to pneumatic.

Having said that these systems do not appear to be simple but who's to know that 5 years from now they are like the pneumatic valve system that had problems early in its life.

6) You may be right, there may be no effect. I really don't have an opinion on it's effect. It may well be none but I hope someone here with more insight than me on this aspect will post some cogent comments this and on all aspects. That, after all, was the reason for this thread.

[mts6800]

Originally Posted by Thanh-BKK Hi. While it looks good as a technology, i think this will only be implemented to allow for more penalties based on "he released 35 watts too much on lap 19".

The Technical Regulations look to control this pretty tightly. If you get caught gaming the ECU you can pretty much figure you won't be racing for the rest of the year or maybe longer.

Here is the pertinent part of the Regulations:

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.

The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in an manner specified by the FIA.

Originally Posted by Thanh-BKK Geez.... can't we have Formula 1 where a driver, a car and an engine win a race?? Regards..... Thanh

Uh no sorry. Like it or not things are complex and you just can't go back.

Regards

[mts6800]

While this doesn't seem to be a popular subject I think one of Mario Theissen's comments is appropriate to post here.

Mario Theissen, BMW Motorsport Director “Once these components have been proven successful in F1, we can use them and develop them for future road cars. Already, our road car colleagues are knocking on our doors because they can see with KERS we are making progress in all areas. KERS only makes sense in F1 if we shrink it and reduce its weight way beyond what is currently available. And this is what makes it so interesting for the road car project.

[frnk]

Originally Posted by HeilSvenska It's pointless. If they really wanted to give cars "power to pass", they'd just lower the power restrictions that nearly all race cars are stifled with. "1) Passing in the race" Lowering power restrictions AKA airflow restrictors do the same.

Sorry to respond to such an old post but this remark confused me.

While I agree with the overall sentiment, the idea that reducing power restrictions on the engines would give a "power to pass" effect is, well, wrong. "Power to pass" is about a power differential between the two cars battling, if you reduce the power restrictions then it stands to reason that both cars would increase in power but the difference between the power of the two engines would be unlikely to change.

KERS may provide an interesting dynamic, it has already been established through years of modern F1 that 1 degree of rear wing or an extra 20 BHP may make all the difference when attempting to separate two outstanding drivers in two outstanding machines. Although the input from KERS may be minimal, Formula 1 has always been about making maximum gains from a minimal advantage.

[mts6800]

Originally Posted by frnk Originally Posted by HeilSvenska It's pointless. If they really wanted to give cars "power to pass", they'd just lower the power restrictions that nearly all race cars are stifled with. "1) Passing in the race" Lowering power restrictions AKA airflow restrictors do the same. Sorry to respond to such an old post but this remark confused me. While I agree with the overall sentiment, the idea that reducing power restrictions on the engines would give a "power to pass" effect is, well, wrong. "Power to pass" is about a power differential between the two cars battling, if you reduce the power restrictions then it stands to reason that both cars would increase in power but the difference between the power of the two engines would be unlikely to change. KERS may provide an interesting dynamic, it has already been established through years of modern F1 that 1 degree of rear wing or an extra 20 BHP may make all the difference when attempting to separate two outstanding drivers in two outstanding machines. Although the input from KERS may be minimal, Formula 1 has always been about making maximum gains from a minimal advantage.

I agree that HeilSvenska's post is confusing. I finally took it to mean remove restrictions other than the displacement of the engine, and perhaps leaving the supercharging ban on. Given enough money some teams will be able to make more power than others, hence have power to pass. Then again maybe that's not what he mean.

The maximum power that can be released at a rate greater than 2KW is 60 joules. That roughly translates to 15 horsepower for a bit more than 2 seconds. You could do 20 horsepower for something less than 2 seconds.

Of course if the other driver has KERS they may be able to respond in kind and avoid the pass. Efficiency here is important though.

[frnk]

Originally Posted by mts6800 Given enough money some teams will be able to make more power than others, hence have power to pass. Then again maybe that's not what he mean.

I think thats exactly what we don't want in F1, the teams with more money getting even quicker engines and turning 75% of the field into moving chicanes.

I think in the end we will really have to wait and see how much of an effect KERS can have on the racing, hopefully it does not provide too many liability problems because liability this year has diluted the quality of the racing I think, especially with Ferrari and Renault's struggles.

As for the political/green side of it, I don't really care either way. I think overall the image of F1 is a responsibility of the teams, specifically the works teams, who have to be accountable to their CEOs. Overall I think protesting KERS because of its original environmentally based concerns is fairly silly because like it or not, it is coming to Formula 1 and the reasons behind its presence are irrelevant in my mind compared to its overall effect on the quality of the racing.

[sameerrao]

Originally Posted by nthfinity less relevance to automobiles, less racing, more politics. Just another reason why I likely wont follow LMS, ALMS, or F1 in the near future.

Agree ... the do-gooders are polluting racing with too many unnecessary agendas. Racing should be about racing period.

[mts6800]

I'm not following team comments too closely but William's Sam Michael made this statement:

“KERS in 2009 could be worth between 2/10ths and 3/10ths of a second per lap. However, once aero performance converges, KERS could start to become a greater performance differentiator and if the regulations give more scope to the technology, it could be worth anything up to a second a lap and it will be needed to win Grands Prix. The key decision for us with our system is to carefully balance the potential performance advantage with our ambition to improve an already strong reliability record from last season.”

Hopefully some of this technology will trickle down to our road cars and we will have much faster lap times to the office