Yes. It is not the size of the KERS unit but the storage device. Heck maybe they simply waste some of the energy and just use the braking ability to control wheelspin ... lap times are all that matter and if the storage device is already full they still don't want wheelspin, so somehow they must (?) be able to waste it ... ? Pete
That has to be a silly FIA rule as otherwise makes no sense. KERS should be available, from an engineering point of view, whenever it has charge. Therefore this indicates that the recovery system has to be able to be either bypassed or can waste energy, otherwise you would overcharge. Pete
It is a rule. You can't use it for more than a set number of seconds before re passing the start line again. Don't know if correct but I have always visualised a smaller battery that gets the charge from the main one at each lap, hence the weird instantaneous recharge on he graphics.
The idea is that the vertical force on the rear tires is measured and that is used to bias the amount of total power that is supplied to the rear wheels. That is, they know if the rear tires have 3500 pounds of vertical force they can apply 4500 foot pounds of torque to the rear axle and not have wheelspin. They know the engine torque from an engine map, based on throttle position and rpm. If the engine torque is too great, they use the KERS to subtract torque to get them back down to where they don't have wheelspin. This is not as sophisticated as a true traction control system but it would be a lot better than having the driver try to modulate it, and it also, at the same time, provided more downforce since the engine is making high velocity exhaust because of the wider throttle opening. The suspension doesn't sense wheel slippage, but the KERS could do it easily. The KERS is measuring drivetrain speed and acceleration, so if they wanted to they could easily pull some power to control the wheel speed (if for instance the front wheel speed was lower than the rear wheel speed), or if they sensed that the rear tires were accelerating too fast, put power into the KERS to control that. If you know the gear ratio and the approximate weight of the car, the acceleration of the drivetrain if it is accelerating the car is known. If the drivetrain is accelerating too fast the wheels must be spinning, so the KERS can then cut back the power to the rear tires. None of this is very difficult to implement.
If this is true it now puts into perspective why RedBull had so much unreliability at times with their KERS. They were obviously developing this very sophisticated system. It seems to work fine now for Vettel.
Now if we can only find a rule that says the KERS can only be charged while braking and not while accelerating, they we've got them. That was probably overlooked though, since no one imagined KERS taking power from anything else.
The genius thing is, as long as size of the storage unit has been passing scrutineering, I don't see how they are doing anything illegal (at least in terms of using the KERS for something other than extra boost). Actually, if traction control is illegal, I guess you can't really say that. Definitely playing in the gray area, but a very innovative concept nonetheless.
Thanks. Now why can't the Scuderia be the team thinking of this (although it is definitely not "within the spirit of the rules"). Good explanation, thanks. So, it simply involves a sensor connected to the suspension that tips the KERS off on when to control wheel acceleration and improve traction. Clearly, they experimented with this earlier in the season but have perfected it since Spa. That car is untouchable and Seb is driving through corners like they don't exist (compared to other drivers). The videos of multiple cars and their exhaust notes at one corner in Singapore clearly illustrated what G.Minardi was suggesting. It will be interesting to see how the FIA handles this. On the one hand, Newey's innovation pushes the development envelope to new heights. On the other hand, a traction control is any device that controls traction, so RBR is cheating.
This thing is starting to gain some traction, pun intended. Wouldn't surprise me if Red Bull were cheating again, they have a long history of clearly illegal devices on their cars (flexi wings, the "floor hole," manual ride height adjustment, etc.) but they are VERY good as skirting any sort of punishment through alteration of the parts and politicking. Will anything come of it? Nope, can't mess with the new golden boys.
Technically, no, that wouldn't catch them. It IS only charging while braking, its just braking thousands of times in rapid succession inbetween stints of acceleration. I think...
Newey's response sounds like "plausible deniability" to me. There's is definitely some smoke to this fire... Unfortunately, RB9 has shown the ability to win without the KERS traction control. They just became untouchable with it (by 2 secs/lap...or MORE when they wanted to)
I refer to this type of thing as a "head slapper".... It's one of those that you look at and slap yourself on the forehead and say "why didn't I think of that"... Simple and not to difficult to do if you have the budget and manpower of an F1 team.. Obviously it took some work to refine and develop, but the payoff is obviously there when it works.... It's also a matter of looking at the rules differently. Smokey Yunick was a master of this. In his mind the rule book only said what wasn't legal, and if it didn't specifically say you couldn't do something, well then it was ok to do it. A while back Ferrari had a flexible floor that dropped down closer to the ground when more load than the specified test load was applied. Not at all within the spirit of the rules, but not technically "illegal", and it worked great for Schumi. Last year there was the "vented" diffuser that subverted the rules on rear diffuser area and greatly increased downforce (that I still contend was illegal), and flexible front wing mounts that lowered the front wing to be closer to the ground. This year it's blown downforce created by using the KERS as a brake. Next year it will be something else. There's a lot of money and effort being expended to go faster than the next guy, and there will always be the Smokey Yunick's or the Newleys or the Ross Braun's that are paid to find a way around the rules. Depending on how the system in question here is implemented it could be illegal if there is feedback to limit rear wheel acceleration using the KERS. If not, it may not be illegal, and all the other teams will be scrambling to implement it asap, or get it ruled illegal as drivers aid (which it probably is).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RBR 'TC' is like a very similar solution to the HY-KERS system in LaFerrari, which recharges the batteries by unused extra torque. This means, Ferrari has had the solution in their hands from quite some time, but they just didn't think 'outside the box' to apply it in their F1 car.
Red Bull has done this sort of thing too much for comfort. The problem is, they know they can get away with it. Bending the rules is a nice way of saying you're cheating. IIRC that floor was on Raikkonen's Ferrari, not Schumi's. Wasn't that 07? I think you may be referring to the barge boards debate on Schumi's Ferrari.
It was 07, and was raced to a win at Australia. There is no doubt that Ferrari's floor was technically fully illegal, the regulations required the floor to be rigidly mounted and Ferrari had a hinge and a spring! Springs are by definition not rigid, but the setup passed the test at Australia. Honda and one other team were also using hinged sprung floors, and all were told to not bring them to the next race.
Great thread very interesting, it is one of the reasons I like F1 so much, clever thinking. Full marks to Newey and co they have obviously have found and worked out a edge. IMO personally if it is legal and in the grey area rules well done to them.
So in conclusion, Newey's car is driving the driver? Vettel confessed to the system himself as his secret edge which ultimately enabled him to pull a 32s gap after a safety car. OK, glad we can finally put that debate to rest.
If this is true, how can it be legal? 9.3 Traction control No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver. Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.
Right. Anything which controls traction is "traction control", right? While RBR has probably thought of ways of getting around the language of the rule, this does strike at the spirit of the rule, i.e. it's a driver aid.
