What's the point of KERS? | Page 3 | FerrariChat

What's the point of KERS?

Discussion in 'F1' started by tifosi12, Mar 30, 2009.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. LightGuy

    LightGuy Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    39,601
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    The rpms cannot excced 18k so KERS, along with the normal engine power is applied while accelerating.
    So the time to apply KERS would be just after the max speed that can be applied to the rear wheels by the engine alone without spinning the rear tires. So if at lets say 100 mph shifting into third you can mash the throttle and the rears wont spin that is the time to add KERS. If the rears spin that additional HP is lost.
    As always the quicker one can apply power to the ground the better as the added speed is carried down the entire track.
     
  2. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    Understood.

    So what happens if they push the KERS button at 18k? It just won't do anything knowing the engine is at full tilt?
     
  3. LightGuy

    LightGuy Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    39,601
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    I refer to the simple battery indicator shown on the same graphic as the tachometer graph.
    Green was charged ( in an instant when applied ). Red was depleted.
     
  4. LightGuy

    LightGuy Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    39,601
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    Thats the way I read it.
    Just as at 18k the driver either shifts up or should be maxed out top gear end of the longest straight.
     
  5. Kami

    Kami Formula Junior

    Nov 28, 2006
    666
    St. Louis
    From what I've heard/read the power gained to the weight of the system gives very little if any advantage at all, so why run it? Also, I know there's limited spaces in these cars, but putting the system directly under the fuel tank in such a confined space? Something about that sounds like a very very bad idea to me.
     
  6. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    In a way it reminds me of the sixties and NASA: Everybody kinda knew that O2 under pressure is a very dangerous combination, but they went ahead with using it for ground tests anyway.
     
  7. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    +1.

    I'm completely for it, and I'm also completely for hydrogen fuel cell powered cars in the near future. The alternative is putting our heads firmly up our @rses ... I'll leave that to the managers/directors of GM.
    Pete
     
  8. LightGuy

    LightGuy Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    39,601
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    #58 LightGuy, Mar 30, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
    Put the engine in nuetral electronically




    Its like this; Suppose you set up KERS to be a part of the rear braking force used for the most important braking zone on the track. The one at the end of the longest straight. OK. Now you have 100% braking ability for the rears (KERS plus brakes) and 100% for the fronts.
    Now at the end of the second, third, etc straights you still have 100% for the fronts but because KERS is no longer adding its couple of percents in back you have say 95% in the back.
    These guys would kill their dear old granny for those percents.
    IF you took KERS out of the equation you could set up all brakes at 100% all the time ( theorhetically) How to charge KERS ? With that useless lump of engine now coasting along for the ride. Shift to neutral. Spin the engine up to the linked generator and what do you know; full battery.

    On a seperate note;
    Disconnect KERS with a clutch for areas where its additional acceleration is not needed so as not to add rotational mass while normally accelerating.
     
  9. Kami

    Kami Formula Junior

    Nov 28, 2006
    666
    St. Louis
    Funny, I was talking to a friend who is an engineering major during the race and he mentioned the same thing.
     
  10. Remy Zero

    Remy Zero Two Time F1 World Champ

    Apr 26, 2005
    23,319
    KL, Malaysia
    Full Name:
    MC Cool Breeze
    :D :D
     
  11. DGS

    DGS Six Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 27, 2003
    60,052
    MidTN
    Full Name:
    DGS
    That's called, "Finding the brick wall with your nose".
     
  12. Alex1015

    Alex1015 Formula Junior

    Sep 1, 2005
    949
    USA
    #62 Alex1015, Mar 31, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2009
    KERS is indirectly restricted to six seconds. If it is used at its maximum allowed rate then the total energry stored will be depleted in just over six seconds. If however, the KERS is used for let's say 50 hp instead it will take more than six seconds to deplete the allowed energy storage.

    The point of KERS itself is undoubtedly a political exercise to try to keep F1 politically correct as well as relevant. Just a recently as 1998 McLaren ran a hydraulic based KERS device which was promptly banned, like most clever innovation. Now though, the climate (no pun intended) is such that it warrants trying to seem environmentally friendly. Nevermind the fact of the 747's flying all over the world to transport the cars etc. is far worse than a simple motor race. It is also claimed by the FIA and their non-engineering minded staff that such advances in KERS can translate over to road cars. It's a shame this is wrong and that the KERS can't really be advanced because it's capabilities are so limited by the FIA instead, for this year at least.

    It is also a [gimicky] way to attempt to reintroduce overtaking similar to the new rule of Bridgestone bringing tire 2 compounds apart.

    All personal bias aside it has shown to work well. Finally, I saw a question about using KERS at the start. Yes, it is legal though the car has to be traveling greater than 100kph.
     
  13. James_Woods

    James_Woods F1 World Champ

    May 17, 2006
    12,755
    Dallas, Tx.
    Full Name:
    James K. Woods
    My feeling after watching them run is that KERS is actually an ANTI-passing device; better used to give a little burst to protect your position from a basically faster car than it is a true "power to pass" type of aid.
     
  14. darth550

    darth550 Six Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 14, 2003
    60,788
    In front of you
    Full Name:
    BCHC
  15. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
  16. Iain

    Iain F1 Rookie

    Jan 21, 2005
    3,257
    UK
    I can't understand all the negativity towards the KERS idea. What we've seen so far is only the beginning & yes the power benefit vs added weight equation might be marginal now - but it surely won't be in 2-3 years time as these systems are developed. It has an obvious & relevant real world application IF they can develop the technology & drive out the costs & ensure the safety and the reliability. F1 is exactly the right place to do that IMO.

    I think they are now recovering less than 5% but are talking about moving that up towards 50%. That's pretty cool I think.
     
  17. LongJohnSilver

    LongJohnSilver Formula Junior

    Apr 15, 2006
    390
    Gainesville FL
    Full Name:
    Scott
    To me the real problem is that the technology isn't anywhere near pushing the boundaries. I believe it was a Toyota exec that said that the F1 version of KERS is way behind what is on the Prius, or the technology that they use in Japanese GT racing. It is just a gimmicky artificial rules change.

    Why limit it? Let the teams run with it. Tell them "Regenerative braking and hybrid drive systems are an open part of the formula." The teams would then push the limits and figure out the best solution.
     
  18. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    What he said.
     
  19. Gilles27

    Gilles27 F1 World Champ

    Mar 16, 2002
    13,337
    Ex-Urbia
    Full Name:
    Jack
  20. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    LOL

    Heavy V12 as well. :)
     
  21. Ney

    Ney F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 20, 2004
    6,629
    Because they would not have gotten any of the teams to buy in to the concept by opening it up that way. By introducing it as they have and limiting it, teams are free to run it or not with little consequense this year. Those that now have it will continue to push to use it more. Ultimately, all teams will need to have it to be competitive. It is a little bit like the turbo era. The first year, Renault was the only team that had it and they struggled. Once they got it right, they became difficult to beat, so everyone went turbo. KERS will be the same, especially is the allow greater HP boost and time over a lap. While I too feel that it is a bit of a gimmick at the moment, I think it is great that they are exploring options other than the ancient, albeit highly refined internal combustion engine.
     
  22. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    Actually it is the opposite of your example: When Renault introduced their turbo the rules were wide open: Half the volume of the engine, but no boost restrictions. Had Renault gotten it right from the start, they would have run away with the title immediately.
    Only later as they became more sophisticated, the FIA started to regulated the boost downwards.

    And that's precisely what's bothering me with KERS here: The FIA restricted it from the start. Right now there is no point in using it. That's idiotic. Teams who go through the trouble of developing and using it, should gain some benefits. Their only benefit right now is experience for later years if and when the FIA loosens the restrictions.
     
  23. Ney

    Ney F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 20, 2004
    6,629
    #73 Ney, Apr 1, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2009
    Yes, it is true that the turbo option was a bit more wide open, provided the team thought they could get the same power out of 1/2 the volume. In this case the FIA is firmly in control. The teams all had to agree on the "Formula". They could have said "you can develop and run a KERS system with the extra weight with unlimited use", but not all teams would have accepted that as an option. Here they have made it optional with no definite advantage at the moment. Smart teams will work it out and then lobby the FIA for greater use in the name of "green racing development". A simple adjustment in the rules may make it essential in the future.
     
  24. James_Woods

    James_Woods F1 World Champ

    May 17, 2006
    12,755
    Dallas, Tx.
    Full Name:
    James K. Woods
    If they were REALLY serious about KERS, the rule should be that KERS and ONLY KERS is to be the sole means of braking the car.
     
  25. LongJohnSilver

    LongJohnSilver Formula Junior

    Apr 15, 2006
    390
    Gainesville FL
    Full Name:
    Scott
    Not that I agree with a regulation like this, as it is just as arbitrary and silly as a incredibly limited KERS system, but...

    I just did a quick calculation to find out just how much energy is available through KERS. An F1 car with ~600 kg mass traveling at 80 m/s (~180 mph) has a kinetic energy of 3,840 kJ. If it slows to 40 m/s then 2,880 kJ of this could be converted to potential energy by KERS. Now it would be impossible to completely convert this to stored electrical energy (the air and rolling resistance of the car will take some of this energy), but it is a good upper bound. This is over 7 times the 400 kJ that the regulations allow the KERS system to use in a whole lap.

    The cars could easily be using 3 to 4 times the amount used per lap after each corner with a decent amount of braking. Can you see the usefulness of 20 seconds of boost after each corner rather than 6.6s a lap?
     

Share This Page