BMW reveals 2009 KERS details



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:27:19:15:32 by barteks.

BMW's next half season can go better.

Are these specs for reference or real ? In particular the 60kW output and weight. I´m surprised that the team are willing to reveal the details so early.

Anyway, a nice piece of info, thanks.

THe 60KW and 6,6666secs per lap are standard fixed by FIA.

And the 40kg is an aproximate figure, similar in all teams (amybe lighter in the mech Kers than in the electric ones)

Racing against the machine!

Wow, I find that shocking about the restrictions. With the additional weight of the system, will it in generate enough advantage ? I thought Kubica was a bit worried about it.


Then again, KERS is not compulsory, right ?

What about running one car with KERS and the other one without in the next season ? Dreaming I know, but this restriction is idiotic.

Well, in fact many teams have been specualting that could use the KERS only in some races.

I hope that, for the spectacle shake (overtakings) they use it every race. But we will see.

IMO reason why its not yet mandatory is because small teams could not get it ready for 2008. I have heard that for 2010 it should be mandatory.

And I don't think they would use it just in one car. It would always benefit one of them, and nowadays nº1 drivers are not politically correct
Plus it would always handicap the team, at least in the WCC. Its better to calculate well if the benefits are enough or not.

I expect BMW to use it in all races.

Thing is, if you have to do 2 designs of the car, one with KERS and another without, that causes problems and can make you lose time in development (bear in mind that the KERS will be placed in a key place. Transmission, ance hence KERS, is not like external aero appendages that can be easily removed or changed from race to race or even in the GP. It needs quite big modifications, including the whole transmission lay-out).

I would rather spend all the time designing a KERS car and improving it, instead of two dif cars.

PS: I have heard too that FIA may force teams to use it at least in a minimum number of races.

Racing against the machine!

¨I would rather spend all the time designing a KERS car and improving it, instead of two dif cars.¨


With the output and restriction for the foreseeable future, that would mean only weight reduction, right ?


What about ballast ( about 70kgs ) in relation to KERS weight penalty ? Can they play around that ?

Here's the problem with not running KERS on one car. Besides the fact that there would be a significant number of components that would have to be specific to the KERS car or the non-KERS car, it would also be harder to take data from one car and apply the lessons to the other. After all, if not running the KERS system has a significant effect on the handling of the car, then the KERS car would need a very different set up. On the other hand, if the ballast is being used to make the cars behave similarly (or if KERS doesn't have a signifaicant effect), then there really is no point to not running KERS on both cars. As it is, the only real disadvantage with KERS is having less ballast to use for manipulating the center of gravity.

As for the restrictions, I'm guessing the FIA is concerned about the overall increase in power the cars will be putting out (after all, they've gone to considerable lengths to reduce engine power), and I'm sure the car manufacturers put some input into this. Maybe striving for smaller, lighter units is more in line with their goals than just making more powerful units.

I do have a question though. How does mechanical KERS work? I just sort of assumed that all of the systems would be of the electrical variety.

"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary... That's what gets you."-Jeremy Clarkson

Quote:

gturner
On the other hand, if the ballast is being used to make the cars behave similarly (or if KERS doesn't have a signifaicant effect), then there really is no point to not running KERS on both cars. As it is, the only real disadvantage with KERS is having less ballast to use for manipulating the center of gravity.
As for the restrictions, I'm guessing the FIA is concerned about the overall increase in power the cars will be putting out (after all, they've gone to considerable lengths to reduce engine power), and I'm sure the car manufacturers put some input into this. Maybe striving for smaller, lighter units is more in line with their goals than just making more powerful units.

Ha, I see. That's enlightening.

Quote:

gturner

... I do have a question though. How does mechanical KERS work? I just sort of assumed that all of the systems would be of the electrical variety.

I have no idea. I have heard it said that there is a mechanical and electronic fly-wheel version along with and all electronic version. I have a rough idea of the technology that is involved, but no clue how the technology translates into power on the track.

I have seen snippets of an interview with Adrian Newey in which he says that teams who are developing an electronic system will disadvantaged in having to ship their batteries out for the first race in January. Ideally, he feels that KERS should not be used in the first race but accepts that ot probably will be. Has anyone seen the full interview? I would like to read it.

Williams and proud of it.

Effectively, mechanical devices would be flywheels.

I think WIlliams will use Torotrack's flywheel. Just google a bit and you will find plenty of info about mechanical flywheels. Or even in this forum there was a couple of threads about it

Regarding KERS in general, at first (when the KErs idea first appearead in F1 some time ago) it was suggested that it should be a no-more than 20kg device, but with no limit in power.

This however had some problems:
First, it would favour mech devices which at the moment are lighter than electric devices, which need a motor-generator plus the batteries, while the mech only needs a small flywheel (which together with its casing weights just 5kgs) and a CVT. But the problem is that mech devices are less road relevant than electric ones.

Second, each team would have a different power of KERS, making kind of unfair the overtaking periods (and hence less overtaking probably) and different lap times.

Third, in road cars you normally want a device that produces X hp and is as light as possible, not the other way around. SO the same should happen in F1.

PS1: there can be also other kind of mech KERS, that are hydraulic KERS, but have been desestimated, probably due to complexity, problems with reliability, difficulty to apply it to road cars, etc.

PS2: 60KW are 80KW, so thats around 10% extra of power for F1 during those 6,666 secs

Racing against the machine!

Thanks Jamie.

Williams and proud of it.

What about braking stability ?

Will the KERS weight and center of gravity penalty negate whatever advantages of KERS in the acceleration department since it will be slower to stop the car ?

Just like the Seat TDI ( WTCC ) having the extra weight ( heavier engine ), and I could see them really struggling to stop the car in the corners at the recent Estoril race.


Last but not least, what about the effects of extra weight to tyre degradation in the race, - and also qualifying ?

I have found an informative write-up about KERS when doing some googling on the internet.

Thanks to Greywolf74 of SPEEDTv forum.

If you look at the diagram,

[www.motorauthority.com]

there is a large grey cylinder and a gear train
mounted above the transmission gears and ahead
of the differential. Unless I miss my guess, this
is a "flywheel" -- a rotating cylinder of some
heavy material like steel or perhaps even denser.
Under braking, the gear train and clutches
(the brown parts, just in front of the differential)
engage, revving the flywheel cylinder up to as much
as 10,000 rpm. Once at speed, it will continue to
spin on its bearings like a gyroscope, conserving
the rotational energy picked up from the wheels.

When the driver pushes the "use the energy" button,
the clutches engage and the energy flow is reversed.
Now, the flywheel turns the axel, adding torque to
the already rotating wheels. An continuously variable
transmission between the clutches matches the
flywheel's rpm to the road wheels' speed, allowing
smooth use of the energy recovered under braking.

One thing to keep in mind is that because this
kinetic energy recovery system uses mass, rather
than electricity to store energy, and the maximum
flywheel RPM is limited, there is a maximum amount
of energy the system can hold, and thus, a maximum
the driver can recover. He can't save power by
not using the system for several laps. Also, it
will take awhile to recharge the energy by bringing
the flywheel back up to speed.

As with all things, the driver will have to be
judicious in how he uses the "energy recovery"
button.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


You don´t want to know what´s going to happen when the flywheel goes bang - the word grenade comes to mind !!

If one team uses it, you can bet all the teams will have it on both cars. We could see some development problems causing reliability snafu's, but if it offers an advantage, no team could afford not to use it.

Sessions

Quote:

Last but not least, what about the effects of extra weight to tyre degradation in the race, - and also qualifying ?

Next year's cars won't be any heavier than this year's. F1 cars are built so far below the weight limit that they can easily dump 40kg of ballast to offset the weight of KERS.

As for a flywheel failing, it's no more of an issue than all of the other spinning mass (engine, transmission) failing.

"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary... That's what gets you."-Jeremy Clarkson

Thanks, but why the Kubica fuss over extra weight of KERS when he talked about next season ?


Besides, can they really move around the battery like a ballast do ? I'm a bit unsure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:16:05:46:47 by German Rocket.

I doubt Kubica has more that 40 kilos of ballast...

German Rocket, Robert's worries was, that if already this year the team struggled with balance and needed some extra ballast to correct the balance, imagine how it should be next year, with almost 40kg less of ballast at disposal of engineers.

But probably next year all cars will still stay at the 605kg limit.

Racing against the machine!

That really lit up the somewhat confusing ( for me ) KERS issue. After all these, I think I have a slightly ( just ) better understanding of KERS and the whole weight issue.

So JRaid, does this means that the battery cannot offset the purpose of the 40kg ballast even though it can, weight-wise, am I correct ?

Werll, first of all:

F1 cars, without minimun limit, would weight somewhere between 500 and 530kgs. SO thats why ballast is used.

If instead of those, lets say, 520ks, you have to add a Kers, that lets say it wegihts 30kg, then if you still don't want to be above the min limit, then you have 30kg less of ballast (normally tugsten, placed in lower places, to improve the placing of the Center of Gravity).

Off course you could place those batteries in spencial places to act like the ballast, but there are 2 main problems:

1st: Probably they aren't as dense as tugsten, hence for the same weight, they occupy more volume , which is not good if you want a tight car, as in F1.

2nd: probably you cannot place that batteries as low as the ballast, or in extreme positions. Mainly because those batteries need quite a lot room and have a defined shape, while ballast can have a shape that can adapt better to different parts of the car. Plus you cannot place the batteries in the nose cone or front wing, while you could do so with ballast (look at renault's front end for example). And similar for other places such as where the diffuser starts (down the driver), etc.

Racing against the machine!

I'm impressed. Very good explanation. Thanks.

In case of Kubica:

520 + 35 + 68 = 623 kg

Too bad...

It's nearly 20 kgs above the minimum weight of the car.

Some more information about KERS I've just collected. Thought I'd like to share with you guys.


Talk about cost cutting measures. I've found from other sites that those battery cost USD$400,000 per installation and they're lithium, have limited duty cycles ( only two-hour peak performance race and no more ). In other words, they need to be "thrown away" after each race.


"Thrown away" as in disposal by burning - at which point the batteries allegedly produce pure, unadulterated arsenic.


Teams will obviously aim to position the various constituent parts of KERS, which most agree will carry a penalty of 25 - 30 kg ( maybe Toyota battery - lightest of all ), as low and as close to the centre of the car as possible in order to minimise balance disruptions, and the obvious place to position batteries is under the fuel tank.


Safety is another issue. No safety procedures had been framed by the FIA.


The obvious hazard would be the 10 kilogram carbon fibre flywheels spinning at up to 60 000 rpm. While they were tested in crash test under controlled condition and managed to be contained, race conditions however can be completely otherwise.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From an article:

"KERS is driven through the rear axle under braking," he explained, "and once you've saturated the storage device to the permitted level then obviously the torque through the rear axle can change. That is potentially a tricky thing for the teams to manage, so the gain is maybe two or three tenths of a second, and the loss is the ballast or weight, and the packaging and the issue of torque management of the rear axle. It's far from slam-dunk, as they say..."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By the way, BMW are totally commited to KERS, perhaps for a good reason. You see, it seems that Prof. Burkhard Goeschel ( a former BMW Director For Development ) has played a major role with Max Mosley in conceiving the concept. So guys, this could play into our hands. He he ..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:16:17:53:27 by German Rocket.

Barteks, that weight (520) was including the driver, which makes F1 even more impressiev (I've been always amazed how light and resistant carbon fiber and kevlar and all that stuff can be). Otherwise the team could not put any ballast on his car

Germn Rocket, interesting stuff. The batteries life is ceratinly an issue. FIA should force it to be like engines, that means lasting for at least a couple of races. IMo it should last 4 GP's. And should force them to recycle.

That would make them more road relevant, although it would benefit teams with mech KERS, as mech KERS don't lose as much efficiency as electric batteries.

Anyway, Some extra info. Rules state:

With the exception of one fully charged KERS, the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ. Any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.

The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW (81bhp). Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap. Measurements will be taken at the connection to the rear wheel drive train.

Any KERS may only be capable of increasing the stored energy whilst the car is moving on the track. Release of power from any such system must remain under the complete control of the driver at all times the car is on the track.

Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the SDR in order to verify the requirements above are being respected.

Any components required as part of a KERS will be controled by the SECU

(remember that KW= KJ/s , that meansPower=Energy/s )

Hopefully in 2010 or 2011 there will be the possibility to use another KERS for the front axle, which will improve the boost power and at the same time reduce fuel comsuption. A win-win situation.

ABout BMW, yeah they are fully commited. You just need to take a look at their road cars lately. They are pioneering the car efficiency. With their "EfficientDynamics" they are making their car the less fuel-comsumers of their range (that means at equal power, the need less fuel than any rival). ANd they apply it to all their series.
They use stuff like active aerodynamics, brake energy regeneration (in reality its a automatically disengageable battery and pumps), autos start and stop, etc.

You can find more info about it at http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/technologies/overview.html

Racing against the machine!

Quote:

J-Raid
Barteks, that weight (520) was including the driver

Thanks, then it's much, much better for him

RedBull factory was on fire due to battery failure.

[www.autosport.com]


In the meantime, BMW tested KERS for the first time in a private track at Miramas for about 50 km. Apparently the test ran smoothly without any problems.

¨ It was very positive ¨, quoted from Mario Theissen. Asked cheeckily about whether the team had encountered similar fire at Redbull, Mario responded, ¨No, no serious stuff ¨


[www.autosport.com]

I didn't know BMW has a private track

Who was at the wheel?

Does it count to testing mileage?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:17:22:31:44 by barteks.

I'm sorry, there was no info about the driver.

Regardless, more details about the Redbull fire. Apparently the KERS unit overheated the lithium ion battery which led to a small fire but the smoke was alarming.

Mario went on to comment about KERS safety and he said BMW are confident that it will be under control. The only thing is - yikes ! the fuel tank will be more at risk of untoward incidents ( batteries under the fuel tank ).

Quote:

barteks
I didn't know BMW has a private track
Who was at the wheel?

Does it count to testing mileage?

it wasn't Kubica

Quote:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69201
Q: There is a rumour that you tried a KERS system.
RK: "Myself, no. I didn't try it."

It was Marko Asmer.

Quote:

Talk about cost cutting measures. I've found from other sites that those battery cost USD$400,000 per installation and they're lithium, have limited duty cycles ( only two-hour peak performance race and no more ). In other words, they need to be "thrown away" after each race.

Is that two hours of charging and discharging, or only two hours of providing power? If it's the latter, then a battery should last up to 8 races (6 sec/lap for about 150 laps/gp weekend). Either way, this is one of the suggestions that the manufacturers made to the FIA, so this is clearly how they want to spend their money rather than on some of the less road car oriented technologies.

"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary... That's what gets you."-Jeremy Clarkson

Its peak performance for maximum output ( 60kW ) at 6.666s/lap over a two hour race period, after which it will degrade. Not the entire 2-hrs of usage.

I came across this, sorry if it is a repeat post.

KERS paper - PDF

Williams and proud of it.

KERS killing!

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43442

“During testing of the KERS car at the Jerez track this morning, there was an incident involving a mechanic.

When the car returned to the pits, he touched it and suffered an electric shock.

He sustained slight injuries to his left hand and grazing on his left arm."

Too bad. And it caused the team to lose almsot 1 entire test day. Add to that the long night engineers in the factory will have tonight, investigating and testing about the issue and searching for solutions.

BTW, ABout that car tested the F1.07 the sidepods are totally new. They are squared in their shape, but the air inlets have a curved shape, and quite small indeed.

I wonder if its that BMW will place some parts of the KERS (the batteries) there (which could explain why the mechanic sufferred that electric shock after touching the sidepod, and would explain too that rectangular transparent thing in the lower part of the sidepod), or it is down to some of the 2009 regs (one of them stipulates that the sidepods will be extended further forward), or new safety regs (regarding lateral impact) or to test reduced aerodynamic efficiency (as diffuser will change, as well as barge boards disappearing, all of whihcinfluences in the sidepod shape design).

Racing against the machine!

I was wondering about the batteries too, they would not bulk up the side pods without good reason.

It is a pity when any team hits a problem like the one that appeared today. Let's hope that it is quickly identified and resolved. The main thing is that the engineer was not seriously injured.

Williams and proud of it.

SOme more info about BMW's KERS and other stuff:


Theissen: ''The components that were tested at Miramas will have changed a lot come next year.''

On fitting in the system: ''With KERS there are two main challenges. On the one hand there's the weight and the performance. On the other hand there's the packaging - how am I to position all the single components ? These factors will decide whether there'll be an advantage in laptime or not.''

On dividing the work between 2008 and 2009: ''We're still working parallely. It seems that with regard to the design we're mainly working on the new car, in terms of aerodynamics the work is balanced whereas on the testbenches we're almost solely working on 2008, with the exception of singular components such as KERS.''

There were talks that Honda was to test a car that was completely compliant with the 2009 aerodynamic regulations. Is BMW Sauber planning on something similar ? ''No. As is customary we will present our car at the beginning of the year and will (only) then test it.''

Racing against the machine!

Mark Hughes Unravels KERS


[www.itv-f1.com]

Some interesting infos about KERS lately.

Apart from the vid of the mechanic flying, there are interesting quotes.

From automoto365:
Two days after the German Grand Prix, BMW had a major setback in their hybrid development program. During the first test of their KERS system in Jerez, a mechanic was struck down by a electrical power stroke when he touched the car. That is one of the biggest concerns of this new technology. The electric solution needs batteries with high voltage up to 600 volts If the cables are not perfectly isolated, there is a major risk for anybody who touches the car, as carbon transfers electric power quite well. BMW aborted the test immediately.

Inteview with Mosley about KERS: LINK

Racing against the machine!

Quote:

J-Raid
On dividing the work between 2008 and 2009: ''We're still working parallely. It seems that with regard to the design we're mainly working on the new car, in terms of aerodynamics the work is balanced whereas on the testbenches we're almost solely working on 2008, with the exception of singular components such as KERS.''

Uhm, what else can you put on the testbench except for the 2008 carparts and the new KERS? Not a new engine... I'd think they are testing with the KERS mounted on the F1.08engine.

Quote:

Uhm, what else can you put on the testbench except for the 2008 carparts and the new KERS?

New gearbox
And suspension components for 2009 as well

Quote:

I'd think they are testing with the KERS mounted on the F1.08engine.

For sure

Racing against the machine!

Teams fail to delay KERS until 2010, at http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/9729/900/

Frotunately for F1 fans, and for BMW as well (being believed to be ahead in KERS development).

Racing against the machine!

Still too early to say. If there's another accident, or any kind of untowards incidents happening between now and before the start of 2009, I'm sure they'll have to reconsider it.

Those teams that are still behind in KERS can sabotage it easily - for instance, purposely create something like fire or explosions during test ( without the drivers, of course ). Maybe they already have - Redbull fire incident recently but failed. More to come ?

Nah, doubt they would do something that weird.

ANyway, it was WIlliams, Honda and BMW who opposed to te delay. That and more info at http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69689

Racing against the machine!

Hope they ( other teams ) will not. Because KERS is what all BMW fans hope to gain some mileage against McLaren and Ferrari for next season.

By the way, I meant those teams that are behind in KERS development that may do those things.

Besides that, all it takes is an incident during tests, and the FIA will have to seriously reconsider it.

Flavio Briatore has condemned the use of KERS. Its a waste of money, just like the seamless gearbox, while having some kind of benefits, but then when all teams are using it ( except Force India, I think ), it does not interest a single spectator. ( all seamless gearbox performance after maturity in development more or less perform the same ).


Renault is believed to be not using the system next season ( high cost ). No wonder Alonso is reportedly to be leaving the team regardless of what happens this year. Renault may end up 4th at the end of the season, and he might not have the luxury to leave the team at will, as stated in the contract.

Quote:

Besides that, all it takes is an incident during tests, and the FIA will have to seriously reconsider it.

If the notion is to create an incident to force the FIA's hand with regards to KERS, that could really backfire on the teams. After all, the FIA wouldn't have to delay it, they could simply force each team to pass safety checks before they are allowed to run KERS on their cars. That would give an advantage to the teams that get it right, and be a PR nightmare for the others. Imagine if Toyota failed to make a KERS system that passed the tests and what that might do to consumers considering the Prius.

What Flavio is forgetting when he condemns KERS is that the manufacturers want to incorporate more road relevent technology in F1. From a pure sporting standpoint, he's right in that it won't make a big difference to the competition once all the teams have it sorted out, but it does satisfy a business need.

"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary... That's what gets you."-Jeremy Clarkson

Surprising is that Toyota which is said to be the KERS front runners had not agreed to KERS for 2009. What were they thinking about ?

You've got good points there, gturner, especially from the business standpoint. Flavio by the way, criticized Mario for failing to see that without it, it would save millions. He cheekily touched on the the BMW mechanic who got electrocuted. I don't think Renault is as interested in KERS to be implemented on their road cars.

Maybe he was thinking you can always develop KERS, "off-F1". All the teams would be free from that expensive baggage as cost is ever increasing for running an F1 team.

I think its not fair to compare SSG with KERS.

KERS will have a much greater impact in road cars, especially effiency are reduction of pollution (at least CO2, CO, NOx, particles, etc).

And whats more KERS will contribute to increase overtaking possibilities, hence fun for the fans, while SSG didn't.

Quote:

I don't think Renault is as interested in KERS to be implemented on their road cars.

Then they are stupid. But I doubt thats true. Otherwise they will really stuggle to pass the strict pollution laws coming in the EU, with the 2012 one being very hard already.
And KERS and TERS (termal energy recovery) are the future, combined with new fuels (hydrogen). Be sure they know it.

Incidentally my father was collaborator some years ago in R&D and technological conseil of Renault, and the main topic they worked on was electric devices (and ironically that included some forms of KERS too) for powering cars.

Very much doubt they wouldn't worry about it now.

Quote:

Maybe he was thinking you can always develop KERS, "off-F1". All the teams would be free from that expensive baggage as cost is ever increasing for running an F1 team.

With the schedule of FIA to increase the limits of storaged power in KERS (think its 100cv and then 200cv in the next years), it would be impossible for non-KERS teams to challenge for the championship.

PS: Have just read from Phil, that Honda could be sharing some of it KERS devlopment knowledge with another team, and that it could be BMW. That would be quite nice for us too

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:06:15:11:33 by J-Raid.

Pardon the off-topic intent, barteks.

Anyway, I think the Renault electric devices they are developing are more to do with batteries as they believed in electric vehicle as the best solution. Incidentally as with KERS, it included the development of high performance batteries, such as the lithium-ion.

I'm not too sure about Renault and KERS, but I think they are developing some kind of micro-hybrid system which cuts the engine when the car stops, and reactivates it with a electrical starter.


Thanks for the lavish input, JRaid.

Williams are intending to test KERS at Jerez 16-18 Setember.

Williams and proud of it.

Briatore raves about KERS; BMW and WIlliams: http://f1.automoto365.com/news/controller.php?lang=en&theme=default&month=8&year=2008&nextMode=GpNewsForm&news_id=32464

Flavio has lost it! what a sort memory he has...

Nice article explaining all this KERS complaining and more, at http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20651.html

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:07:16:22:20 by J-Raid.

lol, R they frightened of the KERS? Are the specs too intimidating?

¨ KERS will inevitably spread out the grid a little. That is always the way when changes are made in F1. Some will gain and some will lose and the feeling is that it is those who feel that they will lose who are making the most noise about safety. ¨


This pretty much summed up the situation at the moment.

Exactly.

They aren't really scared about safety nor costs, its more that they are behind in that development. Briatory is very cheeky. When something (ie rule changes) doesn't suit him, he complains a lot, but when it does suit him, he is very quiet or even praise it. Put 2005 tyre regs as an example.

Edit: a report from Webber worried about KERS, and it seems BMW still don't have a clue of why the mechanic suffered that incident, at http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69716

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:08:15:15:36 by J-Raid.

Mario had promised the FIA and rival teams that they will get to the bottom of it and ensure all safety measures are confirmed before they run it on the car for the next test.

Webber: "There is a report coming from BMW about what happened there, but the rumour is they haven't a clue why it happened. They have no idea - and that is a worry"

[www.autosport.com]

BMW don't know what happened in Hungary, they don't know what happened with KERS... WTF?

Well, you know things in engineering aren't as simple as in other areas
To analyze, you need a deep look at all the variables and factors (which can be more than one hundred), undrestand why and how something happened, and then apply to correct it.

Plus that they don't tell in public what has happened (both Hungary's lack of pace reason and KERS) doesn't mean the don't actually know it
F1 and secretism are two very close concepts.

Racing against the machine!

Early June I wondered about a concept of a flywheel, but using electric devices too, so that it would store energy both as mechanical and as electric energy.

Something like the motor that BMW and most other teams will use in their KERS, but with the rotor of it acting as a flywheel too. That would mean an asyncornous engine with an increased (size, but especially inertia) rotor.

And look what I have just found (from AFCA once again):

For Williams postponing KERS is not an option at all: ''We continue to develop the hybrid technique in full swing.''

The Grove based team puts its money on a variant with flywheels with integrated magnets that should act like a electo-engine. ''Yes, that's the solution we concentrate on.''
So far there haven't been technical problems, Michael: ''But we're not as far with the developments as the others.''

Rosberg: ''Some teams can make it in time with KERS at Melbourne next year. But only very few. Perhaps three teams. And some will take a risk: in those cars the system will break down.''

I wasn't wrong with my idea then

Anyway, some extra info about KERS:

...If you're (the F1 Teams) willing to get the complete KERS package from Magneti-Marelli you have to pay € 2 million.

So Flav still complaining about costs? Ho come on, he should buy M-M's hehe

Before the Turkish GP Honda (Wurz) first tested KERS on track, it was at the dragster track of Santa Pod. It was merely a system/function test. Then Honda sent an entire car (old chassis) with KERS build-in to the development centre in Tochigi. There it was tested on a testbench where it was given a good shaking and proper 'blows'. This procedure, in which the high kerbstones from Magny-Cours up to the bumps from Interlagos were all simulated, took several months. One of the primary goals was to make sure no parts would come loose energising the bodywork as a consequence. Then more recently Conway did a real test with the system at Silverstone.

Brawn: ''There will be some teams that won't take KERS to the first oversee races at all. But at the very start (of the season) in terms of competitiveness it's more important anyway how you're going to cope with the new aerodynamics and the tyres. Only when the season progresses and the teams are getting closer to each other it will also be decisive who can benefit from the use of KERS and who can't.''

''If somebody doesn't get KERS to work it will only start to be an issue for him during the first tracktests. If you're continually being hamperd by KERS when you want to find out how good the actual car is, then it becomes an issue.''

At Jerez number 1 mechanic of BMW Sauber's test team, Antonio, got a shock when he touched the car. The batteries in the sidepod of the modified BMW Sauber were charged with 30 kW. Klien (who was driving the car) : ''The batteries discharge as soon as you press a button in the cockpit. But I've only done two installation laps. In the car I was earthed through the tyres. If Antonio had touched me...I don't know what would have happened then...''

In the F1.07C there's a warning light that indicates in which working mode KERS is. It was still on. ''He shouldn't have touched the car so early, instead he should have waited till the engine was shut down and the electronics powered down. Perhaps that's still necessary in this early phase of development.''

The team is still unsure as to what exactly caused the shock to the mechanic, Theissen: ''We're still examinating it. We're finding out about some interesting effects there, not just for F1 but also for roadcars.''

BMW Sauber is among those that so far have made the most progress but even Theissen has to admit: ''I'm not 100% if we'll already be driving with it at the first race.''

Horner on the fire incident in Milton-Keynes: ''We had one single battery on the testbench. A cell in it broke down and as a chain reaction the same happened to all the others also. For the cooling the battery was standing in a waterbed. The fire was immediately extinguished but the smoke let the alarm go off.''

-----
Antonio? Not Cuquerella (Robeert's RE) I presume, unles he just shaved his head!
BTW, weren't tyres supposed to be good isolating material? I remember what we are all said about staying inside the car when there is a thunderstorm...

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:09:15:09:25 by J-Raid.

In the 90´s, BMW had already tinkered with mechanical flywheel-based KERS, but due to an accident where it flew off uncontrollably and became a dangerous projectile, they quickly
abandoned the project.

If this is so complicated why not forget it, F1 will find some other alternative, they always do. No use risking unnecessary human injury. Driving one of these projectiles is risky enough.

Sessions

Quote:

If this is so complicated why not forget it, F1 will find some other alternative, they always do. No use risking unnecessary human injury. Driving one of these projectiles is risky enough

Well, sessions, if people really had used that mentality in the past, we would not probably have F1
I mean, today's engines are far more complicated than this KERS. Combustion process, and having some greatly stressed parts moving at over 19.000rpm is such a complicated thing. Yet its working.
Why? Because, as most things in science, we have tried to overcome those complications, we have get over them in most case. So why not try with KERS, which by the way, will be very useful for the normal people, than in a few years will have the chance of use this kind of tech, and will reduce pollution, increase fuel economy, movility, etc.

We (well some people, not me) are complaining about a system that works at 600V and store 400KJ? Weird, because for exmaple high stressed machines or high voltage lines work at thousands of volts and much much higher energy transfer. Heck, we can travel to the moon but we can't do a KERS?
I myself have worked (in uni) with lines and machines working over 600V, and with less isolation of the wires, etc, and there wasn't a problem at all. Just needed to take reasonable safety measures (ie. security gloves). I don't see a problem with that passing too in F1.

ANd I don't its that complicated really. There is lot of noise about it lately, but it's got to do more with politics (ie. Flavio's words), and people complaining because they see they don't have the edge over other teams in this area. Everything in F1 tech has offered a chanllenge at first, but after a couple of years after that concept was developed, none even remembered those challenges

So let the teams push forward in an idea, which by the way, will not only reduce fuel comsumption, but will also increase overtaking and racing fan thrilling.
Reality is that it isn't as complicated or expensive as aero for example. I'll quote a Williams CEO (Adam Parr): “I don’t mind saying that our budget for KERS is 10 per cent of our budget for aerodynamics and composite parts, so it’s not a huge amount of money and we see it as a fantastic investment into the future of the sport.”

Ah, and don't forget BMW is one of the leading teams in this tech, so that may help our performance next year, something we will undoubtly need after seing the last races

Quote:

In the 90´s, BMW had already tinkered with mechanical flywheel-based KERS, but due to an accident where it flew off uncontrollably and became a dangerous projectile, they quickly
abandoned the project.

DIdn't know that (i knew about Mclaren's about 10 years ago, but not BMW's). COuld you give more info?

Racing against the machine!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:10:12:30:32 by J-Raid.

"Heck, we can travel to the moon but we can't do a KERS?"

We did? Oh, you mean the tv show that pretended we did?

Don't you think it's a little strange that with the technological advancement over the very low technology we had in 1969, we have not been to the moon in almost 40 years???

You don't find that strange?

¨ DIdn't know that (i knew about Mclaren's about 10 years ago, but not BMW's). COuld you give more info? ¨

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry, it came from the back of my mind. It was too old, can´t seem to locate it on the internet. By the way, McLaren was indeed involved with KERS back in the 90´s, guess with whom they did it with ? Yes, BMW.

I remember it too that Ferrari was against the technology in F1 and complained it to the FIA. The latter ruled against it and that was it.

Also, McLaren at the time had developed the McLaren F1 supercar. And no surprises there, it was powered by a 6.1 litre BMW V12 engine.

In other words, BMW and McLaren had a history together. The only thing was when people associate KERS and F1 at the time, they remember only McLaren. BMW was in fact doing the thinking, Ahem !!...

JRaid,
Didn't need the lecture leading to the mentality projection that would conclude to not having f1 at all. I stated if this KERS was posing such difficulty, why not think out side the box and find an alternative (push a button go faster system) that would hopefully not run the risk of electrocuting or exploding flywheels that put humans in peril. I'm sure with the existing knowledge and technology finding a safer KERS may be arrived at by some smarter than the average tech.
2009 is closing in fast with many other advancements that require development too.
Not to mention the development that should be extended to the 2008 car that seems to lose ground every race.

Sessions

Quote:

Bogs
"Heck, we can travel to the moon but we can't do a KERS?"
We did? Oh, you mean the tv show that pretended we did?

Don't you think it's a little strange that with the technological advancement over the very low technology we had in 1969, we have not been to the moon in almost 40 years???

You don't find that strange?

mankind can travel to the moon, proved by the fact that we have photos of the earth from tyhe other side of the moon


what you are doubting is the fact we can land and then take of from the moon

either way the original point still stands that nothings is going to work perfectly the first time (except a pencil) you need to develop and there will be accidents in this development, however you can reduce the risks of these hazards by minimising the human involvement in testing situations and various other methods

You have a point. They may have orbited the moon, but not land and take off. 40 years without aother landing?? How is that possible if they did it in 69?

Abiut Kers, if others are having problems - then that should be an advantage to BMW.

considwer the size of the universe the conside rhte size of the moon

what can be gained from landing people on the moon as opposed to specialised machines with scentific equipment built

plus 69 was not the only time they landed on the moon

too bad they didn't say that the teams were allowed to make Hydrogen powered cars (F0 click british flag for english), we would have a lot of fun with that. That would be cutting edge technology, pretty much impossible for now (in F1).

Bogs, don't discuss that here, but open a post in the off topic forum

My point wasn't about what happened in the Apolo's missions. I was trying to put an example that human being has done things way more complicated than KERS
And note that I said "we can travel to the moon" and not "we have travelled to the moon" I'm aware of those theories and partly share the views.

Anyway, sessions, yeah it could be done like in Champcar for example (opening a limiting valvle of the turbo), but that would not comply with the other objective of KERS: decreasing F1 and road car pollution (what some call "make F1 greener").

Plus KERS is no more dangerous than other tech's used in F1. For example fuel, which has a higher energy density, hence more dangerous if affected in a crash. Just look at the refuelling problems in the last race. Thats bloody more dangerous.
But there are measures to increase safety, like Kevlar fuel tank. Same could be done for KERS, so that the safety problem would virtually disappear.

German Rocket, oh well, those good BMW Macca times. No wonder why the Mclaren F1 BMW powered in on top of my fav machines.
Macca's F1 KERS back then was a flywheel, as you stated, and could be that BMW was behind. No surpsie hehe.
BMW are showing lately that they are contributing the most to efficiency in cars. Look at the KERS investment they are doing now, and 10 years ago, and the other measures in their road cars (like the regenrative braking disengageable battery).

Bouncing Bullet, in the future (15 years or so) F1 should be like that. I just hope that F1's don't loose their nice sound. BTW, the multimeter (voltimer+amperimeter+resitance-meter) they use (the yellow and black) is exactly the same model I use hehe

Racing against the machine!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:11:14:41:48 by J-Raid.

Jamie, I was just having some fun with the moon stuff, though I am not 100% convinced that man has walked on the moon - robots have. There are reflectors on the moon that allow us to track the distance from the earth by using a laser....but enough about that.

The main concern about KERS is safety - the danger of electrical shock. That could be monitors using sensors on the car - if the body is charged -you would know about it, and avoid the incident that occured.

Sorry, I promise this will be the last post of ¨another off-topic¨ news, Pls look up on the internet about the Large Hadron Collider ( particle accelerator ) that they are going to start up later in the year. Construction almost complete and everything is just about system go.

Okay back to F1. He he..

I just watched an interview with some Toyota representative (unfortunately don't know his name) and he said that the F1 car without ballast is on average 50 kilos underweight.

Ferrari struggling with kers, at [www.autosport.com]

BMW to re-testt it soon at [www.autosport.com]

Toyota and Renault not to test it until Januray at [www.onestopstrategy.com]

Racing against the machine!

AAnd more about kers (4 teams to test it at jerez) at [en.f1-live.com]

Racing against the machine!

BMW was scheduled to to a bit of shakedown with Klien on board for the KERS test in Monza today.

Theissen is not that confident that it will be on time for the Aus GP, worst case scenario, by the middle of the season 2009.

The real test will be at Jerez next week.

Good idea to test it on Klein! If he get's shocked they can just get another crash test dummy....I mean test driver.

For those of you from Canada, and old enough to remember, this reminds me of something you would see in a Super Dave Osborn stunt!

Bogs, they also have Asmer

Klein's first automotive test drive on video

">Klein testing

KERS & new engines tech may suffer a revolution. Found this (from SSC's Ulimate Aero car coming in 2009, which is set to be fastest production car ever):
"The drive train under development will feature a revolutionary power source allowing for extended time between charging intervals with the possibility of several years between charging."

From http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/sep2008/bw20080925_308061.htm?campaign_id=rss_innovate

If its true and works, it could be very important for F1, as soon as for 2010, and who knows for road cars as well. Looking forward what it is really.

Racing against the machine!

Thanks to AFCA (once again) here is some extra KERS info:

Whitmarsh on McLaren's first outing on track with KERS at Jerez two weeks ago: ''We've had a very cautious approach to it all. Safety has priority. Our prototype was 18 kg's heavier than what we aim to have next year.''

McLaren's test served to collect basic, but yet fundamental data and knowledge on the system. How does the cooling of the batteries and control electronics work ? How does the system react to vibrations ? How can total safety can be guaranteed ? ''In our case the unit rests in a specially made casing in the side of the car.'' In the event of a crash the battery would disintegrate in many small cells in order to reduce the risk on fire or an electric shock.

Honda appears to be the furthest with the system. At Jerez Wurz did another 201 laps with a modified RA106. Occasionally Honda stored more than 50% of the maximally allowed 82 bhp. Wurz went through various scenario's pressing the button on the straights, whilst accelerating out of slow corners as well as out of fast ones. Though the Austrian wasn't allowed to press the powerbutton each lap because the control unit always threatened to overheat.

''When you come out of a slow corner, the car should be in a straight line before you switch on the system. The extra power is really enormous. In corners that you take in fourth or fifth gear you can already activate the extra power whilst going through the corner.'' The straights ? ''Unfortunately they're too short at Jerez to make use of the power for a full 6,8 seconds.''

At any time the driver is aware how much more time he has left till the end of the lap to recharge the system. ''In the display (on the steering wheel) there's a area that indicates in percentages how much of the power can still be called up.''
----------
>And a explanatoy video of mechanical KERS with CVT at [">pl.youtube.com]

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:09:30:12:28:19 by J-Raid.

And yet more, this time about WIlliam's electro-mechanic KERS:

For Williams the 'KERS-era' started last Tuesday with rookie Clos completing 75 laps in a Williams FW30B without problems. Then it was Nakajima's turn to cover race distances in the two days that followed. Michael confirms: ''There haven't been serious problems at all.''

Williams' flywheel system is so strong that it would take an hour for it to come to a standstill in case it would be started and not touched afterwards. At the push of a button the stored energy is released to the drivetrain via an electro-engine.

But Williams isn't that far yet. The first tests served for charging the system. ''We go step by step. We cannot afford having a big accident. That would setback a small team like ours by months.''

With a big accident an electric shock is meant that hits a mechanic or the driver itself. Also without a battery in the car, there's the danger of the chassis getting electrically charged through the short-circuit that's being formed by the flywheel and the electro-engine. ''(This chance) may be smaller than with a completely electronical solution, we've nevertheless been driving in a safety mode at Jerez. This has limited the voltage. It was mainly about checking out the cabling and the control systems.''

The advantages of the flywheel concept lie in the weight, the required space as well as the recovery of the energy. Williams mounted the casing, in which the flywheel and electro-engine are built-in, in a vat in the fueltank. The system still weighs around 40 kg. Michael doesn't think many teams will start the 2009 season with KERS on board, and not just because the system may not be ready at that point.

''Those that need a lot of ballast to balance the car, will abstain from using KERS at the start. You gain more laptime by an optimal weight distribution than with the 80 extra bhp that you get for 7 seconds.''

The slow laptimes from Williams at Jerez have nothing to do with KERS. Williams was already testing the 2009 rearwing and diffusor. The rearwing will be 75 instead of 100 cm wide and 95 instead of 80 cm high. This results in a downforce loss at the rear of around 20 %. Williams didn't just test the interim-wing to collect data:

''Because of the KERS system we've already been driving with the 2009 gearbox and the new rearsuspension. The current rearwing doesn't fit on there at all. The wing is mounted above the gearbox.'

And a diagram of how the installation would be:



Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:09:30:13:14:06 by J-Raid.

Personally I see the most future in the flywheel system. Nowadays there is enough know-how to make an almast impenetrable casing for the flywheel. Theoretically, flywheels can be more efficient than a full electrically sys, with battery. Not to mention the production cost / pollution (becomes a bigger topic everyday) of batteries, charge - sys etc. I know of few experimental flywheel setups with active structure monitoring integrated. So cracks and damages can easily be found.

Kubica: "I've driven a prototype with KERS system and if engineers don't manage to slim the car significantly, then next season will be over for me"

So, he's saying the weight factor will put them out of the competition ? Don't they realize this and will compensate somehow ? They won't put a car in the line up that will defeat their chances to bid for the championship, do you think ?

Sessions

Quote:

Kubica: "I've driven a prototype with KERS system and if engineers don't manage to slim the car significantly, then next season will be over for me"

LOL, how much he will have to lose next year?

DOn't worry, prototype will evolve (the same word indicates its far from being the final version). In the end it should be somehere around 35kgs (electric engines+batteries+other kers components).

Ah, most likely they will manage to further slim the rest of the car, so the reduction of available ballast isn't that significant.
Plus the removal of winglets and so on may help a bit as well.

Racing against the machine!

He's getting a nose job to compensate, not to worry.

Sessions

More words from Mario about KERS:

“We see a big chance in KERS because in F1 we have an unrivalled development speed. We are pushing the envelope on a weekly basis and we can explore unknown territory in a much quicker and more efficient way than a complex road car project. We are very sure that KERS will contribute in a big way to future powertrain concepts for road cars.

“KERS, in its current form, is not something which goes beyond the capacity of current hybrid vehicles but the individual components will have a performance that is much improved compared to current road car solutions. In terms of the power-to-weight ratio or power-to-volume ratio, these components are already four to five times better than their road car equivalents. That is the real progress.

“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.

“In principle we hope KERS is just the start of a number of new efficient technologies in the sport. But we have to be careful not to do things which do not make sense. It has to pay off on the road car side as well. It needs to be efficient in terms of environmental impact and also the effort it takes.

“But I think we are on the right track. In the future my expectation is that the powertrain will change from what we have today with the combustion engine and the gearbox to a complex unit incorporating a smaller combustion engine, an electric motor generator, an electric storage unit, control electronics and probably a very different type of transmission. The true innovation will lie in the adaptation of these individual components and the integration into a more efficient powertrain. I think F1 can take the lead in that.”

Racing against the machine!

More on KERS:

There needs to be unanimity within the FOTA in case regulations are to be changed at short notice (so 10 votes out of 10 instead of the more usual 7 votes out of 10 I think in this case). All the teams have agreed to postpone KERS by a year, only BMW Sauber is against this.

This implies that the teams will have to keep on spending lots of money on the development of KERS. Dennis has told his colleagues that McLaren Mercedes has already invested € 30 million on the project. Honda would have spent three times as much. Michael laughs at these figures: ''So far our system has cost € 2 million. We have ten people that are working on the flywheel solution.''

Especially the small teams are peeved with BMW. Berger explains: ''Their veto will cost us € 6 million a season. We have to buy the system externally.'' Briatore is far from being happy either: ''For a lot of money everyone is developing their own system, and in the end we assert that in terms of laptimes there will hardly be any difference. Then I wonder: why do we squander so much money for something that doesn't bring anything ? We've had the same idiocy with the seamless gearboxes. Now everyone has one and we're all a couple of million euros poorer.''

However, in 2009 KERS could be the decisive factor. Toyota wants to do without it (they in any case won't be introducing it any earlier than the middle of the season). Honda, BMW and Mercedes have made reasonable progress. Ferrari (+ STR and Force India) and Renault (+ RBR) are dependent on Magneti Marelli and so far have a problem. The first version of the electro engine was a flop. The KERS project is going to be tight for both manufacturers in case it turns out that in December the second version isn't working either.

Symonds: ''Our car is build for employing KERS. At the moment we're laminating the first prototypes of the R29 chassis. It has been designed for KERS. We'd have to change the chassis design in case, in December, we're forced to decide whether or not to completely do without KERS. Then before the start of the season we'd at most be able to complete the manufacturing of three chassis'. We'd then have to push on with two other chassis' as quickly as possible. But that would all cost a pretty penny.''

Most of the teams will store the battery, electro engine and the control electronics in front of the engine, underneath the tank. You may be able to easily build-in and out the unit, but then what do you do with the space that becomes available in case you don't use the system ? Symonds: ''We may fill it up with ballast, but do we really want to have weight at that place ?''

Brawn explains the dilemma the engineers are in that are working on the recovery system. The unit is to way in between 30 and 40 kg. ''We're forced to put the basic weight distribution in the car in such a way that we're (still) able to balance the car with the little amount of ballast that remains. With regard to the usage of the tyres that is eminently important. Slicks demand a different weight distribution than grooved tyres. Those that do without KERS completely will obviously have more freedom there.''

Of course abstaining from KERS brings along disadvantages also. You're allowed to charge the system on the warm up lap prior to the race already. During first metres at the start the extra power won't come into play because it's only allowed to be released when the accelerator is pushed for more than 90%. Brawn: ''It's not allowed to modulate the acceleration by using KERS.'' Therefore KERS could be an advantage at tracks that are wide and where the distance to the first corners is long (Barcelona or Fuji). At Valencia or Monaco the system is hardly beneficial.
-------------------------------------------
The Germany company Bosch will develop a KERS for several motorsport series, among those is Formula 1.

Bosch would be in contact with at least one Formula 1 team. More details are to come from a Motorsport show in Cologne.

The question is who?

Racing against the machine!

F1 KERS: Bosch goes modular

Inside the German firms kinetic energy recovery system and the choice between batteries and flywheels

[www.racecar-engineering.com]

2008 Prediction Champion

Magneti Marelli KERS:

[www.racecar-engineering.com]

2008 Prediction Champion

Williams Hybrid Power

www.williamshybridpower.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:19:16:26:23 by Qlka.

From Magneti Marelli: "single liquid cooled brushless direct current motor generator unit"

Humm, I expected an alternate current devices, probably monophasic rather than triphasic, but nonetheless direct current.
For example the Lexus 400H (hybrid) uses syncronous alternate current engine/generator (brushless too) at 650V (similar to F1 KERS's). The whole rear electric engine delivers 50KW (68hp) at 5000rpm, and constant 130Nm from 0 to 600rpm. Max speed is 10.400rpm. All the package (engine + gear assembly) weights 40kgs. Diagram: LINK
Batteries (of Niquel by Panasonic) weights another 69kg, and they work at 288V. Air refirgerated via fans.
The other systems (ECU of "Kers" and other elctric devices) wegith another 32kg.
Total 141kg.

Direct current ones are normally simpler, but not sure what would be the advantage/disadavantages versus other systems in the F1 KERS application.

I Should ask BMW wether they will opt for the same type.

BTW, teams using MM system (or part of it) will be Ferrari and renault, and probably the Red Bull teams as well.

ALl in all, the Williams idea is more brilliant, and will be better out of the box, but will have less potential for improvement, and it isn't so good for road car application. SO in the longer term batteries systems will beat the flywheel/electrically driven system. The main reason is that given how tech is at the moment there is less room for improvement in mechanical systems than electrical ones, especially as electric batteries are far from reaching its best and development limit.

Also, while the WIlliams system will weight less, it will have o be all placed in the rear of the F1, while the pure electric one can distribute better the weight despite being heavier (that means putting the engines/motors at the rear and the batteries more forward, ie. under the sidepods).

Racing against the machine!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:21:19:10:35 by J-Raid.

More info about KERS development at the moment (thx to afca!):

- Ferrari's KERS increases the cooling demands of the car by 30%. The big vent on top of the sidepod is only a temporary solution but the overall cooling of the F2009's is probably going to be the most critical point... Anyway the second version of Magneti Marelli's electro engine is now on the testbench (the same goes for Renault (and Red Bull (?))) and is being tested thoroughly. Maybe KERS will be in the car at Jerez but I'm yet to see it...

- BMW Sauber is well advanced with KERS but not everything's going flawless. The engine braking doesn't fulfill its function whenever the energy is recovered and stored. The engine braking doesn't 'hold back', instead the V8 'pushes' the brakes additionally at the moment the energy is to be stored. KERS works like a reversed reverse thrust.

- Williams didn't test KERS at Barcelona. The flywheel solution doesn't require as much cooling as the battery variant but the Grove based team still has to work on the reliability of the system. In December it is due to be back on track.

Racing against the machine!

More on KERS:

Apperantly there are also problems second version of Magneti Marelli's electro engine (also bad for Renault and Red Bull). For this reason Ferrari has tied up with a second partner. The alternative solution is already running on the testbench. Integrating it in the old car would have cost too much time. Colajanni confirms Costa's words: ''We will first test KERS in our new car.''

The development of KERS is costing Ferrari more than expected because the two systems are being pressed ahead with parallelly. If problems arise during the first tests in January then Ferrari might have to do without KERS in Australia, eventhough this is/was not the aim. A Williams engineer illustrates the problem: ''The planned testrestrictions for 2009 hurt the teams that have problems with KERS.''

Before the first GP next year there are only four big possibities to test. Not a lot to get KERS race-ready, taking into account that so far it has only been bench tested.

It's said that the team principles will once again ask for a postponement of KERS during their meeting with Mosley tomorrow (when they will present him with everything that's been agreed on last week during the FOTA meeting). Unity is not to be expected though. BMW Sauber insists on having KERS and Mosley won't be giving in either, KERS is his contribution in making modern Formula 1 socially acceptable.

Racing against the machine!

Kubica expects KERS to hamper him:

[www.formula1.com]

2008 Prediction Champion



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:12:17:13:37:48 by barteks.

Some interesting is, as RK said, that the in-season testing ban will benefit teams that start the season in a strong form. And given BMW's strong preparations for 2009 (at least so far), things are looking pretty good for us.

Also the windtunnel time reduction from 2009 will give advanateg to teams that had already done their "homework" in 2008 regarding the 2009 car.

Racing against the machine!

What worries me is if he's forced to have it. BMW as a corporation have really promoted KERS, to have one (or both) of it's drivers not use it would potentially be embarrassing for the company. Could they force Kubica to use KERS? Thus sacrificing his championship, and possibly his career...

Would they be brave enough to say they won't run it until the minimum weight is raised? That would be the high ground... morally...

For me the interesting thing is that he admitted the team is preparing two versions of F1.09 (at least for now) and then they could easily choose the better (faster) one. The question is whether it's possible to run only one car with KERS (as Scarletkatz said above). I hope that Kubica will be able to race with no KERS if the new system will be a big disadvantage for him...

2008 Prediction Champion

Since KERS is important for BMW for marketing reasons, they have to have it up and running.
We will never know whether they're racing with or without it.

Quote:

allanjelly
Since KERS is important for BMW for marketing reasons, they have to have it up and running.
We will never know whether they're racing with or without it.

lol, that would be nice, just one sticker with "danger high voltages" would be sufficient.
Has anyone heard what Heidfeld is saying about Kubica's statement? I thought Nick was slightly positive about KERS?

BMW will race the option which is faster as simple as that. Marekting reasons won't affect on whether the KERS is raced in the first race, or second, or whatever. The improtant race for marketing is that fact that it is raced in the season, not when it wstarted to race

So, i do beleive that, if in AUssie the fastest option for RK is non-KERS, he will do so, no matter what Nick uses.

In fact allanjelly made an interesting point:

Quote:

We will never know whether they're racing with or without it.

Although thats not entirely true, as TV covergae will show some power boosts,a dn FIA will reveal whether or not each driver used each tech specs, it will be hard for most spectators/ public (to which the KERS marketing is aimed to) to know if BMW is using the KERS or not. In fact BMW could say one thing and do the other

BTW, What were Nick words?

Racing against the machine!

One thing is to have a car completely designed to be without KERS, another is a car adapted to the recovery system but without batteries and other stuff on board. Latter option seems to be more flexible (not optimal for Robert?), the former generate additional cost and time since BMW has two slightly different concepts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:12:17:23:03:54 by Qlka.

Excuse me, did you say "pictures of the earth from the other side of the moon"? IF that were possible, we'd have pictures of the other side of the moon from Earth! The other side of the moon NEVER faces the Earth, it's the "dark side."

That doesn't mean we didn't go there and return, it just means that you might give your idea of "proof" a little more thought, eh, Plato? Proof is found only in the sum of ALL facts, not in one-liners, yes, not even in mine.

F1 is the only place that can possibly develope KERS. INDYCARS don't have the resources, and only racing can do this for regular passenger cars. There's no money for it at GM or Ford, who are struggling to keep the lights on...

I am struggling to come up with ONE automotive innovation that DIDN'T come from racing. Anybody?

Air-conditioning, fifth door opening, combi-cars, sun-roof, car multimedia systems, automatic gearbox, parking sensors, heated seats, electric and foldable mirrors, airbags, cruise control, hybrid engine.
Don't make me laugh. KERS is completely road irrelevant.
Why limit the power output? Why are they limiting the usage time? Why only KERS on rear wheels? Why only kinetic energy and not the heat from braking?
Why push the teams to develop system which needs batteries costing 100 000$, lasting one race, totally environmentaly unfriendly.
That's not road relevant - that's pretending to be "Green".

KERS should be scraped, especially because the extra time and energy being spent to develop it, not to mention all that adds up to more cost expenditures.
They gave it the right initials but named it incorrectly it really stands for.
K-killing E-economical R-reserves S-stupidly

Williams' KERS to be shown in Autosport's festival. Read at http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44857&PO=44857

As they are (supposed to be) the only ones using the flywheel system, seems they have nothing to hide.

Racing against the machine!

I'm really curious about that, it's IMHO the most intriguing KERS solution. Simple concept, terrible to work out with minimum energy loss.

More on KERS (from AFCA again):

AMuS writes that only now Magneti Marelli is starting to get to grips with the problems relating to the electro-engine and the control unit. That's why, some time ago, Ferrari parallelly started a KERS development on their own (so not with another company as was previously suggested), also using Magneti Marelli components (but obviously working in a different direction). KERS will be in the car on Monday (MM's version) but the alternative solution is to be tested on track in January also.

If you don't have KERS in the car in Melbourne then you won't be using it for the rest of the season either. Testing in the in-season has been done away with and no-one is going to sacrifice the Friday practice sessions to work on the development of the hybrid system. The test restrictions force the teams to reassess their working methods. Costa: ''We had to structure our working procedures. There's just one week left to solve a problem.''

Simon: ''At the end of February we will have to commit ourselves as to whether or not we'll be using KERS. We can only use it in qualifying and at the start of the race.''

Renault and Toyota are also dependent on Magneti Marelli. Unlike Ferrari they don't have a standby system. In turn, Red Bull and Toro Rosso are dependent on their 'life-lines': their engine suppliers. The chance is small that these four teams will be able to solve the problems that BMW Sauber is still struggling with after 10 trackdays with KERS in the car. At Jerez two chassis' were damaged. Overheated bearings in the area of the fueltank burned a hole in a carbon channel of the interim F1.08.

Williams is still waiting for a functioning electro-engine too. In addition there's also trouble with the energy storage unit. During tracktesting the flywheel was put to rotate by the use of computer signals but rotated along whilst the car was moving. At 20,000 rpm the bearings start to overheat while the system is (expected) to be operated at 40,000 rpm.

The costs of a new development (for which it would be too late now anyway) would be high in the two-digit millions range. Toyota is rumoured to be building two chassis': one with and one without KERS. Others say the Cologne based team has developed a chassis that can be equipped with KERS without any difficulty.
---------
I think some part of KERS is inevitably going to be very close to the fuel tank, in actual fact, in some cases it forces the designers to make the capacity of the fuel tank smaller in order to be able to fit it all in the car properly (I believe over 20 litres in Ferrari's case).

Racing against the machine!

what a mess...

I mean the fact that they have to make it all or nothing before Melbourne

Money seems too tight to throw it into projects like KERs.
If there is such a cry from F1A for uniformity, KERs is the prefect item to target. Have one type made by an outside entity to fit all F1 entrants. Let someone else incur the development costs on the premise that fortunes could be recouped when the the teams and the auto industry purchase the system. Kind of like the valves from Mclaren.
Why make money strangled F1 teams be the guinea pigs ?

sessions

I'm fed up with all these KERS news... So much hype and probably nobody will use it in Australia...

2008 Prediction Champion

Nick will use it... but I think it's 50/50 whether anyone else will!

Probably. Feb tests will be decisive.

BTW: Q. Some of your competitors have said they have got a handle on KERS, and other have said they haven't. Where do McLaren stand on this technology? Have you got to grips with it?

Ron Dennis: We think we are very strong. We spent a lot of time analyzing which particular technology we would follow. In the end, we decided to follow an electro-mechanical system. So far, the work that has been done by Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines and ourselves has gone very well. We have had very few real difficult parts of the programme. It is all extremely challenging, and it is cutting edge technology. There is nowhere you can buy this technology. You have to invent, develop, design and prove out everything, because whilst the principles of energy recovery are well known to everybody, actually the execution of it in high performance vehicles is virtually unknown. We think we are in a strong position but only time will tell. Certainly the first grand prix will give an indication, but as always in grand prix racing it will be two or three races before a pattern starts to emerge.

SO actually its similar to WIlliams system. No batteries for them either, unlike BMW

Racing against the machine!

Very interesting interview on KERS (particularly WIlliams') functioning:

Q&A with Foley and Michael:

Q: Where does the energy come from that gets stored and why is it called recovered energy ?
When accelerating a car should deploy energy in order to move its mass forward. Foley: ''Part of this energy is recovered under braking. Without KERS this energy would go into the brake discs, it first heats them but when they cool down the energy goes lost. With the KERS technique the energy is transmitted through the drive shaft, first into the gearbox and then into the generator next to it.''

Q: Why do you only recover energy at the rear ?
When decelerating, the brakes at the front are significantly more strained than those at the rear. Foley: ''Theoratically it would be best to recover the energy from every one of the four brakes. But the current technique is only a first step. Converting to a four wheel energy recovery system would be very complex.''

Q: Using KERS, in what way does the function of the drive shaft changes ? What about the strain on it ?
Foley: ''The negative torsional moment in the phase of deceleration is smaller compared to the positive one in the phase of acceleration. So far the axles have also transmitted the energy of the engine braking. They keep doing so. They still turn in the same direction of rotation when they recover energy.''

Q: What happens with the recovered energy ?
A whole range of new parts take care of this. Foley: ''Between the generator, which is connected to the gearbox, and our flywheel, in which we store the energy, there's a transducer. It converts the electric voltage of the generator into mechanical force. This in turn is stored in the flywheel.''

Q: And then how is the energy released ?
The driver can call up the energy by pushing a button the steering wheel. Only when the car is moving though. Foley: ''As long as they push the button the highest possible power is set free. In this way the drivers can decide for themselves when they're willing to use the additional power. The control unit receives a signal when the button gets pushed. It controls the conversion of the energy from the storage unit with a precision of milliseconds. The power is again converted and directly goes through the gearbox directly to the drive shaft. Because the gearbox divides the torque between the engine and gearbox parallelly, it is also possible that the revs go up. But in most cases the aditional power will not be requested when the engine is in a high rpm-range so the engine will not be pushed to it's rev limit.''

Q: How long does it take for the storage unit to be charged ?
Foley: ''Seven seconds of pure braking is enough to fully charge the unit - so three corners. But in reality it will take longer because the roadholding of the car also gets influenced.''

Q: How different will the brake proportioning be ?
Michael: ''The drive shaft gets more negative torsional moment because KERS works like additional engine braking. So the brake balance shifts to the rear. If KERS is fully charged then the drivers should shift the brake balance more to the front. The charging condition can be seen on the display on the steering wheel.''

With the current mini-hybrid system this issue can still be dealt with. ''But when we get to the stage of having a KERS that produces 150 bhp, then you need active braking that takes away the torsional moment from the drive shaft by using an activator.''

Apart from adjusting the brake balance the current abundance of energy can also be dealt with by using a resistor that changes the energy (that cannot go into KERS) into heat to then set it free unutilised. With a stronger KERS this resistor becomes indispensable.

How does the strain on the brakes change ?
This only happens percentually, Michael: ''The brakes at the front are put to work as much as they were before but there's less burden on the brakes at the rear. So in comparison there's a greater burden on the brakes at the front - but not in absolute figures. When KERS is much more developed in five or ten years time, then in theory we could even do without brakes at the rear because, when the brakes are absolutely fully applied, then the carbon fibre discs wear off at 1000 bhp.''

Q: Does KERS enhance overtaking ?
A lot depends on whether or not the driver that you're trying to overtake applies KERS at the same time you do. Foley: ''If you apply all the additional power at once, then that brings around 10% extra engine power. That should be enough to succeed making an overtaking manoeuvre.''

Q: What do the figures 400 kJ and 60 kW mean ?
Foley: ''Kilojoule is a unit of energy: it consists of energy multiplied by unit of time. If you divide the 400 kJ by the 60 kW then you get 6.6 seconds, so that's how long a driver can call up the energy.''

Michael: ''Even if the drivers don't overtake they will still apply the powerboost because when it's used properly it brings three tenths a lap.''

Q: Williams is probably the only team that has a solution based on flywheels. What other ways to store the energy are there ?
Most teams keep their system a secret. But lithium-ion batteries is what most teams seems to have opted for.

Q: What's the place of KERS in the car ?
It can be in a sidepod next to the crash structure or around the tank, engine and gearbox, to possibly keep the point of gravity low.

Q: What are the differences between having a flywheel as opposed to having batteries ?
The flywheel based solution is lighter and more efficient. Foley: ''The energy density in batteries is smaller. Lithium-ion batteries will take up more energy than you're actually allowed to use. So you also have to build in more batteries than actually needed. This increases the weight. But the batteries only have to keep up for one and half hours, they have to be discarded after each race. So this technique will quickly be further developed: the weight can come down because the requirements are very dissimilar to ordinary batteries.''

Q: Could overheated batteries burn a hole in the tank and set the car afire ?
Michael: ''The heat resisting material used around the tank comes from fighter jets and can withstand temperatures of over 200 °C. So far they've also had to endure the heat coming from the engine.''

Q: Instead of just using it to give aditional power, could you also be saving fuel with KERS, driving with less overall weight and a better weight distribution ?
That's the ulterior motive behind the new regulations of the 24 hours of Le Mans, but this doesn't apply to F1. Michael: ''It would be possible. But when you take into account average figures such as fuel usage, 2.5 kg each 5 km, and laptimes, 85 seconds, then you'll quickly figure out that thanks to KERS you have an extra 6 bhp on average, each lap. When you would take away 6 bhp from your engine, then relatively the amount of weight you save by burning less fuel will never be as big as the time you gain by keeping this amount of power. By having less weight you will never ever going to achieve the two to three tenths advantage KERS is bringing you.''

Q: How polluting is KERS ?
KERS is all but environmentally friendly when the teams have to throw away their batteries after each race. Meanwhile, the FIA has also come to this conclusion. It envisages banning battery based solutions in 2010. Foley: ''We use one flywheel one whole year.''

Q: Is the hybrid technique useful for roadcars ?
Mercedes and Ferrari say 'no' whereas BMW Sauber is very much convinced it is. So is Foley: ''The currently limited design parameters, have been thought of in such a way that the technique can and will also have an influence on roadcars.''

Q: What are the costs of KERS ?
By their own account McLaren Mercedes has already spent more than € 55 million. Foley: ''If someone would give me a budget of € 55 million...I wouldn't be able to spend that much money, not on KERS at least. We're working on the system with five people: altogether at Williams there are 10 employees working on the project. KERS is not a cost factor. If KERS wouldn't have made its way into F1, then the teams would have spend their money in other areas. It's not about what you need, it's about what you have.''

Q: Is KERS really new ?
Not really...Foley: ''In the '90's energy recovery systems were emphatically forbidden. Without this ban the technique would have long been used.''

Racing against the machine!

Do the throw away batteries present a toxic or environmental hazard ? Where are they disposed and how ?

sessions

Sessions, I guess (unfortunately) the answer is afirmative. Though I expect teams to set recycling protocols (afterall companies and car manufacturers are already forced by law).
Probelm with some batteries is that they generate or contain pollutant things like arsenium I think.

That interview was really insightful. I also got another excellent info by Afca:

Update on KERS per team:

Ferrari
Because for a long time Magneti Marelli had been struggling with the electro-motor and control unit Ferrari decided to develop an own system parallelly. However, the Magneti Marelli version of KERS (it's one with lithium-ion batteries) worked fine and as expected during the shake down last Monday. Cooling might become an issue. Domenicali said the team is any case willing to have the system in the car this year still, whether that will already be the case in Melbourne is doubtful, not unthinkable though. A decision will be made somewhere towards the end of February.

McLaren
McLaren has opted for an electro-mechanical solution, it's primarily being build and developed at Brixworth. Externally McLaren would have bought know-how for the control system. Both the charging as well as the boosting process has been tried out on track. The team faced a number of problems but has been able to get KERS to work during the final (Portimao) test of 2008. McLaren is very likely to have the system in the car in Melbourne.

BMW Sauber
The team that is most in favour of introducing hybrid technique in the sport. The electro motor is situated in a carbon enclosure. Tests with the batteries have already been carried out but there are still some problems with the reliability and isolation. The drivers are unsatisfied with the driveability when KERS is being charged in the phase of braking. There's still work to be done but the system is scheduled to be in the car during the first race of the season.

Renault
This team is dependent on whether or not Magneti Marelli is able to definately solve the problems they experienced (which seems to be the case looking at Ferrari). Unlike the Scuderia, they haven't started a back up programme. The electro motor is housed in a metal enclosure. But (at least until recently) it's still running too hot, just like the control unit. Renault uses lithium-ion batteries. Taking to the track in Melbourne with KERS is not very likely.

Williams
Benchtesting the flywheel keeps going on. The rotation speed is upped gradually in order to sound the peripherals. On the bench the flywheel already rotates as fast as it would in the case of emergency, out of safety reasons this hasn't yet been done on track. Reports about bearing failures appear to be false. Williams intends to use KERS in each race of the season.

Toyota
KERS isn't scheduled to be in the first version of the TF109. There will only be a B model of the car when the system is weight efficient and all the safety and reliability issues have been dealt with. A long time back the team announced it will not be driving with KERS in Melbourne.

Red Bull Racing
The development work on a solution based on batteries failed already quite some months ago. It's simply a matter of waiting till the Magneti Marelli KERS in the Renault works. The RB4 will only be equipped with the system after it's been successfuly tested in the R29. RBR will amost certainly not use KERS at the start of the season.

Scuderia Toro Rosso
STR has to wait for the arrival of their new car in the first place. Whether or not KERS will be in the car during the first test depends on the development over at Ferrari. However, STR will probably do without.

Force India
McLaren will deliver the engine, gearbox and KERS as soon as Mallya makes his first payments to Ferrari for ending the deal with the Maranello-based team prematurily. Today (the 15th of January) each team receives its television revenues and thus Mallya will be able to make a first payment of $ 2.5 million to Ferrari.

The new front wing has already been adjusted to McLaren's plans. At the moment there's no monocoque yet. But when the new car will be introduced at Jerez in early March it might have KERS already built in, Mercedes has made sufficient progress on the system anyway.

Honda's successor
Up until Honda called it a day in Formula 1 they were leader of the pack as far as KERS was concerned: apart from the Flybrid/X-trac flywheel parallelly there's a super capacitor solution.

First of all a buyer for the team should be found, and then they obviously need an engine. Domenicali has basically excluded Ferrari from supplying powerplants to the Brackley-based team. The Honda KERS wouldn't have fitted to the Ferrari engine though. Honda's KERS is connected to the gearbox, Ferrari has the system in front of the engine (which of course has been modified to accomodate KERS). So had Ferrari been the supplier this would have posed a big problem because in order to build-in KERS (as well as the engine), the position of the cockpit would have had to be moved. The grave consequence of this: the whole concept of the car would have had to be modified to the point of the wheelbase. I don't know what modifications would have to be made in case either McLaren Mercedes or BMW Sauber would supply the engines.

Racing against the machine!

Quote:

sessions
Do the throw away batteries present a toxic or environmental hazard ? Where are they disposed and how ?
sessions

They will dispose the batteries by BURNING.

More in KERS:

BMW Sauber and McLaren-Mercedes have built a 'KERS car': they've put up with a small aerodynamical disadvantage because the batteries are situated in the sidepods. At the rear the sidepods don't taper as much as is the case with the other cars. The advantage of this over the likes of Ferrari, Renault and Toyota is that they save an additional cooling unit. The team last mentioned have mounted the storing unit underneeth the tank and the extra cooling costs 10 kg.

10 kg of extra ballast could be decisive in 2009 because everyone's moving weight to the front for there to be less strain on the rear tyres. Doing without KERS, Toyota consistently optimised their TF109. Ferrari, BMW Sauber and McLaren shortened the wheelbase of their cars to bring more weight to the front. Vasselon explaines why Toyota has gone the opposite direction, once more lengthening their wheelbase: ''The slicks and the changed aerodynamics influence the driving dynamics. The rear tyres are the weak point. Therefore it's mainly about having good driving dynamics, especially under braking.''

Toyota expects not to be having KERS in Melbourne. KERS could still be introduced at a later stage, but that does imply having a smaller tank capacity. ''In our opinion, on the majority of tracks you're faster if you drive without KERS.'' Ferrari, Renault and Williams have sought a compromise with their concepts: whether the car is equipped with KERS or not, the disadvantages should only be a few.''

In Ferrari's place there's a problem. The KERS elements may be able to be taken out of the car within two to three hours, but then where to go with the ballast that is gained ? The possibilities to place it more to the front are limited. So far, due to the weight of the tungsten plates the frontwing bent so much it basically touched the ground. In terms of weight, the batteries are positioned 'neutrally' anyway. As far as the weight distribution is concerned, in the middle of the car the battereis do little harm.

Renault seems to have done better in shifting weight forward. When KERS isn't in the car then there's 60 kg of ballast to play with. Perhaps there was even too much weight on the front axle. At Portimao there was no traction at all. Unlike Toyota, in case the system won't be used the tank of the R29 can be lowered.

According to Bell the introduction of KERS is all dependent on its reliability. In the worst case the hybrid technology is only to be used during qualifying. But then the KERS elements will have to remain in the car for the race. They'd then simply be switched off. Since Renault's batteries are positioned in the middle of the car - à la Ferrari - they kind of form a natural ballast. Aditionally the technicians would still have 20 kg to move around.

Racing against the machine!

Quote:

J-Raid
According to Bell the introduction of KERS is all dependent on its reliability. In the worst case the hybrid technology is only to be used during qualifying. But then the KERS elements will have to remain in the car for the race. They'd then simply be switched off. Since Renault's batteries are positioned in the middle of the car - à la Ferrari - they kind of form a natural ballast. Aditionally the technicians would still have 20 kg to move around.

Again, this brings my attention to the strategic advantage of KERS for quaily. Get the extra 2-3ths for pole, and if your cars balanced well enough plus has the straight line speed, you can win the race. The new aero regs may change this up. I'm surprised that there isn't much info out about adjustable front wing flaps. That could be the sleeper surprise of the '09 season

This LINK explains why all of a sudden Renault has become a KERS fan. In fact, where are Flavio's moans on KERS now?

I told you, he just says what suits him best. He moans if something doesn't suit his team, he shuts or even praises when it does. ANother hypocrite, like Bernie.

PS: a bit off topic, but: And so to Bahrain

Racing against the machine!

Both Bernie and Flavio are businessmen. They are not charity organization chairmans, are they? Do you expect bank president to talk something that doesn't suit their bank? It's just part of the game.

Some info (by AFCA) on drivers weight (and how that affects on KERS):

Translated Q&A with Sam Michael, WilliamsF1 (to MsA) :

Q: Is it true that this winter the teams administer rigid diets ?
Michael: ''Not more than normal. This winter Rosberg lost 2 kg. We wouldn't demand more because at some point his physical strength will suffer. But that's not an effect from KERS. Each driver should always be slim and in good shape for as much possible.''

Q: In what way does the weight of the driver influence the car ?
Michael: ''All the cars are below the weight limit of of 605 kg: without KERS most teams could play with some 50 kg of ballast. With KERS you should be happy when there's ballast left in the first place. The ballast can be put in, strategically favourable places in the car in order to improve the weight distribution. The less the driver weighs the more you can play with the ballast.''

Q: How does that work ?
Michael: ''All the teams are using tungsten as additional weight because its density is two and half time greater than steel. So you need less material/space to come to the same weight. The tungsten blocks vary in between 0.5 and 10 kg. You put them in various parts of the car in order to get the best weight distribution possible. The ideal balance is when you have 45 % of the weight on the front axle, plus/minus 5 %.''

Q: Is the sitting position of the driver a disruptive factor ?
Michael: ''No, the driver is even positioned in front of the centre of gravity. The centre of gravity is where the fuel tank is. Especially the legs of the driver make for the centre of gravity to move towards the front. But when he's light you can store even more weight at the front, for instance in the front wing.''

Q: And a 2 kg lighter Rosberg already makes a difference in this respect ?
Michael: ''Oh yes. We manufacture some parts again if we can make them 0,1 kg lighter. However, you can't measure just one or two kg's. But they contribute their share. If we want to have more ballast then we have to save weights in several different areas, among those is the driver.''

Q: And what does a change to the weight distribution bring you in terms of laptime ?
Michael: ''You can't express that in laptimes. But when you can juggle with more weght then you can get and keep the tyres at their operating temperatures more precisely. There's also a number of side effects: (iy allowes you to chang - AFCA) the angle of attack of the front wing or the spring characteristics of the dampers for example. These elements are also influenced by the weight distribution.''

------------

Driver - Weight - Comparison with teammate
Trulli 60 kg -9

Heidfeld 61 kg -9

Massa 61 kg -6

Nakajima 62 kg -5

Vettel 62 kg -9

Piquet 64 kg -0.5

Alonso 64,5 kg +0.5 (has los 3.5 kg recently, personal trainer Borra: ''He can't lose more weight than that otherwise he'll suffer from a loss in physical strength)

Fisichella 66 kg -8

Hamilton 66 kg -/+0 (with normal fitness practice the worldchampion has shed weight now exactly being at the level of his teammate - McLaren-Mercedes' KERS weighs around 35 kg)

Kovalainen 66 kg -/+0

Raikkonen 67 kg +6 (has lost 3 kg recently)

Rosberg 67 kg +5 (has lost 2 kg recently - Williams' KERS is the lightest of all btw: 28 kg)

Glock 69 kg +9 (the German wants to go from 69 to 64 kg: ''But that's a very general personal goal, it hasn't got anything to do with KERS)

Bourdais 70,5 kg -/+0

Buemi 70,5 kg -/+0

Webber 71 kg +9 (if the muscles in his right leg again become as strong as they used to be then the Australian will weigh 74 kg making the difference with Vettel +12)

Kubica 72 kg +9 (at the start of last season Kubica had lost 7 kg but gained 6 during the season, now he wants to slim down again intending to avoid having a yoyo effect once again - still though he's obviously a lot heavier than Heidfeld - luckily BMW's KERS doesn't weigh a lot: only 30 kg)

Sutil 74 kg +8
-------------
So BMW is on the right path, and leading!

Anyway, Mosley's Q&A on KERS: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73208

Racing against the machine!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:10:15:33:04 by J-Raid.

WIlliams not to use the KERS till Turkey (round7). Go to http://www.f1network.net/boards/read/s107.htm?110,10176730

And they were supposed to be one of the leading teams

Racing against the machine!

Mclaren ready to race KERS says Kovy: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73542

Racing against the machine!

More on KERS:

KERS doesn't yet make you win races, Whitmarsh with an afflicted smile: ''The time gain of the double-decker is bigger.'' But the Malaysian GP gave an indication of what the future may bring.

Theoratically there are eleven tracks on the calender that are suitable for KERS. The more the teams get to grips with the effects the charging condition of the batteries have on the brake balance and the more the cars get slimmed down in order to create a greater scope to play with the ballast, the more important the hybrid technology will become.

In Melbourne the drivers hit their KERS button four times a lap (multiple burst option - AFCA). The simulation programmes had calculated that in terms of laptime it's best to apply the extra power at the exit of corners 2, 6, 9 and 16. Equally, in Malaysia KERS was used four times also, applying 25% of the power at the exit of the second corner, 15 % after the fourth corner, and 30% on both of the long straights.

The advantage of KERS at the start is dependent on the distance to the first corner. In Melbourne that's only 260 metres in which case the 82 bhp only makes you gain 3 metres. At Sepang (510 metres) that's 10 metres already. There's a downside to things though, Hamilton: ''The further you are at the back of the grid, the more difficult it is to use the extra power. Being behind a bunch of cars you never have a clear run. The boost better lends itself to defend your position, instead of starting an attack yourself.'' Massa doesn't agree: ''On the straights I downright 'inhaled' the cars in front of me.''

McLaren's energy storage unit comprises of 86 battery cells which are laser beam welded together. Compared to a hybrid passenger car the energy density is six times higher. Battery supplier A123 makes use of nano phosphate, a substance that can be released in the event of a fire. Each team uses this or a similar substance. Normally batteries resist each attempt to extinguish a fire and they burn till there's nothing left. On Friday Raikkonen had to get out of his F60 when smoke coming from the cockpit disabled him to see. After a short-circuit had occured the batteries overheated. In order to prevent a fire a valve opened up and gas came out of it.

Racing against the machine!

Very interesting Translated Q&A with Bell:

Q: In the winter it seemed as if your car had little prospect for success...
Bell: The first version of our car was still very underdeveloped aerodynamically. In its basic state we especially wanted to test the mechanical side. It obviously couldn't be fast like that. Over the course of wintertesting we improved the aerodynamics. Because of the new air flow the cars require a different 'regime' regarding the interaction between the ride height and different speeds. It took us an entire test session to figure out what the car really demands. After that we no longer had big problems and the car was very reliable. This also goes for KERS. Although of course you could only use one car during testing and accordingly it was difficult to sound the reliability.''

Q: Why did you not build an interim car like BMW Sauber and Honda did ?
Bell: ''It wasn't necessary. It's purely a waste of money.''

Q: Really ?
Bell: ''We're using KERS. Is Williams using it ?''

Q: No, but they tried out the 2009 aerodynamics on the interim car.
Bell: ''But that doesn't justify the costs. Simply producing new parts for an old car, I don't see the point in that.''

Q: During the first two races the non-KERS teams had the advantage over the KERS-teams. Is the disadvantage of the weight distribution with the heavy KERS still so big ?
Bell: ''It looked like it considering the starting line ups. But we've carried out comparative tests with both configurations. Using KERS was the faster option. During the race KERS is certainly a bigger advantage than in qualifying.''

Q: Because it allowes you to overtake ?
Bell: ''Because there are several possibilities to use it. It's an advantage at the start of the race, and also at re-starts after a Safety Car period. And you have the possibility to overtake, or defend yourself against an attack. The benefit in terms of laptime is only small. But it gives you a greater opportunity to influence the brake characteristics of the car. And over the distance of a race, with the tyre wear comes into play, that's a very important element. We're convinced we're faster with it during the race.''

Q: What has KERS got to do with fine tuning the brakes ?
Bell: ''With KERS you gain an additional method to balance the braking power between the front and the rear. We used to have a similar technology up to two years ago with engine braking. With that we were able to exactly set up to the brake balance between the front and the rear. But this possibility was taken away from us by the introduction of the standard electronics. Now we can use KERS for that instead. That's certainly an advantage of the hybrid technology.''

Q: Is it true that the brake balance should be adjusted when the batteries are being charged ?
Bell: ''You can program a charging strategy which enables you to get the brake balance that is optimal for your car. But you do not change the braking power during the charging process.''

Q: And this is programmed in the own KERS ECU ?
Bell: ''Exactly.''

Q: Is the big weight disadvantage really there ?
Bell: ''You're obviously not able to apply as much ballast. But we didn't get to a minimum point in which we would wish to displace the centre of gravity but not being able to because there's no ballast left to play with. The centre of gravity still is where the car seemingly most wants it to be.''

Q: So even if you would take out KERS then...
Bell: ''...we wouldn't displace the centre of gravity. But, further developing the car, that doesn't mean that at some stage during the year we might not be hindered in this respect. But at the moment that's not an issue yet.''

Q: Will light-weight components be introduced ?
Bell: ''No. But, over the course of development, when we figure out that the car is faster when we lower the centre of gravity, then perhaps we get to the point in which we can no longer do that. But we're not there yet.''

Q: Then would you take out KERS ?
Bell: ''Probably. But then we would first try to make the car lighter using all possible means. We now have a gearbox casing made of carbon fibre instead of titanium, so that's already lighter.''

Q: In which area is the R29 lagging behind in comparison with the other cars ?
Bell: ''In two areas. The biggest downside is the fact we don't have a double-decker diffuser. That alone costs us at least 0.5 seconds a lap, perhaps even 0.75 seconds. But otherwise we still lack a few tenths because we haven't developed the car by as much as Brawn GP has.''

Q: Why is this diffuser such a big advantage ?
Bell: ''The new regulations have been written with the purpose to take away downforce from the cars. The original aim was to only still have 50% of 2007's downforce levels. Overtaking would be easier like that. Therefore the role of the diffuser as a downforce creating element has been reduced considerably. This has been done by changing its height. The obtuser the angle the better. That was the idea behind the regulations. And that's what everyone anticipated. You find more downforce when you find a way to canalise the air in such a way it's going through an additional diffuser.''

Q: Rampf reckons the double-decker diffuser brings you an additional 15 'points' of downforce.
Bell: ''That's a credible figure.''

Q: And you cannot gain that much by working on the wings ?
Bell: ''You can never gain 15 points of downforce by working on a wing, not even a rear wing. A diffuser is a very efficient instrument in that respect.''

Q: What's the secret behind the nose of the R29 ?
Bell: ''There's none at all. We thought it would be best for our car. The cars are not completely matured yet and that's why you see so many different solutions. In 18 months time the cars will all look pretty much alike again. For our car this nose is simple an advantage. But we're not talking about the about big time gains here, like the ones you see between conventional and double-decker diffusers.''

Q: There were rumours that you were willing to house KERS batteries in the nose.
Bell: ''Not at all. It's only about its aerodynamic shape.''

Q: At first sight it looked really odd.
Bell: ''It did. But don't worry: if we find something better then we'll change it straight away.''

Q: How much is the ban on testing restricting you ?
Bell: ''By a fair bit. It especially restricts the possibility to test the reliability. You have to spend more money to test parts on testbenches in the factory. Otherwise you have to take greater risks.''

Q: What's your plan regarding KERS for China ?
Bell: ''Theoratically we could wait till Saturday morning deciding not to use it. But we're basically willing to have it in the car at each race.''

Q: Do the drivers use the 'single-burst' option, or the 'multiple-burst' one ?
Bell: ''It depends. In qualifying you need little bits of power to optimise the laptime. When, in the race, you're in traffic or you have to defend yourself or you're willing to attack, then you use all the power at once.''

Q: Alonso said he never used the adjustable frontwing in the qualiying sessions...
Bell: ''But he did use it during the race. When the balance of the car changes because the tyres change then the drivers definately use it.''

Q: So it's not used to enhance overtaking ?
Bell: ''Exactly. I'd be very surprised if anyone uses it as an aid for overtaking.''

------
Surprising bit about the KERS in fact being better for the season first races. I would have thought the opposite, with KERS lightening and batteries tech improving

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:16:20:56:40 by J-Raid.

That's what I was thinking about. They're using KERS electronics to achieve something like engine braking.
Remember Robert didn't like BMW's engine braking - may be that's one of the reasons he doesn't feel comfortable with KERS? What do You think?

My other guess for creative KERS usage is CVT - continuosly variable transmission. You could use KERS electronics and KERS gearbox to smoothen the cars acceleration. CVT are forbidden in F1 but if You read regulations You can read everywhere "except for kers". Let's pray our team can take advantage of that. What do you think?

It seems that BMW's KERS is really a piece of cr@p. Even Heidfeld is not happy using it:

Heidfeld is forced to use KERS.

Heidfeld:"If it would have been my choice, I would be driving without KERS, but the team believes that it goes faster with it.
To simulate what you win on the staight, is easy - those are x-tenth. But to simulate the impact of the worse balance due to the higher center of gravity and impact of the higher tire wear, that's pretty difficult. For the simulations are not good enough."

2008 Prediction Champion

KERS is not the problem here. The car balance is the problem. If you want to criticise try to criticise right things.

Theissen: ''It's only still down to us to improve the car in such a way that, when having KERS on board, we can use enough ballast to balance the car.''

The teamboss denies that the work on KERS goes at the expensive of the development of the rest of the car: ''The KERS development is carried out completely by the powertrain side in Munich. And the system works the way it's delivered to us (in Hinwil).''

BMW Sauber is apperantly not yet able to use the full power. ''That has nothing to do with the deterioration of the batteries.'' Then what is it down to ? ''It depends on how much braking energy you can recover, how many braking zones there are to charge the batteries. That is track dependent. In this respect our system is at its limit at certain tracks.''

Can the maximum be subtracted from the system ? ''I keep that for myself.''

Also some other quotes of Mario in Autosport at http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74689
------------
Mercedes has bought shares in the small German specialised company LiTec, which is the company that builds the KERS batteries for Toyota. LiTec is part of the energy/chemical company Evonik Degussa.

Howett: ''Perhaps Mercedes has realised that our batteries are a bit better, now willing to have them too.''

Haug denies: ''This has been done for our road cars. (In F1) we work together with A123 and with their batteries we always go flat out.''

McLaren's KERS is working well, also in the wet. ''This has helped us at some overtaking manoeuvres.''

Apart from the two McLaren drivers only Heidfeld was using KERS in China. Haug is proud: ''So we equipped 66.6% of the KERS-equipped cars.''

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:22:11:27:05 by J-Raid.

Ferrari on its way to introduce KERS (better said HERS, where H comes from Heat) in road cars:

Q: Does Ferrari care about reducing the fuel consumption of road cars ?
Felisa: ''Hybrid cars are coming to life. Putting together an electronic system and an internal combustion engine is the puzzle we've been working on for a year now.''

Q: Is important knowledge from Formula 1 transfered to the road car department ?
Felisa: ''For years there's been an exchange of know-how in five areas: engines, aerodynamics, materials, reducing weight and electronic aids. This year we've added a six element to this: it's KERS.''

Q: When will we see KERS in Ferrari's road cars ?
Felisa: ''There's already a 599 fitted with KERS we're testing with. But the start of production won't be earlier than in four years time, but it will be different compared to F1 (anyway) : the kinetic energy in F1 comes from the brakes because the straights where you obtain speeds of 300 km/k allow for this. The road cars will recover the energy elsewhere. There are several possibilities: the exhaust gases of a turbo charged engine, or the heat loss of an engine just to mention two examples.''

Racing against the machine!

Mclaren's KERS explained: ">
If anyone knows German...

Racing against the machine!

McLaren had the same presentation under BBC coverage:
Brundle and McLaren explain KERS

I think its a first knockdown for BMW.

What I understand battery pack weighs 25kg.

Please end this thread or at least rename it. BMW have produced the worst, heaviest KERS of all F1 teams.

They have nothing to "reveal".

Qlka, that vid won't/deson't work for non-UK citizens

Quote:

allanjelly
Please end this thread or at least rename it. BMW have produced the worst, heaviest KERS of all F1 teams.
They have nothing to "reveal".

False. ANd no matter how many times you repeat it, that won't make it les false.

You can find here or on all the info's we've pòsted in this or other threads, that BMW's KERS is not the worst, nor heaviest. In fact It's one of the bests.

As well, the thread title was put way before we knew anything about KERS performances.

Racing against the machine!

It works, but you need to know the solution

It's great that McLaren decided to show their real KERS. It seems to be very compact and tidy. Cutting-edge stuff

BTW. Brundle is such a great expert for me, I really enjoy listening to him. I can't imagine F1 coverage in the UK without him.

2008 Prediction Champion

BMW's KERS isn't the heavies but I'm pretty sure isn't also the lightest one.

KERS is very prestige project.

After such presentation from Mercedes you can expect that BMW would invite german TV immediately if they had something better. So far they haven't or there is no info yet. Let's wait till Spain GP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:27:20:54:33 by soarq.

Indeed Brundle is great to listen and learn from.

The Worst or the best it simply doesn't matter today. BTW if youwant to make contest base on that we know (almost nothing really to be honest) the only obvious differentiator is reliability - in that contest Ferrari's on the back.

Quote:

J-Raid
BMW's KERS is not the worst, nor heaviest. In fact It's one of the bests.

As well, the thread title was put way before we knew anything about KERS performances.

I know, I know all that. It just brings me pain and reminds me of time when we all thought that BMW KERS would be great revelation, championship winning weapon.

Now it does not look that bright anymore. RK does not want to use it, NH also seems to like it less and less.

All KERS-related stuff reminds me of this humilation - after one year of work, after several milion euros spent, we're dead last on one of the circuits which should suit us (and our KERS) best.

If "BMW reveals 2009 KERS details" was a good subject than it should have a subtitle "- how to scr... things up.

What I'm worried the most now is the fact that they probably will be both forced to use KERS on every track after Haug made fun of BMW's approach. BMW wants to be a sole KERS supplier and they will do everything to reach the goal even if it means slightly worse performance for the drivers...

2008 Prediction Champion



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:28:09:34:49 by barteks.

but being sole supplier does not mean You have to provide the best product. Look at ECU.

Quote:

barteks
What I worried the most now if the fact that they probably will be both forced to use KERS on every track after Haug made fun of BMW's approach.

That would bring Alonso's words from 2006 "Formula 1 isn't a sport anymore" to a completely different level, unreachable for others!

Quote:

allanjelly
but being sole supplier does not mean You have to provide the best product. Look at ECU.

Agreed

Quote:

I know, I know all that. It just brings me pain and reminds me of time when we all thought that BMW KERS would be great revelation, championship winning weapon.
Now it does not look that bright anymore. RK does not want to use it, NH also seems to like it less and less.

I didn't think it would be a winning weapon for the first races.
ALready back in last summer Head and others warned it would create a problem with weight distribution and tyres.

Though, I did expect it to be a big factor for overtaking (which proved to be less than expected...so far) and good for the start(it does perform at the level I expected).

It was clear that aero, and chasis, would remain the biggest factor. No surprises then.

Racing against the machine!

I've just recalled one more argument in Mercedes' advantage.

McLaren confirmed KERS gives them great benefit in wet conditions, while Heidfeld struggled to use in wet because of wheelspin (it was in one of the interviews AFAIK).

One more thing. KERS gives Hamilton wings, we can see it in his starts, overtakings and when he defends his position, while for our drivers it seemed to be the benefit mainly in defending of position. But maybe there weren't proper circumstances for our boys to overtake with it yet.

Quote:

McLaren confirmed KERS gives them great benefit in wet conditions, while Heidfeld struggled to use in wet because of wheelspin (it was in one of the interviews AFAIK)

That should have been Mercedes PR cr@p. De la Rosa admitted KERS (in their car too) was almost useless in wet conditions

Racing against the machine!

Sure, it might be PR crap, or they made progress since De la Rosa's interview.

Well, it wasn't an interview, it was during the TV show of the Bahrain GP. De la Rosa is commentator for the Spanish GP during races

Racing against the machine!

OK, then (as usual) someone's lying in McLaren

Looks like

ANyway, today I had a nice thing. I attended a conference by a guy who studied in the same university as I (and still gives classes there), who worked for RenaultF1 in 2005 and 06. Now he works in EADS/Airbus in compositve material (aka mainly carbon fiber) investigation. Though he is still quite young (26 or so).

He joined Renault after winning an Altran competition, with a flywheel project, as well as analysis of the other possibilities for KERS energy storage. Bear in mind that it was back in 2004, when FIA hadn't vene thought yet about introducing it in F1. I wouldn't be surprirised if Mad Max got the idea after hearing from him

He explained quite a lot of interesting things (although the talk was more aimed for people with lower KERS/F1 knowledge than us ), I'll try to put them here now and tomorrow.

SOme interesting bit:
-batteries have a high energy to weight ratio, but struggle in delivering power quickly. Cpapcitor's case is the other way around.
To better understand it:

Flyweheel would be something above ultracapacitors, and on the right of batteries, hence best. Bear in mind that that graphic is with logaritmic scale.

-He worked together and had good relation with the Flybrid (later bought by WIlliams?) company founder,as both were in the Renault R&D Department.

-The Flybrid system weights 24kg aprox, and ocuppies a total volume of 13 litres. Thats more than an electric system, but still quite compact

-Apparently, at least some, use what I thought would be best for the flywheel bearings, which is no less than magnetic levitation. That is done by constrcuting the axis of the flywheel in steel. Also, thanks to that magnetic levitation, there is a self alignating effects, which helps a lot, otherwise there would be huge risk of the axis moving a bit and the wheel crashing with the casing (catastrophe!)

-Meanwhile the rest of the flywheel, which weights 5kg, is done in composite materials. The reasons are that, not only it weights less, but also can have a higher energy storage density. But the main one is that, in case it collapses, most of the collapse energy would disipated in destroying the fiber layers of the composite, hence it would lose most of its energy, making it less dangerous.

- In a F1 braking, about 1Mw are disipated. That is about 1/6th of what a high speed train would use at max power to move the whole train! (1MW =aprox 1.341hp)

-400KJ (the max energy allowed to be storaged on a F1 per lap) is about the same as what a normal light bulb, of 100W, would use during 1 entire hour. QUite a lot, although not that much for F1 standars.

-KERS energy storage is more effective at lower speeds.

-He thinks electric KERS is the wrong way to way, at least in the short and middle term. The reason he says why most teams opted for electric devices (as I said sometime ago already) is that they are expected to have more potential for development and especially, miniaturization.

-Problems with KERS batteries: They have to be transported with electric voltage (that is, the cannot be transported discharged), otherwise they would become rubbish. Their transport is extremely expensive, with most transportist refusing to do so, especially for overseas races. They stand just a bit over a thousend cycles, while flywheel can go well over the million.

-Williams electro-mechanic idea was very clever, and not being used yet due to reliability and packaging problems. The idea of using that mix between flywheel and electricity came from a patent of the nuclear energy camp. It consists of inserting metal (or magnetic material) particles inside the flywheel, hence acting like the rotor of a conventional electric engine, while the casing acted as the eletcric stator.

-Managing a vacuum seal was one of the main challenges. That is because if not into a vacuum, at such high speed of rotation, most of the flywheel energy would be lost by friction with air, hence being of little use. SO the seals were quite a big deal.

-Apart from the electric and mechanic solutions, hydraulic/neumatic solution was studied too. In fact it was the lightest of them, but had some safety concerns. To storge energy it would be used Nitrogen, compressed at 400bar (that is 400times the pressure we, humans, are standing at sea level).

I'm still missing some, will post them soon, when I remember them
.
After the talk, I went to talk to him, and expect soon to hear more interesting things for him, and probably an interview too

Racing against the machine!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:29:19:23:21 by J-Raid.

Good job although many of this has been written here -> art

Waiting for more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:29:19:38:47 by pcyryl.

Well, some of them yeah, but remember thisd conference was for people with lower knowledge on this stuff. Thanks anyway for that link too.

Though I just remembered another thing.
He was asked to analyse the negative part of gyroscopic effect of flywheel in multiple F1 sitautions. After a detailed analysis the conclusions were that only during riding a kerb or a bump would gyroscopic effect be important enough to be taken into account. In the rest of situations, like normal corner turning, it could be ignored, even more if twins, counter rotating, flywheels were used.

ANother one (you may already know, though):
Magneti Marelli still delivers both electronics and the electric motor/generator. MM had to give up on producing the batteries as each team's demanads were too diferent, so felt it would be better to let them each go their own way. As well, batteries was something they didn't have as much experience as electric engines, let alone electronics (their main, and origins, field). The motor/generator weights 4,5kg
Renault uses Saft batteries, Ferrari their own tech's.

Racing against the machine!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:29:19:56:58 by J-Raid.

Ah ,a nother one. The real contact patch between tyres and ground, ina F1, is merely the same surface as 4 stamps (i think thats with grooved's, though with slicks it won't be much more).

Racing against the machine!

An interview with Christian Horner provided by AFCA:

Q: The contract with engine supplier Renault expires at the end of the year. Can you imagine working together with Mercedes next year ? It's an open secret that Mercedes has the best and strongest engine.
Horner: "It's correct that the contract expires. But we're very satisfied with Renault, they were allowed to intensively work on the engine in the winter, now they can keep up with the top. At the moment I don't believe Mateschitz intents to negotiate with an engine partner. Fortunately, we can take our time. Who accurately knows which engine suppliers will still be around in 2010 anyway ? Brawn has proven that it's possible to build a very good car, eventhough a deal with the engine partner, in his case Mercedes, was only signed in December. In any case Mercedes is attractive, not just because of their engines."

Q: Could you elaborate on that ?
Horner: "Mercedes KERS system appears to be the best system of the field by far. At least that's what Kovalainen tells me again and again. He's enthused by the system, also because it's so compact and doesn't have a big negative influence on the balance of the car. And that is the actual, basic problem of KERS."

Isn't that first confirmation straight from the guy in the paddock, that Mercedes' KERS is the benchmark for the others?

KESR video explained -> McLaren's KERS

"In terms of performance, the system charges fully in half a second under braking and can then release its charge gradually during 6 seconds, as required by the regulations.

Additionally, the weight has been an extremely important factor and Mercedes have managed to keep the total of the components below 25kg: "From what we hear, this is the lightest system available, and our pace depends on it. The McLaren cars have it integrated and we would certainly be slower without KERS".

Checkmate BMW.

2008 Prediction Champion

true. But season is not over yet. Next match for us.

BMW better hire some Merc-Macca guys

I guess their good device is due to both the company they are working with (which is said to be producing excellent batteries) and they guys they got for the Brixworth factory, which came from Cosworth (the same reason why the Merc engine went from being an avergae one to the best)

Racing against the machine!

While every other team muse the KERS dilemma, it is clear that McLaren Mercedes is the 2009 champion in the new energy recovery technology.

"We have had several inquiries," said the Mercedes competition boss, "both from teams that want to enter in 2010 and teams that are already established."

[en.f1-live.com]

2008 Prediction Champion

Mercedes absolutely annihilated BMW in terms of KERS. There must be some angry faces in the 2nd company

James Allen on Twitter: "BMW has abandoned KERS for the season. Ironic as they were the ones whose veto on a vote obliged everyone to develop it!"

2008 Prediction Champion

If that's true the title of Undisputed Biggest Loosers of 2009 goes to BMW Sauber F1 Team. Mistakes of the drivers cost points whereas mistakes of the senior staff cost entire season. Food for thought Mario!

FOTA agree to scrap KERS for 2010:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

BMW...

I wonder how are they going to twist things round in terms of PR? It won't be an easy task

Wrong decision IMO. Next year things would be easier for KERS.

If that finally happenes, whcih I wouldn't be so sure gievn Mosley's own ideas and his strong position at the moment, hten sad and BMW will feel ashamed.

But as I said, given the current situations, teams will have to do some concessions to Max, who has the upper hand right now, and one of them could be KERS.

Racing against the machine!

But teams don't want KERS!

But Mosley doesn't want (FOTA) teams! lol

Seriously, I'm aware of that, thats why I said Mosley does want KERS, and may force teams to use it if they want to enter 2010 championship.

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:07:20:59:41 by J-Raid.

Quote:

J-Raid
- In a F1 braking, about 1Mw are disipated. That is about 1/6th of what a high speed train would use at max power to move the whole train! (1MW =aprox 1.341hp)

Sorry, but 1 MW is just tremendous amount of power. Average power station creates few MW.

im sure, here should be KW which exactly is 1.34HP

It is such an embarrassing situation for Mario Theissen...

2008 Prediction Champion

FOTA's pushing for KERS ban cause they're against budget cap. Within the cap KERS could still be in place.

And regarding BMW's KERS i read somewhere RK confirming that they've one of the lightest if not the lightest KERS around. Weight of the car is the problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:07:22:27:44 by pcyryl.

Quote:

patgaw

Quote:

J-Raid
- In a F1 braking, about 1Mw are disipated. That is about 1/6th of what a high speed train would use at max power to move the whole train! (1MW =aprox 1.341hp)

Sorry, but 1 MW is just tremendous amount of power. Average power station creates few MW.

im sure, here should be KW which exactly is 1.34HP

I'm totally sure its correct figure. Bear in mind that a F1 has around 750hp, which is aprox 500KW, which means 0,5MW.
If you take into account that braking in F1 is more powerful (in fact it take much less time to decelerate than to accelerate), it seems very easy to believe that braking figures are around 1 MW. Bear in mind that braking on any car is much easier than accelerating, as firction can beat almost any way of propulsion the human has invented so far.

For example, the nuclear power station close down they are currently disccusing about in Spain, Garoña, has 466MW, and it is a small one. In fact that is just 1% of total electricity consumption of the country.

All in all, impressive but true!

Quote:

And regarding BMW's KERS i read somewhere RK confirming that they've one of the lightest if not the lightest KERS around. Weight of the car is the problem.

Interesting, which goes to prove wrong some of the KERS detractor arguments. The problem is not with the KERS itself.
In fact, if we had kept the same grip level bias as in 08 and not moved it to the front, KERS weight distribution disccussions wouldn't have happened, and most teams would be using it.

I hope BMW manages to use it again this season, and it is not banned for 2010.

Racing against the machine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:08:09:52:52 by J-Raid.

I cannot see how FIA can "force" anybody to using KERS.
If teams don't want it they will not use it - that's all - and if they're forced to have it in the car - they can always put some kind of fake into the car and pretend that's the Kers which just happened to got broken.

I think I'm going to make a t-shirt saying:

f*cKERS

except it would look better than that, because the "K" would be double height, so it would look like the two words.

I'm going to Hungary, which I think would be the most perfect place to wear it amongst the Kubifans (Kubfosi?).

Maybe I could think of other t-shirts which relate to F1 related issues...

Quote:

allanjelly
I cannot see how FIA can "force" anybody to using KERS.
If teams don't want it they will not use it - that's all - and if they're forced to have it in the car - they can always put some kind of fake into the car and pretend that's the Kers which just happened to got broken.

I'm surprised by your post.

First "I cannot see how FIA can "force" anybody to using KERS." No? FIA has never enforced anything? I think you have missed reading all the rules. Off course they can orce it, in fact it is planned that KERS will be mandatory for 2010.

And saying that they would place something fake, lol, it won't happen. DOn't you remember FIA controls, via ECU, many sensors, like the drive shaft power to see that KERS is not used with more than 80hp. Same could be done to see if anyone has KERS in place.

ALso visual inspection would discover easily wetehr or not a proper KERS is on place.

And what would be the point of putting a fake KERS? Rather than losing that volume and weight, you would put your KERS, which afterall will give you some power boost

@Scarletkatz, ok lol. We will watch carefully the GP broadcast to find you and your T-shirt!

I suggest you to add to you T-shirt:
"f*cKERS, who KERS?"

There are many others that could come on top of my head...

Racing against the machine!

Sorry but unless FIA come up with standard KERS i still cannot see how you can be forced into using this sh..t.
If there is standard unit - than ok it may be required to have something like that in a car.
If there is no standard unit i can always come up with unit weighting 1kg and giving 100W of energy. Regulations always specify only max values (or minimal when size of weight is what matters).
I cannot imagine regulation which would specify e.g. minimum power of the engine. What would happen if team would not be able to build the unit to the spec? Would they be disqualified? For running to weak car? And the same if unit is malfunctioning during race? I cannot imagine that.
This could mean disqualification to Barichello in last race for having only 6 gears functioning: "come on pal, you're supposed to have at least 7 gears, if one is broken, it's game over for you."
The same reasoning comes with KERS. It might be mandatory, but you will not be disqualified if it just happens to you that your batteries leak out just before qualification (unless of course you get under minimal weight this way).
My point is:
- If the device will have negative impact on the lap times there is no practical way to force anybody to really use it. They will cheat in every possible way to get rid of it - to the point to have special button on the steering wheel - drop the sh..t.
Is it supposed to be a race of fastest cars or race of cheaters? That's the question for FIA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:09:22:14:10 by allanjelly.

looks like it won't be an issue for 2010.....

FOTA votes to mothball KERS for 2010

Well that was a big waste of time, resources and money. I wonder if BMW tries to develop it more for the rest of 2009 or if they just give it up and put the resources towards a B spec car or more refined updates.

Theissen confirmed that BMW is not going to use KERS any more this season

source (in Polish):
[f1.sport.pl]

I will try to translate a few bits from Theissen later on...

2008 Prediction Champion

BMW abandons KERS for good: [www.autosport.com]

Push a button and zoom like hell, my a$$.

sessions

Waste of time and money. They been trying to improve something than couldn't be done.

What a joke this has turned out to be. The one team that insisted on Kers now is the first to officially abondon it!

Autosport - BMW Abandons KERS for Good

Par for the current course. I hope all the politics and rule changes, etc. get solved and racing becomes the real focus.

sessions

What a total embarrasment...

Do you want to hear the truth? F1 in whole has become a joke.

When I see teams never heard of them before like Lola or whatever are being welcomed by the FIA to enter F1 while prestigious car manufacturers are being pressed on to either accept or quit, this is embarrassing.

When I see that F1 is becoming like F2, F3, or other categories, this is embarrassing.

When I see that F1 which used to be called the pinnacle of motor-racing in 2003, has stripped all available technologies and limited the budget the way Max wanted, this is embarrassing.

When I see that F1 will be featuring standard engines like if we're in Kart, this is embarrassing.

When I see that F1 engines will decrease further more and become similar to those dirt-bikes' engines, this is embarrassing.

When I see that the FIA President is a pervert, this is SCANDALOUS.

And there's way more to state if I want.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:21:07:38:08 by popilirol a.k.a. rolren.

popilirol a.k.a. rolren , you still can't criticize BMW on it's own, can you?

The only team that insisted on running Kers this year, even though it had one of the bigger drivers, at a time when budgets were very important, now is the first to quit on it because their development pace or lack there of.

Yet you still cannot criticize BMW on their own.

BMW is a big joke.

Good point, Bogs. Let's not dillute the subject.

Yes, as I already wrote in last two days I am fed up with where F1 moves in last 5 years.

But not whole F1 is a joke.

Saying so is an insult to Brawn and to RedBull, who both build fantastic racing vehicles for this year. To Toyota who from the beginning expressed that KERS is a penalty not a advantage, and (hard for me to say that) to Flavio who said it's radiculous that one team that vetoed KERS delay is the first to surrender now.

At least the new bimmer (hybrid?) road cars will get higher development now

If Mosley had put better regulations for KERS, as Toyota's Howett said, such as allowing for more energy storage and making it mandatory, another story it would have been. As the article outlines, nowadays there is much more scope for lap times gain on the aero side than KERS, which is what has forced BMW to abandon it.

A pity because definitely KERS will be back in strong shape in a few years time.

I was big supporter of KERS, and defended BMW for using it, but it is now proven that it was not the way to go, mainly because the car itself is not fast enough. If we had a car even "only" as fast as Ferrari, KERS could perfectly stay.

Racing against the machine!

Heidfeld on KERS: "I don't think it (developing KERS - barteks) compromised work in other departmensts as we've had enough people working on KERS and on aerodynamics. The problem is, that for example in Turkey we had to change many things to improve aero and we have slimmer car than means KERS just doesn't fit now. Probably the team incorrectly calculated negative impact of fitting KERS. That's why we've lost downforce and have problems with mass distribution and also centre of gravity is higher. There are also problems with braking and many other issues that weren't correctly predicted". (source: f1.pl)

2008 Prediction Champion

Holy @#$%& that sound like "revealing size of disaster"

Heidfeld just confirmed what we feard will happen after knowing BMW was the only team pushing on KERS. PR by all means, even compromising car's design...

Nick must be exaggerating. What does exastly "and also centre of gravity is higher" mean? Did they miscalculate the centre of gravity? Is it a joke?
How could they not notice brake problems? They had the running prototype IN NOVEMBER.

Mario is clearly listenning to Albert's fairy tales only. At current level of road/simulation correlation You cannot call it calculation anymore. Maybe it's time to take a prize for computer poetry?

Quote:

Bogs
popilirol a.k.a. rolren , you still can't criticize BMW on it's own, can you?
The only team that insisted on running Kers this year, even though it had one of the bigger drivers, at a time when budgets were very important, now is the first to quit on it because their development pace or lack there of.

Yet you still cannot criticize BMW on their own.

BMW is a big joke.

Every one messes up. I don't understand what's your point. Now you blame them because the team is struggling to find pace but have you thought what would you say if the team was on top? All critics are thrown when someone fails but are they the reason why the team failed?

BMW abandons KERS because it wants to limit the damage already absorbed from aerodynamic issues. KERS has its advantage and disadvantage. In our case, it's a disadvantage because our cars are already struggling. If we were on top, then I bet BMW wouldn't have abandonned KERS.

You like to criticize a lot. Do you do so with your parents? Try and you'll get kicked out.

the fact is that the team decided to compromise 2008 so that they would be in the stronger position in 2009. they are not and the end result is: 2 seasons lost. maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that rk was quite vocal in his crticism of the tactic from the start. that coupled with the usual positive pr suggest, that the principles of bmw think the fans are intelectualy retarded. i for one take offence to that assumption.

regards tt

ps if dr T is doing his job properly, the egineers are good and the computer is working fine, then why is the car so slow?

BMW should do like ferrari,ferrari is trying benefit with kers(just a little bit)