KERS = fire works?!

[ioan]

So, it seems that those high voltage batteries they will be using with the KERS system, might produce some fire works and a lot of smoke! Nice way to make F1 exciting! :D


"I think we are not alone in calling the fire brigade out, there are a few other teams around Europe that have had similar issues," he said. "But I would far rather it happened in the controlled environment of an R&D rig, than on a car at a circuit.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69199

Jokes aside, it seems that the systems implementation will pose huge technical difficulties to the teams:


The positioning of the battery in the car and the methods used to protect it through high-G impacts are key to the implementation of this. Some teams believe the safest way to do this is to place the battery directly underneath the heavily insulated fuel cell.


Sounds like a nice rolling bomb to me!

[Dave B]

Reassuring news for any Toyota Prius drivers :s :p

Obviously F1 has to be seen doing its bit for the environment, but KERS doesn't really sit well within all the plans to save costs, does it?

I've got an idea for a sustainable alternative: mount turbines on the cars and call it Wind Assisted Natural Kinetic Energy Recovery System. Not sure about the acronym though... :erm:

[Robinho]

love it dave, set up the website, i'm sure that domain won't already be taken?

[Crank]

Well...Lithium Polymer batteries are really in power to weight ratio but are really dangerous to work with (I know it by personal experience) if they are not recharged or discharged properly, they might explode...as the following video can show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUXuEg3fNE&feature=related

That's for an R/C airplane...I would assume that the guys at Redbull are using bigger toys, thus the explosion.

I only hope they figure a safe way to use those.

[gloomyDAY]

Reassuring news for any Toyota Prius drivers :s :p

Obviously F1 has to be seen doing its bit for the environment, but KERS doesn't really sit well within all the plans to save costs, does it?

I've got an idea for a sustainable alternative: mount turbines on the cars and call it Wind Assisted Natural Kinetic Energy Recovery System. Not sure about the acronym though... :erm: rofl

Dude, that's gold! Did you make that up yourself?

[Whyzars]

Reassuring news for any Toyota Prius drivers

Obviously F1 has to be seen doing its bit for the environment, but KERS doesn't really sit well within all the plans to save costs, does it?

I find the whole KERS thinking somewhat confusing. I think that competitive motorsport has always done far more for the environment than any card carrying greeny through improved materials engineering, power/energy yield's and more efficient aero and tyre technology - and it goes without saying the 'thinning of the herd' contribution to the environmental gene pool whenever a wayward rabbit finds its way onto a race track . :)

As you say, F1 planned to save costs via two race engines and freezing development etc. and then they go and introduce KERS. One minute the teams are saving money, and reducing their carbon footprint, and then F1 introduces alternative energy technology which appears to have a whole slew of new safety issues and may increase the weight of the vehicle and thus its fuel use. :crazy:

I'm not sure that carbonitis is the motivation for KERS but my thinking is that if F1 fans really bought into the whole global warming thing we'd be calling for the immediate reduction in engine capacity and the shortening of the races - effective 2009!!! I don't see any calls on this forum for such drastic measures so I can only assume that everyone here secretly see's global warming in the same cynical light as I do. :s



I've got an idea for a sustainable alternative: mount turbines on the cars and call it Wind Assisted Natural Kinetic Energy Recovery System. Not sure about the acronym though... :erm:

That is the funniest thing I've read since last week when a journalist here in Australia referred to our government's 'global warming report' as the "Carbon Reliance Abatement Program".

There is humour and craziness everywhere we look these days... :eek:

[Knock-on]

Well...Lithium Polymer batteries are really in power to weight ratio but are really dangerous to work with (I know it by personal experience) if they are not recharged or discharged properly, they might explode...as the following video can show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUXuEg3fNE&feature=related

That's for an R/C airplane...I would assume that the guys at Redbull are using bigger toys, thus the explosion.

I only hope they figure a safe way to use those.

Let's just hope nobody connects a F1 car up to the mains :D

[Storm]

DB :laugh: thats a classic!

[AJP]

DB :laugh: thats a classic!

second that.. :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Questions about the safety of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) in Formula One were raised again on Tuesday when a BMW Sauber mechanic suffered an electric shock after touching a car fitted with the device during testing at Jerez in Spain.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69391

[Dave B]

There's a very informative and well-written (by the excellent Mark Hughes) article on the ITV-F1 website about KERS:

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughes&id=43467&PO=43467

[ioan]

Max is confident about KERS, maybe a bit too confident.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69521

However he surely has more info on it than we have.

[Bruce D]

Maybe somebody more in the know can explain it to me, but I fail to see how KERS can be a good thing. Its been forced on F1 so manufacturers will develope it quicker for road use, correct? So now the question I have is, if these things are so dangerous to deal with, would one really want it in their normal road car? I read somewhere (can't remember now but it may have been GP Week) that these cars have to be earthed properly after a run, otherwise they discharge into mechanics, like the poor BMW guy. Now, in a normal road car situation, does this mean we have to have earthing cables under the car at all times or something? F1 cars have the earthing strips at pit stops (well they used to at any rate because of refueling), but normal people? And how much extra power does it really gain back?

[wmcot]

So now that fire isn't as big of a threat, we may have to worry about electrocution????

[ArrowsFA1]

Reading MotorSport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) last night brought about an ironic sense of déjà vu.

Apparently while he was with McLaren in 1998, Adrian Newey developed a KERS system. Obviously 'green' issues were not so prominent then as they are today. McLaren approached the FIA over the issue of legality and the FIA said it was within the existing rules and approved it.

Before McLaren had the opportunity to develop the idea further the FIA changed their minds and banned it. The suggestion then was that one team in particular feared falling behind if Newey's KERS system was allowed.

Wind on 10yrs and we have Max championing KERS as the way forward for F1 :crazy:

[ioan]

Reading MotorSport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) last night brought about an ironic sense of déjà vu.

Apparently while he was with McLaren in 1998, Adrian Newey developed a KERS system. Obviously 'green' issues were not so prominent then as they are today. McLaren approached the FIA over the issue of legality and the FIA said it was within the existing rules and approved it.

Before McLaren had the opportunity to develop the idea further the FIA changed their minds and banned it. The suggestion then was that one team in particular feared falling behind if Newey's KERS system was allowed.

Wind on 10yrs and we have Max championing KERS as the way forward for F1 :crazy:

Another attack on Mosley, what "an ironic sense of déjà vu." :rolleyes:

[Mark]

Reading MotorSport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) last night brought about an ironic sense of déjà vu.

Apparently while he was with McLaren in 1998, Adrian Newey developed a KERS system. Obviously 'green' issues were not so prominent then as they are today. McLaren approached the FIA over the issue of legality and the FIA said it was within the existing rules and approved it.

Before McLaren had the opportunity to develop the idea further the FIA changed their minds and banned it. The suggestion then was that one team in particular feared falling behind if Newey's KERS system was allowed.

Wind on 10yrs and we have Max championing KERS as the way forward for F1 :crazy:

You mean you don't remember it? It was big news at the time. They didn't just develop it, as I recall they actually ran it in a race. It basically worked by charging a small battery under braking, then under command of the driver the car could run from the battery for a short time, disengaging the alternator thus reducing drag and increasing power.

Hakkinen won the Australian Grand Prix with it, but when they arrived in Brazil for the second race there was a protest put into the stewards (independent then of the FIA) who themselves ruled the device illegal.

So they FIA did not "change their minds and ban it", then situation was rather forced upon them. Having said that they didn't overrule the Brazilian stewards.

[ArrowsFA1]

Another attack on Mosley, what "an ironic sense of déjà vu." :rolleyes:
As Newey say in the article, he hasn't recently asked Max why KERS was deemed illegal in 1998 because he wants to keep his pass :laugh:

I wasn't aware that KERS had been around F1 for as long as 10yrs, so it was interesting to read the article. As someone keen to discuss the technological aspects of F1 I would have thought this would have been of interest to you. Apparently not.

Newey doesn't seem to think that innovations in F1 necessarily have a direct bearing on F1, but as he points out when turbos were all the rage in F1 the number of turbo cars on our roads increased, so there is clearly a link of sorts. In 1998 much could have been made of F1 'leading the way' with an application that would have had great benefits for road cars, and initially it seemed that the FIA agreed.

Exactly why they changed their minds then remains unknown, and yet now KERS is very much back on the agenda.

[ArrowsFA1]

You mean you don't remember it?
No, the article doesn't appear to relate to that. I don't remember the article making mention of the KERS system being raced at all (I don't have it in front of me now), but it was clear about approval initially being given by the FIA, then withdrawn.

[AJP]

It is pretty astonishing that this is going ahead.
I am overwhelmed by the level of sophisticated technology required for this to go ahead...
Also, i would never have thought about safety for the on track marshals when removing the cars from the track...
very cool indeed, but I hope it will be extremely safe..

[ArrowsFA1]

BMW Sauber, Honda Racing and Williams will resist calls from rival teams to delay the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) in Formula One, despite concerns about safety.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69689

[Knock-on]

Another attack on Mosley, what "an ironic sense of déjà vu." :rolleyes:

What is ironic and leaves me with a sense of déjà vu is that Max isn't mentioned in the post until 10 years after the ban but the FIA is :laugh:

However, I agree that Max is the FIA and the FIA is Max.

I assume that's what you're attempting to convey :D

[Mikeall]

"No technical project has become cheaper by delaying its introduction. So if we delayed it by another year we would spend the same money without putting it on stage, and there is no sense at all." - Mario Thiessen

Very true. If the teams can't develop the system in time its their own problem. Williams bought into Automotive Hybrid Power to get a jump on the opposition. Clearly of Williams with a smaller budget than many other teams are willing to spend money there rather than elsewhere, it is other teams faults for not doing the same.

[ArrowsFA1]

Very true. If the teams can't develop the system in time its their own problem. Williams bought into Automotive Hybrid Power to get a jump on the opposition. Clearly of Williams with a smaller budget than many other teams are willing to spend money there rather than elsewhere, it is other teams faults for not doing the same.
Also, isn't August 2008 a bit late to still be debating the rules for 2009?

Having said that, the FIA have been known to change/introduce rules on the basis of safety before now, and if some teams have genuine safety concerns about KERS that cannot be addressed before the start of the 2009 season, then now is the time for the FIA to address these concerns.

[Garry Walker]

The cost of KERS is quite many millions of dollars and in this age of financial crisis and FIA apparently wanting to dumb down budgets, it is extremely peculiar to see FIA wanting it.

But logic and FIA has never gone hand in hand.

[ioan]

BMW Sauber, Honda Racing and Williams will resist calls from rival teams to delay the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) in Formula One, despite concerns about safety.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69689

Priceless!
One week ago they decide to form the FOTA in order to have a unique representation to the FIA and thus not necessitating the unanimity required for technical changes, still they can't get themselves to agree on anything.

What a bunch of losers.

And then someone will come an say that it's all the FIA's fault.

[cosmicpanda]

Priceless!
One week ago they decide to form the FOTA in order to have a unique representation to the FIA and thus not necessitating the unanimity required for technical changes, still they can't get themselves to agree on anything.

What a bunch of losers.

And then someone will come an say that it's all the FIA's fault.

It's all the FIA's fault.

Obviously. :D

[Garry Walker]

Priceless!
One week ago they decide to form the FOTA in order to have a unique representation to the FIA and thus not necessitating the unanimity required for technical changes, still they can't get themselves to agree on anything.

What a bunch of losers.

And then someone will come an say that it's all the FIA's fault.

Agreeing in FOTA demands that 7 out of 10 teams votes for something.
Regarding KERS, decision to hold it off till 2010 got 6 votes for it.

[JSH]

I don't see KERS being any more dangerous than anything already being done.

How many fuelling fires did we see last weekend? 3? 4?

I'm quite sure the teams have a way to implement KERS and have it as safe as possible. ... Where they start to get in trouble is when they start trying to make it lighter, smaller, etc..

[ioan]

Agreeing in FOTA demands that 7 out of 10 teams votes for something.
Regarding KERS, decision to hold it off till 2010 got 6 votes for it.

The article says there are 3 against the rest, that surely means that the rest = 7 as we got 10 teams in F1 at the moment.
Is there something I missed somewhere in that article?

[V12]

I don't see the problem.

The systems are not mandatory, in simplest terms the FIA have freed up an area of the technical regulations. Which many (including myself) have been clamouring for for ages.

It will be good to see a bit of ingenuity and technical diversity back in the sport IMO. And I actually don't give much of a toss about the "green issue", as un-PC as my stance may seem. Having said that it is a nice bonus.

[Miatanut]

I don't see the problem.

The systems are not mandatory, in simplest terms the FIA have freed up an area of the technical regulations. Which many (including myself) have been clamouring for for ages.

It will be good to see a bit of ingenuity and technical diversity back in the sport IMO. And I actually don't give much of a toss about the "green issue", as un-PC as my stance may seem. Having said that it is a nice bonus.

But of course some of them are about to have their butts handed to them on a platter because the weren't innovative enough. We can't have that! We must have four wheels on the car, two drive, exactly eight cylinders, exactly 2.4 L, V-8, 90 degrees between banks, running on petrol, etc., etc., etc., so nobody is caught out by somebody else coming up with something better after they spent untold million$ going the direction they went (sarcasm).

[CNR]

the bmw must have put out some power to go through carbon fiber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzaQ-t1ojPU

[Whyzars]

I don't see the problem.

The systems are not mandatory, in simplest terms the FIA have freed up an area of the technical regulations. Which many (including myself) have been clamouring for for ages.

It will be good to see a bit of ingenuity and technical diversity back in the sport IMO. And I actually don't give much of a toss about the "green issue", as un-PC as my stance may seem. Having said that it is a nice bonus.

I agree that it will be good to see ingenuity coming back into the sport but I have a problem with KERS because F1 has not been consistent in its message. I honestly don't think F1 can endorse KERS whilst historically curtailing investment in engines et al because of cost and safety issues. If the teams are broke then don't force the expense of KERS on them and if the circuits can suddenly support 1000bhp then let the teams and engine manufacturers decide how they find those extra horses.

In my humble opinion the marketeers and greenies are shoving their noses too far into the F1 trough with KERS and I fear it may be the thin end of the wedge for ALL motorsport. My genuine concern is that this sort of "green" thinking will eventually see motorsport licensing bodies and governments requiring hybrid technologies of varying degrees in ALL motorsport and F1 will be the lemming they point to as a benchmark for 'green racing'.

If doomsayers want to fill the worlds dumps with old hybrid batteries then so be it but please start up a "hybridsport" division specifically to showcase the new toys. I suggest they call it "FH". :rolleyes:

F1 has always thought long term and maybe "quiet hum" is the engine sound of the future. I hope it isn't...

:)

[harsha]

Wind Assisted Natural Kinetic Energy Recovery System

:up: :laugh:

[Miatanut]

I agree that it will be good to see ingenuity coming back into the sport but I have a problem with KERS because F1 has not been consistent in its message. I honestly don't think F1 can endorse KERS whilst historically curtailing investment in engines et al because of cost and safety issues. If the teams are broke then don't force the expense of KERS on them and if the circuits can suddenly support 1000bhp then let the teams and engine manufacturers decide how they find those extra horses.

In my humble opinion the marketeers and greenies are shoving their noses too far into the F1 trough with KERS and I fear it may be the thin end of the wedge for ALL motorsport. My genuine concern is that this sort of "green" thinking will eventually see motorsport licensing bodies and governments requiring hybrid technologies of varying degrees in ALL motorsport and F1 will be the lemming they point to as a benchmark for 'green racing'.

If doomsayers want to fill the worlds dumps with old hybrid batteries then so be it but please start up a "hybridsport" division specifically to showcase the new toys. I suggest they call it "FH". :rolleyes:

F1 has always thought long term and maybe "quiet hum" is the engine sound of the future. I hope it isn't...

:)

F1 got to the point where teams were spending million$ on shaving one millimeter off the width of a gear (to save seven millimeters on the length of the 'box) using some kind of extremely expensive unobtanium. If for you racing is about entertainment, fine. For me, given racing, though I love it, is probably the most wasteful activity humans engage in, short of war, it should drive some sort of useful technical development which will be relevant to ordinary cars. KERS is exactly the sort of thing F1, with its heavy manufacturer involvement, should be working on. I originally understood KERS would be a flywheel system. I kept reading about battery and electrical problems for BMW which weren't making sense in that context. Now, it turns out we will have flywheel approaches racing next to battery approaches.

Just the sort of thing that will make the racing more interesting, and get the best minds working on how to get more useful work out of a gallon of fuel, which is exactly what we need people working on now!

The host is a goofball, but this otherwise a nice presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcIt0FPvWQ&feature=related

[ioan]

F1 got to the point where teams were spending million$ on shaving one millimeter off the width of a gear (to save seven millimeters on the length of the 'box) using some kind of extremely expensive unobtanium. If for you racing is about entertainment, fine. For me, given racing, though I love it, is probably the most wasteful activity humans engage in, short of war, it should drive some sort of useful technical development which will be relevant to ordinary cars. KERS is exactly the sort of thing F1, with its heavy manufacturer involvement, should be working on. I originally understood KERS would be a flywheel system. I kept reading about battery and electrical problems for BMW which weren't making sense in that context. Now, it turns out we will have flywheel approaches racing next to battery approaches.

Just the sort of thing that will make the racing more interesting, and get the best minds working on how to get more useful work out of a gallon of fuel, which is exactly what we need people working on now!

The host is a goofball, but this otherwise a nice presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcIt0FPvWQ&feature=related

:up:

[BDunnell]

F1 got to the point where teams were spending million$ on shaving one millimeter off the width of a gear (to save seven millimeters on the length of the 'box) using some kind of extremely expensive unobtanium. If for you racing is about entertainment, fine. For me, given racing, though I love it, is probably the most wasteful activity humans engage in, short of war, it should drive some sort of useful technical development which will be relevant to ordinary cars. KERS is exactly the sort of thing F1, with its heavy manufacturer involvement, should be working on.

I agree, though I fall somewhere between the two camps in that watching racing is about enjoyment and entertainment for me, but I like the idea of useful technological enhancements deriving from it. In this context, KERS ought to be part of F1's future.

[Whyzars]

F1 got to the point where teams were spending million$ on shaving one millimeter off the width of a gear (to save seven millimeters on the length of the 'box) using some kind of extremely expensive unobtanium.

I thought you liked technical development?

Unobtainium may be expensive when it is first used but if its use becomes mainstream or alternatives are discovered then the price comes down. Due to F1's recent attitude of seemingly saving money at all costs these sorts of innovations, expensive as they may be initially, have effectively disappeared from the sport. Preservation of franchise value seems to have become the new objective which is why I see KERS as a marketing stunt and nothing more.


If for you racing is about entertainment, fine. For me, given racing, though I love it, is probably the most wasteful activity humans engage in, short of war, it should drive some sort of useful technical development which will be relevant to ordinary cars.

Competition is good so I don't agree that racing is ever a wasteful activity. As for war, whether its wasteful or not depends on whether we believe that it is the ultimate competition and whether the technology developed as a result has been beneficial to mankind. Unfortunately, a consequential benefit is still a benefit regardless of the heartache and the tears.

Back to the topic, F1 wants "Push To Pass" technology which is comical. A turbo boosted V8 is really what the world wants but a Prius dressed up as Ferrari will have to suffice. :crazy:

Didn't half of the teams vote against KERS for 2009? If half of the teams are voting against it then that tells me the other half are the ones pushing for it. Nothing to do with technology development but rather timing of the technology readiness and whether some cheap points are up for grabs early in the 2009 season.



Just the sort of thing that will make the racing more interesting, and get the best minds working on how to get more useful work out of a gallon of fuel, which is exactly what we need people working on now!

In my opinion KERS has no place during racing in F1. If KERS was mandated for use during safety car periods to avoid disrupting fuel strategy's then I can see that being creative and useful and justified and consistent but "Push To Pass" and rushing the implementation tells me it is only being supported by those teams who have something already on the shelf. Within 12 months it will be obsolete because everyone will have it and it should then hopefully go the way of the Dodo and those prohibitively expensive racing fuels of years past.

As to getting the most out of a gallon of fuel, F1 management have never appeared interested in that so why start now. Economy runs never work when there is a checkered flag in play. :rolleyes:

The things that I feel are motivating KERS are political and "feel good" and whether F1 may be slugged with a Kyototototo driven carbon bill for the plant food being generated by the spectators and the sport.

If manufacturers need a place to showcase their hybrid cred's then they should start a formula specifically for that. I would enjoy watching racing where I can mute the TV and it still sounds the same.

:)

[Miatanut]

I thought you liked technical development?

Unobtainium may be expensive when it is first used but if its use becomes mainstream or alternatives are discovered then the price comes down. Due to F1's recent attitude of seemingly saving money at all costs these sorts of innovations, expensive as they may be initially, have effectively disappeared from the sport. Preservation of franchise value seems to have become the new objective which is why I see KERS as a marketing stunt and nothing more.



Competition is good so I don't agree that racing is ever a wasteful activity. As for war, whether its wasteful or not depends on whether we believe that it is the ultimate competition and whether the technology developed as a result has been beneficial to mankind. Unfortunately, a consequential benefit is still a benefit regardless of the heartache and the tears.

Back to the topic, F1 wants "Push To Pass" technology which is comical. A turbo boosted V8 is really what the world wants but a Prius dressed up as Ferrari will have to suffice. :crazy:

Didn't half of the teams vote against KERS for 2009? If half of the teams are voting against it then that tells me the other half are the ones pushing for it. Nothing to do with technology development but rather timing of the technology readiness and whether some cheap points are up for grabs early in the 2009 season.




In my opinion KERS has no place during racing in F1. If KERS was mandated for use during safety car periods to avoid disrupting fuel strategy's then I can see that being creative and useful and justified and consistent but "Push To Pass" and rushing the implementation tells me it is only being supported by those teams who have something already on the shelf. Within 12 months it will be obsolete because everyone will have it and it should then hopefully go the way of the Dodo and those prohibitively expensive racing fuels of years past.

As to getting the most out of a gallon of fuel, F1 management have never appeared interested in that so why start now. Economy runs never work when there is a checkered flag in play. :rolleyes:

The things that I feel are motivating KERS are political and "feel good" and whether F1 may be slugged with a Kyototototo driven carbon bill for the plant food being generated by the spectators and the sport.

If manufacturers need a place to showcase their hybrid cred's then they should start a formula specifically for that. I would enjoy watching racing where I can mute the TV and it still sounds the same.

:)
Unobtainium, as in a very expensive, exotic material, won't become cheaper because of what F1 does with it. If anything, F1 will increase the price of it by increasing demand. It will automatically become cheaper in 17 years, or whenever the patent runs out, or when somebody else comes up with some new, better unobtainium. Those were going to happen whether F1 was involved or not.

KERS, on the other hand, is a whole new TECHNOLOGY, not material, and technologies are notorious for dropping in cost with development. F1 will help move that process along.

I agree that KERS is being redirected toward a P2P technology. The original idea was better: "maximum weight "X", store as much energy as you can with that weight limit, 'go to it boys!" That would have encouraged the development a lot better.

I think tires that are only good for 100 miles, a multitude of car parts that have to be changed every race, or two races, or three races is pretty wasteful, and of course crash damage is always a waste of resources, but those things are an inherent part of the sport. At least it should accomplish some good.

I've grown a bit tired of rules that say the car has to have four wheels, only two driven, the engine had to be exactly 2.4L, has to have exactly 8 cylinders, and the included angle has to be exactly 90 degrees, etc., etc., etc. For me, it's a breath of fresh air that an aspect of the rules is being opened up. With sportscar racing you get so much variety out of rules based on a table indicating air restrictor size against weight and other factors. Diesels running against gasoline cars! You open the rules up a bit and great things happen.

[ioan]

Unobtainium, as in a very expensive, exotic material, won't become cheaper because of what F1 does with it. If anything, F1 will increase the price of it by increasing demand. It will automatically become cheaper in 17 years, or whenever the patent runs out, or when somebody else comes up with some new, better unobtainium. Those were going to happen whether F1 was involved or not.

KERS, on the other hand, is a whole new TECHNOLOGY, not material, and technologies are notorious for dropping in cost with development. F1 will help move that process along.

I agree that KERS is being redirected toward a P2P technology. The original idea was better: "maximum weight "X", store as much energy as you can with that weight limit, 'go to it boys!" That would have encouraged the development a lot better.

I think tires that are only good for 100 miles, a multitude of car parts that have to be changed every race, or two races, or three races is pretty wasteful, and of course crash damage is always a waste of resources, but those things are an inherent part of the sport. At least it should accomplish some good.

I've grown a bit tired of rules that say the car has to have four wheels, only two driven, the engine had to be exactly 2.4L, has to have exactly 8 cylinders, and the included angle has to be exactly 90 degrees, etc., etc., etc. For me, it's a breath of fresh air that an aspect of the rules is being opened up. With sportscar racing you get so much variety out of rules based on a table indicating air restrictor size against weight and other factors. Diesels running against gasoline cars! You open the rules up a bit and great things happen.

Agree, again. :up:

[ShiftingGears]

I want some sort of balance between an entertaining formula and different technical innovations. At the moment I think there are many regulations that acheive neither, in the name of safety or cost cutting.

[wedge]

BMW findings on its KERS accident.

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43660

As dangerous as it seems, they only way we'll ever make progress is for some poor souls to bite the bullet.

[JSH]

Unobtainium, as in a very expensive, exotic material, won't become cheaper because of what F1 does with it.

Well, Unobtanium is already specified by OEM's to us suppliers... It's the material that performs better, is lighter and is CHEAPER(as in almost $0). :p

[Knock-on]

Well, Unobtanium is already specified by OEM's to us suppliers... It's the material that performs better, is lighter and is CHEAPER(as in almost $0). :p

Naw, unobtanium is the material the craft was constructed of in The Core.

It was on Telly so it must be true.

[Miatanut]

Agree, again. :up:

We seem to be in the minority here! :)

[Miatanut]

Well, Unobtanium is already specified by OEM's to us suppliers... It's the material that performs better, is lighter and is CHEAPER(as in almost $0). :p

That's the Unobtainium of the real world!

F1 Unobtainium has a lot more emphasis on light weight and cost is no object. A good thing, because most of it comes from Pluto! :D

[ioan]

We seem to be in the minority here! :)

I'm used to it! ;)

[Whyzars]

Unobtainium, as in a very expensive, exotic material...

...KERS, on the other hand, is a whole new TECHNOLOGY, not material, and technologies are notorious for dropping in cost with development. F1 will help move that process along.

Unfortunately the technology will be prime until an edge can only be gained through the use of unobtainium and then the price escalates as with everything in F1. Its a viscous cycle.



I agree that KERS is being redirected toward a P2P technology. The original idea was better: "maximum weight "X", store as much energy as you can with that weight limit, 'go to it boys!" That would have encouraged the development a lot better.


Funnily enough I read an article on the weekend where "Push to Pass" might actually be useful. The article was discussing the use of electric motors to assist hill climbing in heavily laden trucks. Maybe "Push to Pass" could have some commercial uses in our speed limited world... :)



I've grown a bit tired of rules that say the car has to have four wheels, only two driven, the engine had to be exactly 2.4L, has to have exactly 8 cylinders, and the included angle has to be exactly 90 degrees, etc., etc., etc. For me, it's a breath of fresh air that an aspect of the rules is being opened up. With sportscar racing you get so much variety out of rules based on a table indicating air restrictor size against weight and other factors. Diesels running against gasoline cars! You open the rules up a bit and great things happen.


I definitely agree. I think that F1 should be confident enough in its image and prestige to relax a little of the rigidity you've described. They could do things like slow the refueling rate to make fuel more expensive during racing, have rules that focus on the process of racing and not the cost of racing. Allow the manufacturers some leeway to showcase their production rather than using the F1 cars as mobile billboards.

I don't really like the 2 race engine penalties but there are very few engine failures these days. Its hard to say whether the longevity of the engines is as a result of the 2 race engine penalty or if it is that the manufacturing tolerances and materials fatigue simulations are getting better all the time and this reliability was always going to happen once the engines became rev limited. Kimi's shower of bolts not withstanding of course. :)

In my opinion the engine freeze is not conducive to innovation in the area that F1 should be innovating which is actual engines. I have always considered weight handicapping to also be an unfortunate necessity in modern F1. Instead we get KERS. :rolleyes:

[Miatanut]

I think that F1 should be confident enough in its image and prestige to relax a little of the rigidity you've described. They could do things like slow the refueling rate to make fuel more expensive during racing, have rules that focus on the process of racing and not the cost of racing.

I totally agree! I think F1 could throw out about half the technical rule book if they made that one change. Suddenly the trade-off between downforce and drag gets shifted to lower drag, to save fuel, and designing the cars to be as slippery as possible becomes a major priority. That would be a very useful development.

The racing action would improve because all teams would make the trade-off a bit differently, and some cars would corner faster and others would be faster on the straights.