KERS is the biggest mistake of 2009

[Dzeidzei]

By enforcing KERS into the 2009 regulations FIA manages to make a total mockery of racing. We might end up in a situation where race wins and even championships are decided on how well a team manages KERS. In my opinion this doesnt reflect the idea of motor racing at all. It more or less gives the advantage to people who excel in something arbitrary.

It is a stupid situation and is contrary to FIA`s publicly stated goals: making car design more simple and cheaper. Or does anyone think developing a totally new system to the car is cheap? What if Honda simply didnt want to throw in the yens for this r&d?

We´ve already heard that teams have spend a year trying to learn KERS and to get it working in the first place. Have the grid will run in Mel without KERS.

If you wanted to cut down the costs, you should freeze the regs and try to standardize on as many parts as possible of the car design. Partly this is just what FIA is trying to do, but with KERS they are making a huge mistake.

PS. And this is regardless the teams that benefit from KERS. It remains to be seen if anyone gets any real benefit and if the systems are able to work for a race distance.

[Ranger]

I am undecided when it comes to the necessity of KERS.

But it definitely should have been delayed until 2010.

[Valve Bounce]

Why encourage KERS and ban Active Suspension? Makes no sense to me.

[Dave B]

KERS is a decent enough idea, but I wish the FIA were more honest about its intentions. We all know that it's a "push to pass" system dressed up as a feeble attempt present a green image.

Where the FIA have gone wrong is pushing it through and then suggesting that, after just one season, they might mandate a standard system. What a waste of money - estimated at $60 million per team - developing a system which might be consigned to the bin this time next year.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo believes the introduction of KERS in Formula One is a mistake
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72576


Renault chiefs have launched a scathing attack on the introduction of KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) in Formula One this year - claiming they are dangerous and too expensive.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72880


Theissen says such criticisms are unfounded. He thinks that a delay in allowing KERS would have been futile because teams would still have needed to keep spending money on developing the devices for 2010.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72898


FIA president Max Mosley says the governing body would like to discuss the future of the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) with Formula One teams in order for the devices to be developed properly and without incurring huge costs.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72647

[ioan]

By enforcing KERS into the 2009 regulations FIA manages to make a total mockery of racing. We might end up in a situation where race wins and even championships are decided on how well a team manages KERS. In my opinion this doesnt reflect the idea of motor racing at all. It more or less gives the advantage to people who excel in something arbitrary.

I disagree, it's not something arbitrary it's engineering excellence as with the rest of the car, and it's the same for everyone.

[ioan]

Why encourage KERS and ban Active Suspension? Makes no sense to me.

Because active suspension brings nothing new to the table.
They already did it 20 years ago and yet the automotive industry took little profit of it, only a few prestigious sport car manufacturers did implement it due to very high costs.

[Dzeidzei]

I disagree,it's not something arbitrary it's engineering excellence as with the rest of the car, and it's the same for everyone.

Its not arbitrary in that sense, but why not enforce KERS as a standard system? Now KERS can in certain circumstances decide races. It can do so by working excellently or by failing totally.

And it definitely has increased costs.

[ioan]

Its not arbitrary in that sense, but why not enforce KERS as a standard system? Now KERS can in certain circumstances decide races. It can do so by working excellently or by failing totally.

And it definitely has increased costs.

I don't like standardized parts in F1, that kills the beauty of its technical side.
Leaving it to the teams to develop it as they wish will help bring out the best ideas.

As far as the costs go, KERS is not compulsory, so if it's not worth the money people are free not to develop it.

[Dzeidzei]

I don't like standardized parts in F1, that kills the beauty of its technical side.

I dont like it either, but you cannot embraze technical beauty to the full and cut costs at the same time.

And cutting costs is a must, as we all know.

[Eyo]

I think it’s a good way forward, something might come out in terms of batteries, electric motors or something else that could be very useful in the future automotive industry or even elsewhere. Teams are only crying about it because they still don’t have the upper hand on it. Once any of them discovers something that will boost there performance greatly, they will say that this is the best idea that the FIA has came up with.
I’m just surprised that they have been given a chance to be creative and the whining starts when they face difficulties. It’s a shame.

[ArrowsFA1]

As far as the costs go, KERS is not compulsory, so if it's not worth the money people are free not to develop it.
But unless teams develop it how do they know whether it's worth the money or not? They can't risk waiting for their competitors to gain what might be an advantage over them so they have to spend the money.

The fact that KERS is optional, while true, is not realistic in such a competitive environment, so it's an additional cost at a time when cutting costs is the main priority for F1.

[ioan]

I dont like it either, but you cannot embraze technical beauty to the full and cut costs at the same time.

And cutting costs is a must, as we all know.

As I pointed it out, it's not compulsory. ;)

[ioan]

But unless teams develop it how do they know whether it's worth the money or not? They can't risk waiting for their competitors to gain what might be an advantage over them so they have to spend the money.

The fact that KERS is optional, while true, is not realistic in such a competitive environment, so it's an additional cost at a time when cutting costs is the main priority for F1.

For now KERS do not present an advantage, rather a disadvantage.
Those who didn't want to develop their own KERS have the option to buy one like Force India are doing it, they get the engine, the transmission and KERS for some 10 millions a year!

The ones who really want and can get a competitive advantage out of it are the big teams, and they seem to have the money to do it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

[Dzeidzei]

As I pointed it out, it's not compulsory. ;)

According to some reports KERS can shave .2 secs off a lap time. So in effect it is compulsory. Teams are not in F1 to save money. They are there to win.

[ioan]

According to some reports KERS can shave .2 secs off a lap time. So in effect it is compulsory. Teams are not in F1 to save money. They are there to win.

A small aero tweak can do the same for a small fraction of KERS cost, not to mention that cars without KERS can be better balanced using the adittional weight at disposal.

Most of teams stated that they will get a performance comparison between their car with and without KERS and if the KERS-less (excuse the pun) ones are faster than they will run without KERS.

The rules have changed so much this season that the cars had to be completely redrawn no matter if they intended to use KERS or not.

[Dave B]

For any of the top teams, it's as close to compulsory as you'll ever get. They are in F1 to win races, and a select few of them have championship ambitions. They simply cannot afford NOT to have KERS, whatever the cost.

With the greatest of respect to the likes of Force India, they are just not realistic contenders for anything other than freak podiums, so it makes total commercial and sporting sense to buy in a system or to not bother running KERS.

[Dzeidzei]

A small aero tweak can do the same for a small fraction of KERS cost, not to mention that cars without KERS can be better balanced using the adittional weight at disposal.


Well, we can always ask this: Did F1 need KERS? What more does it bring to racing?

IMO the answer is obvious. The teams will design a toaster into the rear wing if it is asked for. It just doesnt make sense.

[Knock-on]

KERS for environmental reasons is a Greenwash as Arrows says.

ioan says it represents engineering excellence? Tosh I say. KERS in F1 is a dumbed down technology of what is already availiable in road cars.

Then we have the astronomical amount of money that the teams have had to waste on this. KERS was not pitched as a nice to have. It was pitched very strongly as a necessay component of the car which is why the teams had to develop it.

What a FIA caused shambles

[ioan]

I see this is again turning into a FIA bash fest! Have fun kids!

[ArrowsFA1]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the introduction of KERS.

What benefit is it to F1?[/*:m:1jd3plly]
How can the cost of developing it be justified, particularly in the current climate?[/*:m:1jd3plly]
What benefit is it to the manufacturers?[/*:m:1jd3plly]

[Knock-on]

I see this is again turning into a FIA bash fest! Have fun kids!

It's a statement about a subject that's turned into a shambles.

Stop accusing people of being bashers and haters just because they disagree with you.

If you disagree with any of the points I have raised, please explain why. Don't just retreat into "Basher, Hater" mode.

Any evidence to back up your opinion from a website real people can access would be appreciated :D

[SGWilko]

I disagree, it's not something arbitrary it's engineering excellence as with the rest of the car, and it's the same for everyone.

It's not the same for everyone though, is it? Our esteemed boffins at the FIA decided that, for 2009, KERS will be discretionary. Twits!

What KERS needs to be, is an intense testing and proving ground for green recoverable and reuseable energies that can be extrapolated into road car use.

At the moment, it is a bloody mess. How can ne1 possibly justify high capacity batteries that last only one race and produce arsenic as a bi-product as they run down?

I vote the FIA headquarters be moved to the GAZA strip and MAx kept under house arrest.... ;)

[SGWilko]

I see this is again turning into a FIA bash fest! Have fun kids!

Well, we could all ring up British Gas, and complain vehemently to some stunned customer service rep about the mess F1 is in as a result of the introduction of KERS, but as it is the FIA that sets the rules, we'll keep our dislike of the way it was introduced to them!

Oh, and if you see Sid, tell him will you?

[Knock-on]

It's not the same for everyone though, is it? Our esteemed boffins at the FIA decided that, for 2009, KERS will be discretionary. Twits!

What KERS needs to be, is an intense testing and proving ground for green recoverable and reusable energies that can be extrapolated into road car use.

At the moment, it is a bloody mess. How can ne1 possibly justify high capacity batteries that last only one race and produce arsenic as a bi-product as they run down?

I vote the FIA headquarters be moved to the GAZA strip and MAx kept under house arrest.... ;)

Road cars already have more efficient KERS systems than the teams are allowed to develop. All but one of the teams has been developing a battery version which will probably be banned next year requiring yet more redevelopment if KERS isn't standardised or dropped.

[leopard]

F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport should be in the first priority to implement any technology at any form it is considered in compliance with renewable energy which at the end all categories of sport will adopt model of such conservation to eliminate destruction has been made towards natural resource of this earth. This earth is enough suffering from destruction made by the dumb zionist.

[Valve Bounce]

Because active suspension brings nothing new to the table.
They already did it 20 years ago and yet the automotive industry took little profit of it, only a few prestigious sport car manufacturers did implement it due to very high costs.

And you think KERS will be welcomed by the motor industry, and will profit by it.

[ioan]

And you think KERS will be welcomed by the motor industry, and will profit by it.

Yes I think so, especially when all the cars will be equipped with totally electric or hybrid propulsion having KERS will ensure a better autonomy.

[Daniel]

ioan says it represents engineering excellence? Tosh I say. KERS in F1 is a dumbed down technology of what is already availiable in road cars.

I disagree. KERS very much represents an opportunity for better, more efficient and more useful technologies to be developed for road cars.


I vote the FIA headquarters be moved to the GAZA strip and MAx kept under house arrest.... ;)

:D Just make sure it's in a UN "safe" zone :)

[Dzeidzei]

Its not about bashing FIA etc. The point I was trying to make (and failed miserably as ioan´s comments so clearly show) is that KERS is not in line with FIAs goal to bring the costs down, enforce better and more competitive racing and basicly just keeping F1 alive at all.

F1 doesnt need KERS. Its "green value" is zero. It only adds costs and possibly decides races and even championships.

Theres nothing good about it and I wonder who the hell came up with the idea in the first place. Whoever it was, I ask him (or her, maybe it was Max´s secretary) to please stop thinking. Right now.

[Knock-on]

Its not about bashing FIA etc. The point I was trying to make (and failed miserably as ioan´s comments so clearly show) is that KERS is not in line with FIAs goal to bring the costs down, enforce better and more competitive racing and basicly just keeping F1 alive at all.

F1 doesnt need KERS. Its "green value" is zero. It only adds costs and possibly decides races and even championships.

Theres nothing good about it and I wonder who the hell came up with the idea in the first place. Whoever it was, I ask him (or her, maybe it was Max´s secretary) to please stop thinking. Right now.

Actually, it's not a bad idea and was something that could have quite easily have been allowed as natural progression within the sport.

McLaren first came up with a KERS system that the FIA deemed legal which I think they actually used in a race.

However, there was a protest from another team and the FIA decided to ban it.

[ioan]

Its not about bashing FIA etc.

I'm sorry, that post wasn't directed to you, but to the usual suspects! ;)

[wedge]

By enforcing KERS into the 2009 regulations FIA manages to make a total mockery of racing. We might end up in a situation where race wins and even championships are decided on how well a team manages KERS. In my opinion this doesnt reflect the idea of motor racing at all. It more or less gives the advantage to people who excel in something arbitrary.

It's not compulsory.


KERS is a decent enough idea, but I wish the FIA were more honest about its intentions. We all know that it's a "push to pass" system dressed up as a feeble attempt present a green image.

Where the FIA have gone wrong is pushing it through and then suggesting that, after just one season, they might mandate a standard system. What a waste of money - estimated at $60 million per team - developing a system which might be consigned to the bin this time next year.

So was turbo engines a gimmick?

The only time they ran full boost was in qualy but not in the races though they could alter boost pressure to balance speed, conservation and reliability. Much in the same way with air/fuel mixture, and now with engine maps.

Push to Pass is no different, IMO. It's down to driver's initiative.


Why encourage KERS and ban Active Suspension? Makes no sense to me.

Because Active Suspension, much like TC, too away the skill from the driver by hiding their errors via electronics.


What benefit is it to F1?

F1 is the pinnacle. KERS represents the future of car technology because one day F1 will need to exist when all will run out.


How can the cost of developing it be justified, particularly in the current climate?


F1 is the pinnacle and remains because of the intense competition between constructors therefore constant R&D and therefore money.


What benefit is it to the manufacturers?

Millions have been spent to get wind tunnels but to what benefit do the manufacturers have with horns, bargeboards, turning vanes, etc?

[Knock-on]

I'm sorry, that post wasn't directed to you, but to the usual suspects! ;)


Could you let us know who they are and why you interpret these people posts as bashing because the only thing I can see is you bashing members :(

[Daniel]

Could you let us know who they are and why you interpret these people posts as bashing because the only thing I can see is you bashing members :(

Stop with the mock tears Knockie :( Using mock :( smilies makes baby Jesus :bigcry:

[jens]

With BMW doubting about the running of KERS too, it all is seemingly indeed becoming pointless. If no-one runs KERS at Melbourne, all the money have gone to the bin and no-one has gained anything. Besides the green thing one of the reasons for introduction was obviously to make overtaking easier. I don't have an exact opinion whether it would be a good idea to run with KERS in the long run or not, but I think for 2009 together with other radical rule changes it was pointless to add the KERS factor too. Let's first see, how do the other new regulations work out. Better introduce KERS, when there aren't other important changes in regulations and teams can concentrate on that system more. But if a lot is changed in F1 with immediate effect, then no surprise teams are struggling. They are trying to work out, how do the new cars behave and then they have to think, how to fit KERS into a car, which they are still learning to understand. Installing a KERS into a car, which teams already know like the back of their hand, would create less problems in my view.

[ioan]

Why do you believe that come melbourne no one will use KERS?! Ferrari has been running KERS for 4 days already without troubles, rather good for a team that was skeptical about it.

[ArrowsFA1]

So was turbo engines a gimmick?
Turbo engines were not introduced by the governing body.

[ioan]

Turbo engines were not introduced by the governing body.

Who was making the rules back than? Santa Claus?

[ArrowsFA1]

Who was making the rules back than? Santa Claus?
:laugh:

IIRC, and I am sure there are those who will correct me, the rules did not specifically include or exclude turbos in the 1970's, it's just that no-one chose to run one until Renault came along in 1977. It took some time before anyone else was convinced of the benefits either.

[K-Pu]

According to Marca (you know, that inexhaustable well of knowledge), KERS is something like a deadly trap hidden in the cars, waiting to explode and electrocutate some poor mechanic who was there...

The funny thing is that Marca translated an interview with a Renault mechanic, and made some serious mistakes, leading to think that KERS turns the car into an electric chair and whoever touches it will be carbonized by a nice zzzzap.

And after that, 20 Minutos (another staunch defender of accurate F1 information) reinterpreted this news, resulting in KERS becoming the most funny thing to come this season. Some newspapers don´t know what to do to attract attention... If there are no news, start inventing them!

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/444636/0/sistema/kers/peligroso/

[Valve Bounce]

Yes I think so, especially when all the cars will be equipped with totally electric or hybrid propulsion having KERS will ensure a better autonomy.

Totally electric can result in even greater pollution from the power stations.

[Bagwan]

Totally electric can result in even greater pollution from the power stations.

Egads , Valve , I hope you're not serious .

I recently watched a show about a fifteen year old who converted a conventional pick-up truck into all electric .
He pays his parents $15.00 a month for the charge and drives about 30 miles 5 days a week , and a few short stints on the weekend .

And , power stations don't have to run on coal or diesel , causing nasty effluent . That's just what they want you to think , so the fossils can sell you the fuels of the past .

You and the rest of us produce enough methane to keep ourselves in power forever .
And , just a few tweaks and the family or factory farm also becomes a gas power plant .

KERS is indeed related directly to the idea of the electric car . It's development may have significant effect on both the generation end of the idea , and , perhaps even more importantly of lighter , more efficient battery storage .

[jens]

Why do you believe that come melbourne no one will use KERS?! Ferrari has been running KERS for 4 days already without troubles, rather good for a team that was skeptical about it.

I don't think the biggest issue is actually whether teams have direct problems with KERS or not. Most of the teams have tested it and seemingly without big problems. The main issue, as I see it, is whether that functioning system would offer any advantage in laptimes. Considering how different all the new cars look and teams are still finding the right development path, then no surprise it's unclear whether KERS would be an advantage or not and in some of those designs that system may not give any benefit at all. For me it was quite interesting to note that Toyota tested KERS on the first test day at Portimao and again seemingly without notable problems, but after that they mentioned it's unlikely they will race with the system during 2009. It sounds like they are so sure this system won't give any advantage at all for them, so why bother. And looking at TF109's design, their weight balance seems to be closer to the rear than others', so no surprise they could be at disadvantage with KERS.

[speeddurango]

I don't exactly know why FIA want to implement KERS technology, at first I thought one of the reason was to improve overtaking, but before the truth be told though, I can't really say who's right or wrong.

[ioan]

I don't think the biggest issue is actually whether teams have direct problems with KERS or not. Most of the teams have tested it and seemingly without big problems. The main issue, as I see it, is whether that functioning system would offer any advantage in laptimes. Considering how different all the new cars look and teams are still finding the right development path, then no surprise it's unclear whether KERS would be an advantage or not and in some of those designs that system may not give any benefit at all. For me it was quite interesting to note that Toyota tested KERS on the first test day at Portimao and again seemingly without notable problems, but after that they mentioned it's unlikely they will race with the system during 2009. It sounds like they are so sure this system won't give any advantage at all for them, so why bother. And looking at TF109's design, their weight balance seems to be closer to the rear than others', so no surprise they could be at disadvantage with KERS.

We get back to what I said in the beginning of this thread. KERS is not compulsory, and teams are free to use it or not.
Given that all of them seem to have managed to get it work without major troubles, even Ferrari whom everyone was already accusing that they don't want KERS because they can't build one!
It's up to them now to see if they can gain an advantage with it over a car without KERS, and it's up to the do decide if it will be worth using.

IMO KERS is not a mistake, it's a form of technology that will be developed by highly qualified engineers in a performance related direction.

[SGWilko]

IMO KERS is not a mistake, it's a form of technology that will be developed by highly qualified engineers in a performance related direction.

If it is going to properly correlate to road car use, it needs to be developed for endurance, not short bouts of performance. That is why it is such a collossal muck up - IMVHO

It should therefore, have been introduced alongside strict limitations on fuel use, so that the KERS could be used to aid fuel economy. You could lose refuelling also.

That way the batteries would be designed to last longer and give better range, which is the big stumbling block at the moment with electric cars.....

[ioan]

If it is going to properly correlate to road car use, it needs to be developed for endurance, not short bouts of performance. That is why it is such a collossal muck up - IMVHO

It should therefore, have been introduced alongside strict limitations on fuel use, so that the KERS could be used to aid fuel economy. You could lose refuelling also.

That way the batteries would be designed to last longer and give better range, which is the big stumbling block at the moment with electric cars.....

And how do you think that they could have put in such an extensive rule change on engines from one season to another?!

A step at a time is enough. I'm sure this path can be folowed and in a few years we would get to something similar to what you are describing

The teams wouldn't have accepted this change to happen at once, no way.

[SGWilko]

And how do you think that they could have put in such an extensive rule change on engines from one season to another?!

A step at a time is enough. I'm sure this path can be folowed and in a few years we would get to something similar to what you are describing

The teams wouldn't have accepted this change to happen at once, no way.

Everyone will be in the same boat. Keep engines as is, drivers just have to learn to drive economically.

Be pouring a lot less money down the drain in the long run if you cut out all the pussy footing around......

[ioan]

Everyone will be in the same boat. Keep engines as is, drivers just have to learn to drive economically.

A 60 mph speed limit should do, eh?!

We are talking about making use of alternative technologies in racing, not during the summer trip.

[SGWilko]

A 60 mph speed limit should do, eh?!

We are talking about making use of alternative technologies in racing, not during the summer trip.

If the manufacturers and the promotors and the circuits and the governing bodies want to keep the series;

relevant, sustainable and low cost,

then you need to look at what the road car divisions are trying to achieve.

Internal combustion engines that are as economical as possible, hybrid integaration and electric vehicle that are not pathetic at range and take forever to recharge.

[airshifter]

Who better to develop such a system than the host of well talented F1 engineers currently working for the teams?

It may well result in nothing more than "push to pass" in early development, but if teams see the ability they will use it further to up fuel efficiency and reduce stops. In actual racing form the green issue is almost pointless, but if technology derived from KERS developments makes it to the mainstream public, the potential green effect is massive.

I'm sure the effort put into developing the new compact CFL light bulbs was hardly worth it for a single home, or even a neighborhood. But worldwide the R&D cost is quickly recovered and turned into profits for those that developed it.

F1 teams stand to gain in the same way, and in this day and age a green affiliation coming from F1 certainly won't hurt in recruiting sponsors, helping support the sport.

[wmcot]

Those who didn't want to develop their own KERS have the option to buy one like Force India are doing it, they get the engine, the transmission and KERS for some 10 millions a year!


Which brings up an interesting point - teams are mandated to sell "engines" at a fair price to another team, but could KERS be considered separately from the "engine"? Could a manufacturer say, "Sure we'll sell you the engine for 10 million, but if you want the KERS addition to it, it will cost another 10 million."

[wmcot]

You and the rest of us produce enough methane to keep ourselves in power forever .

And with a slight tweak of the diet, you could become a huge methane exporter!

[CNR]

had he spoke up before this would not be such a mess

Bernie: KERS isn't the best idea for F1 (http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4850519,00.html)



Bernie Ecclestone believes the decision to use Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) this season goes against F1's goal of reducing costs.

In recent weeks many teams have criticised the plan to impliment KERS, with most stating that they won't even be using it at the start of the season despite having to foot the bills to develop it.

However, the most vocal has been Renault team boss Flavio Briatore, who slated it as "a terrible mistake."

He added: "In the end Renault, Mercedes-Benz and Ferrari supply engines to other teams, and we are not making any money - it is costing us but we are doing it for the good of F1."

This is a sentiment echoed by F1 supremo Ecclestone, who reckons KERS defeats the objective of trying to reduce the cost of competing in F1.

"I have always been against KERS," he told the Daily Telegraph. "Whatever they use in F1 they won't use in a road car, but if that is to be the idea then why not develop it in touring cars.

[ArrowsFA1]

had he spoke up before this would not be such a mess
It's not the first time Bernie has spoken out against KERS, but he doesn't make the rules.

[ioan]

It's not the first time Bernie has spoken out against KERS, but he doesn't make the rules.

Yep, he's only making noise, lots of noise.

[snow_zone]

KERS is an expensive project for the manufacturers but the idea is to introduce a new area of technical innovation that could be useful to the car industry. Those teams complaining about it seem to be the ones struggling to get the system working to me. At a time when F1 is stagnant in terms of technical ideas, I’m surprised so many forum readers are against the concept.

[jso1985]

as no teams is being forced to use it, I don't see the fuss around it.
Even Ferrari who was struggling badly with it is starting to get it right.
Sure it doesn't cut costs, but it certainly adds a tech challenge for the teams, and we don't have many of those in the "standard" era Mosley is introducing to us!

[Valve Bounce]

as no teams is being forced to use it, I don't see the fuss around it.
Even Ferrari who was struggling badly with it is starting to get it right.
Sure it doesn't cut costs, but it certainly adds a tech challenge for the teams, and we don't have many of those in the "standard" era Mosley is introducing to us!

The same argument can be used to justify an increase to 2.7 litre engines if the FIA stipulates that no team will be forced to use it and they can use the old 2.5 litre engines. :rolleyes:

[Valve Bounce]

KERS is an expensive project for the manufacturers but the idea is to introduce a new area of technical innovation that could be useful to the car industry. Those teams complaining about it seem to be the ones struggling to get the system working to me. At a time when F1 is stagnant in terms of technical ideas, I’m surprised so many forum readers are against the concept.

It has already been discussed that any KERS developed for F! will bear no resemblance to any KERS system that could be used for the family car. I would be all for such an innovation in a family car if it can be proven to be cost effective. As for F1, hell!! the teams are already bleeding $$$$$ from the seams, all except Honda that is, who have already been bled dry.

[SGWilko]

I see the ideal 'green' road vehicle as follows;

Hydrogen powered electric motor, as the Honda wotsit does, but also, a flywheel type jobby, as in the WIlliams F1 car, that can be used to facilitate rapid acceleration from standstill, and thus increase further the cars range.

Why use batteries at all? (apart from running the core systems, but not motive power), as these are not green.

[gloomyDAY]

Add this chap (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73492) to the list of naysayers.


I am against (KERS) because it's not safe and they are spending a lot of money.

:D

[Malbec]

That way the batteries would be designed to last longer and give better range, which is the big stumbling block at the moment with electric cars.....

People talk about KERS and developing battery technology but again thats another myth.

The mobile phone and laptop industries have done far more to push Li-ion battery technology over the past few decades, its no coincidence that the new Tesla sports car based on the Elise gets its power from Li-ion batteries and was funded by Silicon Valley refugees who knew exactly how quickly laptop battery technology was developing.

While KERS I'm sure will push battery tech further it won't be the main force, that will continue to come from the mobile phone and laptop makers.

The rest of the systems that are being developed don't look as if they push the game forward much I'm afraid, not when looking at the bigger picture.

All-electric cars aren't the future, they merely displace pollution out from towns to power stations, hybrid cars merely reduce petrol consumption, the only long term alternative that looks viable is fuel cell.

[gloomyDAY]

People talk about KERS and developing battery technology but again thats another myth.

The mobile phone and laptop industries have done far more to push Li-ion battery technology over the past few decades, its no coincidence that the new Tesla sports car based on the Elise gets its power from Li-ion batteries and was funded by Silicon Valley refugees who knew exactly how quickly laptop battery technology was developing.

While KERS I'm sure will push battery tech further it won't be the main force, that will continue to come from the mobile phone and laptop makers.

The rest of the systems that are being developed don't look as if they push the game forward much I'm afraid, not when looking at the bigger picture.

All-electric cars aren't the future, they merely displace pollution out from towns to power stations, hybrid cars merely reduce petrol consumption, the only long term alternative that looks viable is fuel cell.Hybrid cars also cause pollution. Look into the method of how an electric/petrol engine is produced and the picture doesn't exactly scream "green". Toyota is making a killing here in America with their weird UFO (Prius). A lot of people around here think that a hybrid is the panacea to all of Southern California's traffic and pollution problems.