KERS & new front wings - good or bad for the show?

[wedge]

I'd say it was good. Nico put a good show for the advocates of KERS.

They seemed to follow each other more comfortable at the high speed chicane.

[tinchote]

Personally, I didn't notice much of a difference. But then, I was not complaining about lack of passing in the past.

Maybe a little later in the season, with more parity, it'll be more noticeable.

In any case, limited rpm suck :down:

[BTCC Fan#1]

Certainly Hamilton showed the advantages of using KERS tactically throughout the lap, and picking a paticular overtaking spot rather than just using it up down the straights like some of the others seemed to be doing.

It certainly seemed to be the case that the cars were easier to follow and overtake which is great to see.

[pettersolberg29]

I think KERS worked great - more overtaking and aslo easier to defend your position i.e. Massa v. Buemi and damaged Heidfeld v. Sutil

[OutRun]

KERS seems to work. The smaller rear wings and the wide front wings allowed some close racing. I didn't hear any complaints about dirty air and lack of grip from any of the drivers.

[dj_bytedisaster]

one very interesting bit of info was to be found in the German broadcast today (rare enough that is). They interviewed Timo Glock who, by default due to the stupid wing penalty, spent a lot of time behind other cars, For the majority of the race he was stuck behind Alonso and went on to say, no other car throws remotely as much "dirty air" as the Renault and to add to that Alsono used KERS to prevent overtaking, by boostin' it, everytime Glock tried to make a move.

That leaves two questions :

a) Isn't KERS as much a "overtaking prevention device" as being a help in such ?

b) Has Renault fiddled with the aerodynamics to deliberately make it harder to drive behind one of their cars to prevent overtaking ?

[Somebody]

one very interesting bit of info was to be found in the German broadcast today (rare enough that is). They interviewed Timo Glock who, by default due to the stupid wing penalty, spent a lot of time behind other cars, For the majority of the race he was stuck behind Alonso and went on to say, no other car throws remotely as much "dirty air" as the Renault and to add to that Alsono used KERS to prevent overtaking, by boostin' it, everytime Glock tried to make a move.
He also said that Hamilton was doing something similar during the race on the "team radio" (although I think that Lee McKenzie was talking to Nakajima (sp?) over that during the BBC commentary. I certainly only heard it when I listened to the commentary-free feed in the replay).


That leaves two questions :

a) Isn't KERS as much a "overtaking prevention device" as being a help in such ?
Yes - although (for this case), the Toyota doesn't have KERS, once everyone has it, it'll be absolutely neutral on these matters.

[Having it will become something similar to... well, at the Indy GPs, the theoretical lap time was actually slightly faster with a higher downforce setting, because of the twisty infield. Everyone used a low-downforce setting, however, because they would have been eaten on the straight by someone they were racing who used a low-d/f setting. Similar thing here - the compromises of weight and packaging will penalise the KERSed cars overall, but in a racing situation it may well turn out to be better to have it if you'll get overtaken by/stuck behind an otherwise equal or slower car without it, except at Monaco-like tracks.]


b) Has Renault fiddled with the aerodynamics to deliberately make it harder to drive behind one of their cars to prevent overtaking ?
That's been standard operating procedure in F1 for decades - how'd'y'think "dirty air" became such a problem to start with!?

[cynisca]

I think it's a great idea. Like in the IndyCar Series where the drivers push the Boost button.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The KERS option reminded me of Champ Car's push to pass option on their Cosworth's. It was neutral. Both guys would use it, one trying to pass, one trying to defend and it would be a wash.

The dirty air will be back..give the boffins time.

I think like most FIA ideas to make racing better, it wont really work that well...but f1 soldiers on anyhow...

[veeten]

I think it's a great idea. Like in the IndyCar Series where the drivers push the Boost button.

and, therein, lies the problem...

It becomes more between gimick and crutch... the 'powers-that-be' saw KERS as an easy way to answer the 'ecological revelency' phrases that were bandied about by the racing press and the non-motorsport crowd without having actual new technologies make their way into F1, causing more headaches for the ruling bodies.

As the season continues, you will start to see drivers using KERS in the same way as drivers in Champ Car used 'push to pass' in overtaking and defensive manoeuvers. Less driver skill, more dependence upon a 'little blue button'.

Wonderful. :dozey:

[BDunnell]

I would be very interested to see data proving the environmental benefits — or not — that KERS confers. Its relevancy as a piece of technological development should be the important thing, rather than how much it improves the racing. But I do agree that, in Hamilton's hands in particular, it added to the spectacle.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The cars did seem to be able to follow much closer than in previous seasons and the cars running KERS could overtake much easier.

But I think the variation in the two tyre types made the most difference. Some might say it's artificial but i think it really added to the show :up:

[dj_bytedisaster]

The cars did seem to be able to follow much closer than in previous seasons and the cars running KERS could overtake much easier.

But I think the variation in the two tyre types made the most difference. Some might say it's artificial but i think it really added to the show :up:

if only Bridgestone had brought a tire that worked. The soft compound was a liability, it wrecked Rosbergs race, contributed to the Vettel/Kubica shunt and forced both Ferraris to go in early. If anybody needs to be penalized, it's Bridgestone - that tire was utterly useless, that's what you get if you have a tire manufacturer without competition - they just don't give a motherf***ing s**t

[Brown, Jon Brow]

if only Bridgestone had brought a tire that worked. The soft compound was a liability, it wrecked Rosbergs race, contributed to the Vettel/Kubica shunt and forced both Ferraris to go in early. If anybody needs to be penalized, it's Bridgestone - that tire was utterly useless, that's what you get if you have a tire manufacturer without competition - they just don't give a motherf***ing s**t

It's the same for all the drivers though. Brawn, Hamilton, Kubica and Trulli got them to work. The tyres gave us entertainment. Kubica chasing down Vettel and Button was/could have been one of the most exciting endings to a race in recent times. It is the tyres that made that happen.

[dj_bytedisaster]

It's the same for all the drivers though. Brawn, Hamilton, Kubica and Trulli got them to work. The tyres gave us entertainment. Kubica chasing down Vettel and Button was/could have been one of the most exciting endings to a race in recent times. It is the tyres that made that happen.

would you really have liked Button to be robbed off a deserved victory in the last lap because of some wrecked tires? Don't forget that Button and vettel were running almost identical times throughout the whole bloody race, so Kubica could have passed him - that soft tire was useless and Bridgestone were clearly brining a useless tire. Where I come from a (knowingly) faulty product passed on to paying customers is called fraud, and a tire that packs up after less than 1o laps, that's fraud in my book. :mad:
Don't forget that the Vettel/Kubica-induced safety car period actually saved Bunsen, his lap times were plummeting at the same rate as Vettel's

[Brown, Jon Brow]

would you really have liked Button to be robbed off a deserved victory in the last lap because of some wrecked tires? Don't forget that Button and vettel were running almost identical times throughout the whole bloody race, so Kubica could have passed him - that soft tire was useless and Bridgestone were clearly brining a useless tire. Where I come from a (knowingly) faulty product passed on to paying customers is called fraud, and a tire that packs up after less than 1o laps, that's fraud in my book. :mad:
Don't forget that the Vettel/Kubica-induced safety car period actually saved Bunsen, his lap times were plummeting at the same rate as Vettel's

But Kubica had to use the soft tyres too! His strategy was just better. If he beat Button because of it then so be it.

[Somebody]

if only Bridgestone had brought a tire that worked. The soft compound was a liability, it wrecked Rosbergs race, contributed to the Vettel/Kubica shunt and forced both Ferraris to go in early. If anybody needs to be penalized, it's Bridgestone - that tire was utterly useless, that's what you get if you have a tire manufacturer without competition - they just don't give a motherf***ing s**t

Actually, it was the FIA that insisted there be a bigger difference between the prime and option tyres. In previous years, Bridgestone brought the medium & soft - this year, they brought the medium and super-soft [there are four compounts - hard, medium, soft & super-soft. In previous years, Bridgestone brought adjacent compounts - i.e., hard/medium, medium/soft or soft/super-soft. This year, they're bringing non-adjacent compounds - i.e, hard/soft, or medium/super-soft.]

[veeten]

The thing in the question of slicks, regardless of compound, being used in 'actual' racing is this: when was the last time such tires were used in F1?

and during that time, chassis, engines, even aerodynamics have changed, making it incredibly hard to come with a tire that would've satisfied every driver's/team's needs.

This goes on in every motor racing series all the time, it just takes a while before both the tire manufacturer and the teams get enough information to build compounds that will work as needed. It, like all things, takes time and are worth the wait.

[Sonic]

I can't comment on the KERS as I don't think I've seen enough to judge but the aero rules seem to have made both following through the turns slightly easier but more to the point even from a ways back a good tow was noticable.

[Somebody]

The thing in the question of slicks, regardless of compound, being used in 'actual' racing is this: when was the last time such tires were used in F1?

and during that time, chassis, engines, even aerodynamics have changed, making it incredibly hard to come with a tire that would've satisfied every driver's/team's needs.

This goes on in every motor racing series all the time, it just takes a while before both the tire manufacturer and the teams get enough information to build compounds that will work as needed. It, like all things, takes time and are worth the wait.
Thing is, the medium compound apparently behaved just as you would expect the "Prime" (harder) compound to behave - it took a while to warm up, but behaved consistently over a stint. Whereas the super-soft compound was far too soft for an "Option" (softer) compound, and went off within 3-5 laps - being far, FAR slower than the Prime over even ten laps.

That's not a product of Bridgestone's scientists & engineers getting the actual compounds wrong. It's a product of the political decision to widen the gap between the Prime and Option compounds, and hence them taking the wrong selection of compounds.

If they persist in taking non-contiguous compounds as far as Monaco, it'll be interesting to watch everyone sliding into the barriers on the mediums... [the "super-soft" option was originally created for Monaco, since they expected the mediums to stay "cold" the whole way through a stint, as I recall...]

b) Has Renault fiddled with the aerodynamics to deliberately make it harder to drive behind one of their cars to prevent overtaking ?

They, and all the other teams, would be daft not to have worked that in. It's been the case for quite a while now.

However, the cars with the protested diffuser would be the ones I would expect to produce the most "dirty air".

Mind you, Glock's not going to admit to that, considering he's driving one.

Add to that, it's one of the oldest and lamest excuses for not overtaking somebody.

[ioan]

The thing in the question of slicks, regardless of compound, being used in 'actual' racing is this: when was the last time such tires were used in F1?

and during that time, chassis, engines, even aerodynamics have changed, making it incredibly hard to come with a tire that would've satisfied every driver's/team's needs.

This goes on in every motor racing series all the time, it just takes a while before both the tire manufacturer and the teams get enough information to build compounds that will work as needed. It, like all things, takes time and are worth the wait.

Between them the 10 teams covered around 80000 kms in testing. More than enough IMO.

The tires are as they are because the FIA asked Bridgestone to bring to every race 2 tires that give a lap time difference of about 1 second.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tam...lame but the truth often too.

I think this KERS thing is a gimmick as a sop to the enviromentally sensitive types in Europe who are the main consumers of F1. The whole enviromental movement is now mainstream and every industry, even the most enviromentally unfriendly ones like racing are looking for ways to be relevent to this enviromental sensitivity. The fact that KERS seems to work and is somewhat useful has impressed me actually even if I think it is more or less a gimmick...

[SteveA]

I thought the huge front wings made the cars look like lawn mowers.

[nigelred5]

More like bulldozers!

Personally, I think the configuration of the front wings is verging on dangerous. They are too wide, and too low for the drivers to see them. Give them the same area, but they need to narrow them substantially. I understand they want more front downforce,especially for a following car, but there's got to be a better looking way to achieve the same result. As we've already seen, despite the changes, the cars really aren't any slower.

[jso1985]

as long as the tyres keep artificially giving difficulties for the drivers, the FIA is flushing down anyhting good that came with KERS and those wings

[wedge]

I can see why people regard it as a gimmick because KERS wasn't a natural evolution of racing technology as with turbo and controlling boost pressure and TC and engine maps.

Champcar put on a really good show and in time they won me over.

Is KERS any different to adjusting boost pressure, fuel/air mixture, engine maps and even down to kids adjusting the choke settings on karts?

Essentially drivers have learnt and understood to maximise what's given to them and decide how and when to go for maximum attack whilst having to think about the bigger picture.

With most things like tyre and engine its how hard do you push without compromising durability, with P2P how do gain more performance whilst compromising boost allocation. It's variable that gives drivers something to think.

[Robinho]

not sure about KERS - it certinaly added to the race, but i wasn't sure about the easliy faster non-Kers cars being stuck behind a KERS car, everytime they get close enough to pass they boost - perfectly fair but a bit frustrating - once they all get KERS it won't work as they'll all be doing the same thing - whilst there is an advantage in lap time for non-KERS but a better "race" car with KERS we'll continue to see a field quicker a different points which does spice up the racing.

Front wings, they look silly, but they seem to do the trick - the cars were definately closer to each other, and for Oz there was a lot of overtaking.

the tyre thing threw an artificial curve ball, but only due to the safety car - i can't see it making that much difference at other circuits, they'll all be doing exaclty the same thing at most places when the strategy is obviously better - personally i thought the KERS/Soft starters would have been better off with the harder tyres, capitalising on there fast starts and overtaking ability whilst the pack was tight and then using the KERS to fend off the other guys when on failing softs

[Mark]

I'm sure there is a reason for the wing sizes, but couldn't the same downforce (or lack thereof) be produced with a wider rear wing and narrower front wing? The front wing especially, looks silly.

[Triumph]

I thought the huge front wings made the cars look like lawn mowers.

That's it! You're right. I couldn't think what they reminded me of and you've hit the nail on the head there. Lawnmowers!

I think they look good actually, but I also quite like lawnmowers. :)

[wedge]

I'm sure there is a reason for the wing sizes, but couldn't the same downforce (or lack thereof) be produced with a wider rear wing and narrower front wing? The front wing especially, looks silly.

The problem when you follow in the wake of the car is understeer produced from dirty air.

In 2005 the aero regs included raising the front wing to cut downforce but there was a school of thought and some complaints from the drivers that it made the understeer worse.

Hence the smaller rear wing and lower and wider front wing and manual override of front wing angle.

[ozrevhead]

Im reserving judgement till the end of the season

But if they are going to keep KERS cant they increase the minimum/maximum weight - was I the only one annoyed like hell when I heard guys like Kubi and Mark cant use it because they are too large/heavy for it

that is so unfair if it creates a huge advatage

[Robinho]

i'd be interested to see how uch the weight thing actually costs them - even with Kers a larger driver/car combo will still meet the minimum weight, but the amount of ballast in the car in useful places is obviously reduced.

if KERS is weighing in a 35kgs as they said in the race commentary, then thas only 5% of the minimum 650kgs anyway. surely if you have a driver who is 20-30kgs heavier than another anyway than why haven't they been hopelessly handicapped in the past few years.

if they raised the minimum limit then the smaller drivers would stil have 20kgs of ballast to play with that Kuica or Webber would have anyway.

at the moment it doesn't matter for Webber as Red Bull don't have KERS on either car

[wedge]

From the BBC podcast, Ant is adamant KERS is a useful bit of kit under race conditions for overtaking.

[Robinho]

.....Ant is adam ant.......

i didn't realise this (ok it was a slightly creative quote, but still, this is huge news! ;) )

[wedge]

ROFLMAO!!!

Never realised it when I typed it first time round

[Mark]

The answer, of course, is a standardised KERS system. Which kind of means all the teams investment is down the drain, but it should have been like that from the start.

And if you don't want to use KERS you have to carry a KERS size ballast where it would otherwise go.

[Robinho]

i think freeing up KERS rather than standardizing - they've spent the oeny getting ot too work already, why limit them to both power and length of use, let them have all the power they can get for a prescirpted time, or vice versa, 82bhp for as longs as they can get it

[Mark]

i think freeing up KERS rather than standardizing - they've spent the oeny getting ot too work already, why limit them to both power and length of use, let them have all the power they can get for a prescirpted time, or vice versa, 82bhp for as longs as they can get it

True, after all it is already limited by the size / weight of the device and it is only charged under braking anyway (plus other things like running in the pit lane and the parade lap and behind the safety car).

But you're right, if they can store up enough energy to be KERS boosted for an entire lap, why not?!

[veeten]

i think freeing up KERS rather than standardizing - they've spent the oeny getting ot too work already, why limit them to both power and length of use, let them have all the power they can get for a prescirpted time, or vice versa, 82bhp for as longs as they can get it

the two byproducts that were experienced in off-season testing of KERS systems were heat and volatility. It was the ability of the system to regulate the amount of converted energy to the battery that was causing these problems. It's like overcharging a rechargable battery: the best-case scenario, the battery leaks... in the worst, it can explode. Remember, it IS sitting just ahead of an engine and a large supply of very combustable fuel.

You figure it out... :eek:

In some cases it resulted in teams having to redesign their sidepods to affect cooling for it, and others to abandon the system altogether.

Brawn and RBR/STR were among those that took the latter aproach.

[stevie_gerrard]

KERS looked good on the BBC coverage, when they were showing when it was used, but i don't particuarly think its needed to be honest. Look at Kubica, he didnt have it in, and he could have very well won the race. I just think its an extra weight disadvantage.

As for the front wings, they are just the most ridiculous things you have ever seen, but something that will cause utter carnage, which is always great fun :p :