[BudVlad]

Ferrari boss Domenicali said crucial funds amounting to ‘millions of Euros’ was thrown out the window on expensive KERS technology that he now believes was a ‘flop’ for the sport.
Stefano Domenicali has blamed development money wasted on KERS as the reason for Ferrari’s competitive struggle in 2009.
At Silverstone, Ferrari's cars were the only ones featuring the energy re-use technology, after McLaren, BMW and Renault recently dropped its KERS program.
Asked if KERS was a failure for F1, Domenicali answered: "That is something easily said, but it is true.”

[E90SLAM]

and FIA is intend to make KERS mandatory in 2010 and also impost a budget cap?
there's millions wasted already...geez....

given if the teams are not leaving F1...

[josephr25]

It was F1's gay idea to introduce "green" into the sport, and now it's being dropped.

Like the switch to a 2.4L V8 when an air restrictor can do the same thing for millions less.

[x838nwy]

Personally, I think Max Mosley on the whole has good intentions and good concepts. I just feel he lacks the technical knowledge/technical team to put his concepts into practice. Putting "green" tech into F1 is not such a terrible idea, but in the case of KERS, the technology is not ready for F1 and F1 isn't ready for it either.

It is inevitable that we will all be using one form of KERS or another in our cars soon. And perhaps motorsport does have some responsibility in being relevant to what we drive to work. But in our cars, we don't really mind the odd 20kg if it means we'll save a bit of cash at the pumps. And honestly, where you put that 20kg in a 1,700kg car is pretty immaterial (unless you put it on the roof or somthing silly). So, in a sense, a number of these "green" technologies are better developed in road cars rather than on the race track. In ~700kg F1 cars where 1 second covers like the first 8 places, things are less forgiving. Depending on the track and a whole bunch of other factors, getting the right weight distribution may get you more speed than having KERS - or at least KERS at its current level of development.

Another idiotic thing is the fact that they introduced slicks and a bunch of other changes to tyres and aero regs. at the same time as KERS. With these changes, teams must find a new optimum weight distribution for their cars to work properly so the importance of having weights at the right place(s) is amplified.

To get the technology in being almost usable (i.e. the advantages outweighs the disadvantages of having KERS) takes a great deal of money and to have F1 in a state where any radical technology can be effectively applied will take stability in the regulations. 2008/2009 had the money but not stability, 2009/2010 will, by the looks of things, have neither. So imo, things are not looking too good for trying to make F1 any "greener".

Mr.Mosley appears to be trying to make F1 more "relevant" and introduce more overtaking and I'm okay with all of that. What he needs is someone with a similar insight to F1 cars as Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey on board his team to get proper, workable and sustainable regulation in F1 while at the same time achieve those goals rather than just throwing out frankly crazy ideas.

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by x838nwy

Personally, I think Max Mosley on the whole has good intentions and good concepts. I just feel he lacks the technical knowledge/technical team to put his concepts into practice. Putting "green" tech into F1 is not such a terrible idea, but in the case of KERS, the technology is not ready for F1 and F1 isn't ready for it either.

It is inevitable that we will all be using one form of KERS or another in our cars soon. And perhaps motorsport does have some responsibility in being relevant to what we drive to work. But in our cars, we don't really mind the odd 20kg if it means we'll save a bit of cash at the pumps. And honestly, where you put that 20kg in a 1,700kg car is pretty immaterial (unless you put it on the roof or somthing silly). So, in a sense, a number of these "green" technologies are better developed in road cars rather than on the race track. In ~700kg F1 cars where 1 second covers like the first 8 places, things are less forgiving. Depending on the track and a whole bunch of other factors, getting the right weight distribution may get you more speed than having KERS - or at least KERS at its current level of development.

Another idiotic thing is the fact that they introduced slicks and a bunch of other changes to tyres and aero regs. at the same time as KERS. With these changes, teams must find a new optimum weight distribution for their cars to work properly so the importance of having weights at the right place(s) is amplified.

To get the technology in being almost usable (i.e. the advantages outweighs the disadvantages of having KERS) takes a great deal of money and to have F1 in a state where any radical technology can be effectively applied will take stability in the regulations. 2008/2009 had the money but not stability, 2009/2010 will, by the looks of things, have neither. So imo, things are not looking too good for trying to make F1 any "greener".

Mr.Mosley appears to be trying to make F1 more "relevant" and introduce more overtaking and I'm okay with all of that. What he needs is someone with a similar insight to F1 cars as Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey on board his team to get proper, workable and sustainable regulation in F1 while at the same time achieve those goals rather than just throwing out frankly crazy ideas.

Well said! I agree that KERS is a bit ahead of the times for F1. At its current state, the scale is unbalanced between how much is spent on the technology and how much can be gained.

In regards to your comment about Mr. Mosley trying to make F1 more relevant...his intentions and efforts are truly misguided I guess, because all he has done is destroy the sport.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by x838nwy

Personally, I think Max Mosley on the whole has good intentions and good concepts. I just feel he lacks the technical knowledge/technical team to put his concepts into practice. Putting "green" tech into F1 is not such a terrible idea, but in the case of KERS, the technology is not ready for F1 and F1 isn't ready for it either.

It is inevitable that we will all be using one form of KERS or another in our cars soon. And perhaps motorsport does have some responsibility in being relevant to what we drive to work. But in our cars, we don't really mind the odd 20kg if it means we'll save a bit of cash at the pumps. And honestly, where you put that 20kg in a 1,700kg car is pretty immaterial (unless you put it on the roof or somthing silly). So, in a sense, a number of these "green" technologies are better developed in road cars rather than on the race track. In ~700kg F1 cars where 1 second covers like the first 8 places, things are less forgiving. Depending on the track and a whole bunch of other factors, getting the right weight distribution may get you more speed than having KERS - or at least KERS at its current level of development.

Another idiotic thing is the fact that they introduced slicks and a bunch of other changes to tyres and aero regs. at the same time as KERS. With these changes, teams must find a new optimum weight distribution for their cars to work properly so the importance of having weights at the right place(s) is amplified.

To get the technology in being almost usable (i.e. the advantages outweighs the disadvantages of having KERS) takes a great deal of money and to have F1 in a state where any radical technology can be effectively applied will take stability in the regulations. 2008/2009 had the money but not stability, 2009/2010 will, by the looks of things, have neither. So imo, things are not looking too good for trying to make F1 any "greener".

Mr.Mosley appears to be trying to make F1 more "relevant" and introduce more overtaking and I'm okay with all of that. What he needs is someone with a similar insight to F1 cars as Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey on board his team to get proper, workable and sustainable regulation in F1 while at the same time achieve those goals rather than just throwing out frankly crazy ideas.

I can't put any better....even tho I don't like Max Mosley...but he's the person who put Formula 1 into a safer race....especially after Senna's tragedy....he enforced regulations of cockpit safety and HANS...etc....

However, he has good intentions of all the things he proposed for 2010, however, its a piss poor execution that give everything mandatory immediately....for teams who's spending billions euros and being forced to cut down to 40 million a year is unrealistic....and sadly he refuse to work with FOTA with their "gradual budget cut"....so every team spend a bit less each year and achieve 40 million budget in 4 years or so....

and now his stepping down is to make sure Formula 1 doesn't fall apart and history book marks him as the person who destroyed Formula 1....

[synclastica_86]

Originally Posted by Big Windy

Well said! I agree that KERS is a bit ahead of the times for F1. At its current state, the scale is unbalanced between how much is spent on the technology and how much can be gained.

Wait, is the problem with KERS the technology or the regulations? The KERS give 6 seconds of boost a lap, is this their mechanical limit or is this a time imposed by the rule book? What I understand is that F1 cars use quite a bit of ballast to make up the required weight. Don't you get to remove the 20kg of ballast to offset the weight of KERS? No matter how little advantage KERS give, having something for nothing is always something you should go for. That said, there must be something wrong with my logic since most teams dropped KERS (they are, after all, engineers), but I just can't figure out what.

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by synclastica_86

Wait, is the problem with KERS the technology or the regulations? The KERS give 6 seconds of boost a lap, is this their mechanical limit or is this a time imposed by the rule book? What I understand is that F1 cars use quite a bit of ballast to make up the required weight. Don't you get to remove the 20kg of ballast to offset the weight of KERS? No matter how little advantage KERS give, having something for nothing is always something you should go for. That said, there must be something wrong with my logic since most teams dropped KERS (they are, after all, engineers), but I just can't figure out what.

You're quite correct. From the point of view of the _total_ weight of the car, it makes no difference. Instead of using, for example, 60kg ballast, a KERS equipped car would just use 40kg or however much their KERS weigh.

The difference lies in _where_ that 60kg (or 40kg) of ballast goes in the car. One very important aspect of F1 car set up and performance is the over/understeer characteristics of the car for a given tyre regulations, track, compound, etc. Because of the changes in aero regulations as well as those that govern the tyres, getting the right weight distribution appears to be a bit of a learning experience so far this season. (I think it's mainly people trying to get more weight towards the front end. Perhaps more than they had anticipated.)

One of the things you see teams do a lot is move the ballast around the car to get distribution they want and so having a lighter car (i.e. without KERS) allows you to carry more ballast and the more ballast you have the greater your ability to move the weight distribution around the car.

It just so happens that the ability to put that 20kg somewhere else rather than where the KERS sits is more beneficial than what you get from the boost it provides.

I'm quite certain that had they chosen to introduce KERS in 2010 or 2011 having kept tyres and aero unchanged since 2009, we'd be looking at a very different picture.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by synclastica_86

Wait, is the problem with KERS the technology or the regulations? The KERS give 6 seconds of boost a lap, is this their mechanical limit or is this a time imposed by the rule book? What I understand is that F1 cars use quite a bit of ballast to make up the required weight. Don't you get to remove the 20kg of ballast to offset the weight of KERS? No matter how little advantage KERS give, having something for nothing is always something you should go for. That said, there must be something wrong with my logic since most teams dropped KERS (they are, after all, engineers), but I just can't figure out what.

the secone per-lap was imposed by the regulation...KERS can be charged up with one or two corners of normal braking....that will generate enough energy to store....but sensors only allows them to use in total of 6 seconds per lap only....

if you watch onboard shots....KERS can be slowly deployed throughout the lap on drivers disgretion....but throughout the course...its constantly recharged with all the braking....and became available again once the car passed the start-finish line...

Originally Posted by x838nwy

You're quite correct. From the point of view of the _total_ weight of the car, it makes no difference. Instead of using, for example, 60kg ballast, a KERS equipped car would just use 40kg or however much their KERS weigh.

The difference lies in _where_ that 60kg (or 40kg) of ballast goes in the car. One very important aspect of F1 car set up and performance is the over/understeer characteristics of the car for a given tyre regulations, track, compound, etc. Because of the changes in aero regulations as well as those that govern the tyres, getting the right weight distribution appears to be a bit of a learning experience so far this season. (I think it's mainly people trying to get more weight towards the front end. Perhaps more than they had anticipated.)

One of the things you see teams do a lot is move the ballast around the car to get distribution they want and so having a lighter car (i.e. without KERS) allows you to carry more ballast and the more ballast you have the greater your ability to move the weight distribution around the car.

It just so happens that the ability to put that 20kg somewhere else rather than where the KERS sits is more beneficial than what you get from the boost it provides.

I'm quite certain that had they chosen to introduce KERS in 2010 or 2011 having kept tyres and aero unchanged since 2009, we'd be looking at a very different picture.

Now the engineers are having problem to fine-tune and move the ballast around to make the car handles right to the drivers....most engineers can't justify the little boost but have to carry all the weight throughout the track and compromise the handling on the bends...
(with KERS at a fixed location....engineers has 40kg or so less ballast available for them to move around and finetune the weight distribution...thus eventually compromise the handling of the car....this even amplified with the changed with the new aerodynamic regulations....as you see many cars are very tweaky and tail happy and even snaps out....)

teams just can't see KERS as a real benefit in race track at the moment....there are also reliability issues for some teams like Ferrari....
if the KERS fails....i forgot whom...but there was a few times for Ferrari or something....then KERS is not providing any power and the car is just carry 40kg of dead weight at a not desirable location on the car....handling compromised and no extra boost.....so....since its an option...might as well dump it for now and have a bit more reliable car.....