Comments on: KERS not powerful enough for F1?

By: jraybay-lewismclarenfan

jraybay-lewismclarenfan — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:38:41 +0000

Mclaren made it work . They had the lightest one in the field. It can be done

By: adam mc phillips

adam mc phillips — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Look i do not agree that KERS is a waste of money look at Mclaren and Ferrari they are very good now but look back during the season Ferrari were awful with KERS
i that they would get rid of KERS for the whole season Mclaren were alful as with KERS and i that they would also get rid of KERS look you need a very good car to do well with KERS.LEWIS HAMLTON HAS GOT A WIN AND A POLE POSTION WITH KERS.KERS IS STARTING TO HANDED. FROM ADAM MC PHILLIPS 12 YEARS OLD FROM IRELAND

By: mark usa

mark usa — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:24:16 +0000

F1 needs to be a technical proving ground, and KERS is a great idea. This could be where the big breakthrough in battery technology comes from that will change the world.

Of course to make F1 green, all they would have to do is give each team a limit of “x” gallons of fuel per race, and see who can go the fastest with only that amount of fuel. all other rules could be eliminated.

What ever happened to the KERS that was to run with no battery, just a flywheel? I would have liked to see that come out.

By: Paul Cook

Paul Cook — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:27:32 +0000

As Mercedes already have working KERS system. I guess as soon as the Mercedes powered McLaren wins a race comfortably Max will impose as restriction on his favorite team.

By: Steven Roy

Steven Roy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:15:17 +0000

KERS weighs 20 -30kg but I am nt sure whether that includes all the control gear and the drive train connection. Some teams are reported to carry 60 kg of ballast so the weight isn’t the problem.

The problem is the ballast is at floor level to optimise the centre of gravity. Given the minor advantage of KERS – 6 seconds of 50 or 60bhp – the increase in the height of the centre of gravity will make the car slower through the corner. So instead of going through a corner at optimum speed and accelerating normally on the straight they would go through the all the corners more slowly then once or twice a lap be able to use the stored power to accelerate slightly better than normal. The penalty of course is that you accelerate slower than normal from every other corner.

By: Martin B

Martin B — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:44:09 +0000

“you have to carry 20 or 30kg extra for that.”

The cars are currently underweight. They have to add ballast to bring the weight up to the minimum. Obviously the ballast is placed in the optimum position to balance the car out. If the KERS weighs less than the ballast, there will just be a balance penalty. If the KERS weighs more than the ballast, there will be an actual weight penalty as well as a balance penalty.

Anyone know how KERS weight compares to ballast weight?

By: DG

DG — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:52:12 +0000

The other point to remember is the cost side of KERS. Although the teams have been allowed to spend as much as they want on the development side (therefore completely wiping out any ‘savings’ made elsewhere in their budget), they will want to get at least some of that back over the following season(s).
But guess what, Customer Cars are banned! Who can buy the technology they have developed? Unless A1 cars or GP2 cars(and even IRL cars) are going to be following the same route, how will the Manufacturers get their money back? Are there any Sponsors who would be willing to pay that sort of money?
Now, also thinking about the fact that the teams don’t have to run with KERS next year if they don’t want to, and the fact that T-Cars aren’t allowed, and the stupid engine/gearbox rules, could a team bring two cars and four engines to a race (2 normal and 2 KERS), so that if the KERS broke during practice they could swap to a normal one?
Would the teams start by using KERS on the long races like Monaco, but use normal engines on the faster circuits like Silverstone?
And also, I wonder if ‘Green’ Max watches Le Mans or Touring Cars? Has he seen the development of diesel engines taking place? These have had a big impact on normal road cars already, mainly as the race engines are developed from normal engines.
Are we ever going to see a diesel F1 engine I wonder – actually a sort of diesel/KERS hybrid has already been developed in a road car by Peugeot/Citroen, but I doubt Max has seen it……

By: Pink Peril

Pink Peril — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:18:43 +0000

I too thought that the whole deal with KERS was that it was compulsory.

If there is negligable gain, plus a 20-30 kg weight increase which will almost certainly negate any benefit (initially anyway) then why would you bother?

And then all of this R&D and spending is done for nothing. Way to go S&Max, greener and cheaper – not.

By: Sush

Sush — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:36:03 +0000

Steven Roy, haha quality comment, “the greenest on the grid is not going the run it who will?”

By: Steven Roy

Steven Roy — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +0000

I have to say I am stunned. I cannot believe after everything I have read that KERS is not compulsory. Unbelievable.

Max is a complete moron when it comes to writing rules. All he had to do was put in a clause that said anyone not running KERS had to carry a dummy unit of a particular weight and everyone would use it. If the team that is supposedly the greenest on the grid is not going to run it who will?

I wonder if some of Bernie’s recent meeting have been about getting the teams to agree not to run it.