Comments on: F1 should not be too hasty to drop KERS

By: Edmond Sessum

Edmond Sessum — Sat, 22 May 2010 06:20:02 +0000

sorry, I I do not get it

By: Ali

Ali — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:44:15 +0000

http://ferrarif1world.com/domain_ferrarif1world/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248085631&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

Ferari put this article on your web site

By: Del Boy

Del Boy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:01:59 +0000

Good article. But I think your missing a vital fact. The 2013 rules allow for 1600kj to be recovered and utilised through BOTH AXLES. Therefore, not only do you get an 300 bhp, you get to put down through all four wheels. By making a (KERS)four wheel drive car KERS would be deployed during corners and not only down the straights. Of course the harvesting of energy would change as you would need electric motors on the front wheels to drive them and these motors would become generators during braking. If the teams had been allowed to develop KERS from the start to 2013 rules, the KERS motors/generator would be outboard on the wheels and become un-sprung weight.
KERS is being blamed for upsetting the weight balance of the car when in reality the size of the front tyres is responsible for that, they are too big in relation to the rear tyres and that means you need to move weight forward. As KERS is only allowed to work on the rear wheels the 35kg behind the engine is hindering what is already a problem.
The KERS development road map was stepped to stop some teams throwing money at it and running away with the world championships. Good old Max.

By: Patrickl

Patrickl — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:51:20 +0000

I like KERS. I think it’s sad that it got binned so quickly.

BTW KERS was meant as a cheaper way for manufacturers to compete on the performance aspect of the car. Since engine was frozen, KERS allowed them to show their skill on a another area.

I thought that made sense. Instead of spending 200 million to make an engine go a few tenths faster, why not spend 10 to 20 million on a KERS that does the same?

I also like the strategic element of it. A driver has a little extra power available and in a “dogfight” he hs to manage this cleverly.

One of the few KERS vs KERS battles that I saw was Hamilton on Alonso. Alonso had already used up his KERS to defend his position while Hamilton had kept his battery up. Hamilton managed a pass and made it stick. I thought it was rather exciting and it adds a new element of skill.

Even with a standard KERS that would work.

I also like the idea of a fixed amount of fuel and allowing teams to use KERS to save fuel. See how fast they can run the race on that fixed amount of fuel. That would probably put a bit of damper on the aero nonsense too.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:52:37 +0000

If we have a standardized KERS what does it bring to racing apart from more cost. KERS doesn’t bring any significant fuel economy to the cars, so its application in F1 doesn’t make it green technology.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:36:53 +0000

A fast track with no good braking zone is useless for KERS. Thats the reason Mclaren dropped it when they went to Silverstone. Although a track Like Monza might work for KERS as it has a few braking zones although not all are heavy braking zones.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:32:31 +0000

What I think should be done is make KERS required but provide the teams with a standardized version (if they can’t develop one) and make it much more powerful. The problem with KERS now is only two teams use it and it isn’t being used to its full potential.

By: KersNotMe

KersNotMe — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:52:42 +0000

Drop this kers system YES – do it now! About other systems were the car can benefit more from the gained energy, go for it. Now now, this is a stupid and VERY expensive rule

By: 1994fanatic

1994fanatic — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:20:45 +0000

Yep, tesla could use the earth to transmit power thru his “tesla coil” the original was in colorado or new york he had a bunch of great ideas but a sad story of others taking advantage and the us government saying no because who elects oil billionairs as presidents? ie the bush toolbags and a vpres that can’t hunt without shooting others what, a fun country

By: Jonesracing82

Jonesracing82 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:14:08 +0000

i reckon once we hit the faster tracks, Monza, Spa et al, those cars may well have an advantage!