Goodbye to… KERS

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

Hamilton has given KERS two of its three wins this year
Hamilton has given KERS two of its three wins this year

Ahead of their introduction this year Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems were hyped as F1’s attempt to promote environmentlly-friendly technology in racing cars.

But it looks likely that the F1 teams will abandon the technology in 2010. For now at least, it’s goodbye to KERS.

Article five of the F1 technical regulations for 2010 makes it clear that KERS will still be legal in 2010.

But the F1 teams’ association proposed that all teams would agree not to use the systems next year to cut costs. In the run-up to this year’s Singapore Grand Prix Williams suggested they would run the devices on their 2010 car, but have since indicated they will fall into line with the other teams in keeping F1 KERS-free in 2010.

KERS has been something of a mixed bag. Although initially derided as unsuccessful, KERS-assisted cars have now won three races (Lewis Hamilton in Hungary and Singapore pus Kimi Raikkonen at Spa) and achieved three pole positions (all Hamailton’s).

It has had both positive and negative consequences for the quaity of racing in F1. It has helped drivers make passes they couldn’t have made before – and helped those same drivers prevent others from overtaking them. But it has added an interesting and often important point of difference between the cars that have it and those that don’t.

Like refuelling, which is also being dropped for 2010, KERS has fallen out of favour because the devices are expensive to develop and use. In which case, this should have been an argument against using them in the first place.

Any hope they might prove useful for car manufacturers wishing to draw attention to their green credentials is rather undermined by the fact that Toyota – builders of the Prius, the poster child car for environmentalists – haven’t bothered to use it on their F1 cars this year. The cmopany described the tightly-restricted F1 KERS as “primitive”.

The concept of storing and re-using energy that would otherwise be wasted is one that car manufacturers are beginning to embrace. Given that, and the fact that KERS remains in the rules, perhaps we shall see its return in the near future.

Do you want the teams to bring it back? And will it go out on a high with a final victory this weekend? Have your say in the comments.


158 comments on “Goodbye to… KERS”

  1. no doubt some one will break ranks next year…and start another bloody controversy, rather than just try and have a health positive season letting age old wounds heal.

  2. I like the idea of Kers. Hopefully it will come back in the near future

    1. I like the principles behind it too. F1 needs at least some innovation, if they’re going to restrict engine development. F1 aero development isn’t really applicable to road cars so KERS was one of the few things that could be transferrable.

      I think a better way of implementing KERS would have been to limit the amount of petrol available at a race weekend, and completely de-restrict the KERS devices. That would have ballooned the costs even further, but it would have been fantastically road-relevant and may have survived for more than one season.

    2. I like the idea of it too. I think it would have been great if the FIA had allowed it years ago when McLaren/Mercedes first proposed it. If that had been the case then it would surely not be so costly and “primitive” today. One thing is for sure though, if KERS comes back, it should be compulsory.

  3. I’m still undecided about KERS cos it kind of seemed like an advantage towards the end of the year once they’d updated the cars, but then if everyone had it I can’t see it being much of an advantage cos they’re not limited to how many times they can use it. So I guess it’s good it’s gone for now, but maybe it’ll come back in a couple of years when they’ve fine tuned it a bit.

    1. why not run KERS constantly to make the cars more fuel-efficient, and carry less fuel next year.

      1. They don’t become more fuel efficient – to my understanding they reuse energy that is normally lost – then applying it as a boost (rather than using the energy as a replacement to “normal power”)

        But if a team was using not as a boost but rather as energy replacement then yes it could reduce fuel load.

        1. They don’t become more fuel efficient – to my understanding they reuse energy that is normally lost

          Saving energy that is normally lost: a definition of ‘better efficiency.’

          Using it as a boost instead of ‘normal’ power is irrelevant. Racing cars try to accelerate as fast as possible, and KERS helps them to do that. F1 cars don’t cruise around like Priuses. (Priusi?)

          1. …don’t cruise around like a Prius. Prius is not of Latin origin and so definitely not a case of Priusi over Priuses.

          2. William Wilgus
            28th October 2009, 16:52

            But the extra weight of the system means more fuel consumption when accelerating and the system is not being used to provide power. So, it’s a win / lose situation rather than a win / win one.

          3. Priusi is the more amusing alternative none the less though..

          4. Actually, Prius is of latin origin. It is a comparative adjective or adverb according to wikipedia which also says:

            “Some enthusiasts enjoy using “Prii” as the plural, which would be correct if “prius” were a regular second declension Latin noun. The actual Latin plural of the adjective is “priora” (Reference [53] is slightly in error here). All of these forms are nominative case and there are several other forms for the other cases. As for the plural of “Prius” in English, Toyota has said that it is simply “Prius” and also that owners are welcome to use whatever they like.”

          5. bernification
            30th October 2009, 3:37

            To Wiliam Wilgus- all the cars have the same weight- the only disadvantage the KERS cars suffer is prime positioning of ballast

  4. It actually could come in handy now since the refueling ban has come into effect for next year.

  5. If it ever comes back the teams should be allowed to develop it freely.

    1. which would result in the bigger teams being able to spend more on developing it, thus having a better system… so no, i disagree

    2. bernification
      30th October 2009, 3:39

      Without development there is no innovation. Agree 100%

  6. If Kers can be made at a low cost then it will be ok but FIA must make sure that all team uses them.

    1. If KERS were cheap, standard units, then there would be no development and no innovation. Developing KERS was always going to be expensive because it was a new-ish technology, but pushed to the limits of F1 racing (ie. supremely low weight).

      Having a standard KERS unit used by every team would be no different from having standard engines. The variables of choosing to use/not use KERS and developing a KERS well/badly is what would diversify the sport and make it a bit more exciting.

      1. Isn’t there going to be a standard KERS for 2011? Which I believe is why Williams wanted to run it next season.

        1. Williams has heavily invested in their own flywheel KERS, so it’s unlikely they were sticking their neck out in order to use a standard unit.

  7. I’m glad it’s going. There’s something about a F1 car being high voltage that irks me. I like to think that I could safely go right up to an F1 car and hug it. :)

    1. So you were against all the sharp looking aero-devices on the 08 spec cars then… ;-)

    2. Hug it all you like — you just need to wear inch-thick leather gloves.

      High voltage vehicles are the future, and that will seep into F1, eventually.

      1. Ace, all cars have voltages that can kill you. Try touching the battery terminals in your car whilst its running. You’ll only attempt it once.

        1. It won’t kill you. Just put an understanding of what electrical burns look like.

          1. I said it ‘Can’ kill you. It depends on the condition of your heart and if a medical team are on hand. In case it stops your heart cold.

      1. Electricity is a cruel mistress


        1. Its a testament to the fact that BMW employs people no or very little understanding of laws of electrodynamics :P

    3. bernification
      30th October 2009, 3:42

      What kind of HT is on spark plugs? Why does anyone think that having a very volatile fuel that rotates at 18000rpm is more safe than another battery?

      Please, answers on a postcard.

      1. bernification
        30th October 2009, 3:44

        In an engine that rotates. etc.

        Sorry, long night.
        Now for sleep

  8. Prisoner Monkeys
    28th October 2009, 1:49

    I’ve heard that the FIA wants a standarised KERS unit for 2011, and while that equals further inconsistencies in the rules, I actually like the idea because I’m told all cars will have to use it, or at least be designed for it.

    KERS was one of the biggest problems of 2009, probably because only a handful ever used it. And they were all teams who were in the middle-to-back of the field, so they just held everyone up. I agree that it should be all or none who use it; teams may have the option of removing it under certin conditions (ie it’s useless in the wet), but it should be compulsory.

    1. I think it has been good that only a few teams have been using KERS — it has shown the true merits and drawbacks of using the system, and it has highlighted how some KERS are better than others. It’s made the starts more interesting. Unfortunately it hasn’t had any effect on strategies, fuel consumption or offensive overtakes (except after long straights). But I think there’s been more causes for concern this season with regard to technical regs and future car design.

      I applaud McLaren for sticking with KERS throughout the season, and quite rightly they have gained the most from it. The BMW and Renault attempts at running KERS have looked limp-wristed by comparison.

  9. We shouldn’t forget that the device itself could deliver extra power for longer than 6.7 seconds if it wasn’t limited… we have seen just a bit of it’s potential.
    I agree with Kovy: maybe making better sporting rules to use it along with more technical freedom could deliver better racing.

    1. Agree. The restricted use of the KERS boost is one of the major problems. The FIA wanted to introduce an innovative technology to show how F1 can suggest ideas to the wider world, and improve the racing and excitement, yet they limit what teams can do with the system. The only development available to KERS is to reduce the weight penalty and improve the energy harvesting on certain circuits (Suzuka?) where braking doesn’t help.

      Perhaps the FIA didn’t want KERS to become the modern equivalent of the turbo engines, where performance became quite hairy quite quickly.

    2. Agree also.

  10. No doh… KERS was the stupidiest idea from the get go. Hey guys you need to save money but guess what you have to spend a LOT of money to develop this new cool technology that we will have optional for 09 but make mandator for 10.. But in 10 we will only allow you to spend 1/10th of what you spent in 08. I could never make sense of that reasoning and then come up with the cost regulations for 10 and still expect KERS. As a viewer and fan I got very irritated by KERS majority of the time all that KERS did was hold up drivers that WAS faster that COULD have overtaken. Rare where the overtakes by KERS if ever unless the driver in front made an error. The ONLY exception to this was at the start and how frustrating it was to see a KERS car come flying from below the field and jump 4-5 positions or sometimes even far more when he obviously was there because he couldn’t do the pace in qualifying. Now he jumps and then slow down faster cars. Just made being on front row or at least 3-4 rows a head of the KERS cars so even more important.

    Good ridance finally we can see a drivers race that is not determined by qualification luck and fuel strategies. Because how many times have we also not seen someone running on fumes take pole while you have someone with a decent load end up 5th but on fuel corrected time the guy on 5th was still faster.. Now the fast guys WILL start first as long they get their qualifications correct.

  11. i want to see it back some day, but only if ALL the cars use it all the time. would produce some great racing.

    1. Agree, either ALL the cars use it, or none at all.

      That said, I think the best use of the KERS system was shown by Raikkonen at Spa when he passed Fisi at the restart, followed by defensively using it through Eau Rouge, which made up for the speed deficit the F60 has compared to the VJM02.

      As for cost concerns, they could stick to a common system like the ECU, the one used by McLaren is supposedly the most efficient in terms of size and weight, although it has its limitations compared to Ferrari’s KERS. I would have liked to see Williams’ flywheel system though.

      1. although it has its limitations compared to Ferrari’s KERS

        What limitations are those? Most of the KERS talk is about McLaren’s unit, not much has been said about Ferrari’s KERS except that it occasionally smokes a bit.

        1. Well, we know from Malaysia that the Ferrari KERS (Magneti Marelli) isn’t as waterproof as the McLaren system… :)

          I can’t remember where I heard it, but the McLaren KERS is supposedly more effective in slow corners than in fast corners, probably due to aero and tyre grip characteristics of the car itself, I don’t believe this is the case for the Ferrari KERS.

  12. Get rid of KERS. It adds to the advantage big teams have over small ones, since they can throw more resources towards developing a superior KERS system. Or, have the best KERS system distributed to all teams so that the playing field is level.

    As for Abu Dabbi, Lewis should be a strong contender for the win along w/ Vettel.

    1. Accidental Mick
      28th October 2009, 11:17

      The implication of your post is the Maclaren (who got the best out of Kers) have more resources that Ferrari, BMW and Renault. I dont think so.

    2. it would be no advantage to big teams if all were given a standardised KERS system.

      1. it would be A1 GP.

  13. i think its a shame.

    yeah f1 costs are out of control, but they are out of control in some areas that should be reigned in, however new tech development like KERS which is a technology that will help the world in the future – a technology that will never advance as fast as it would in f1 should be developed and even subsidised.

    it’s not just car manufacturers that are benefiting from the advancements that f1 has delivered already, wind turbines are now using the f1 kers tech for improved efficiency, along with trains and many other things.

    IMO its a tech that should be developed, there should be at least 2 different systems so there’s at least a tech race, not just a standard that doesn’t change, and every team should have it.

    the only reason the racing was effected this year is that some teams had it and others didn’t. people without couldnt overtake, if both cars had kers both cars that effect would be nullified.

    the driver behind could ever use a little less if they are faster, save it for the right moment and then use the extra to get that boost to overtake.

    IMO it could improve overtaking in that respect, the problem with f1 is the faster driver behind not being able to get close enough because of the turbulence / aero void from running too close, if the driver behind is faster than the one infront, they wouldn’t need to use as much kers to catch up, follow and stay close, leaving them with extra kers to use in any zone, to push ahead and be able to overtake.

    not just in your expected overtaking areas, with the boost spare they could jump out of any slow corner and run down side by side into any other corner.

    anyway, digressing that point, with any new development, the biggest outlay is in the startup, initial research, multiple failed test models, re-development and refinement into a production model and resolving issues in the production.

    ongoing costs for refinement would be much less, i think scrapping it now is pointless when the majority of the investment over the next 5 years has been spent already.

    the teams association should pick out 2 kers systems, have those teams place a cap on development cost for kers, and then put in licensing agreements with other teams to supply them at a set rate just like engines, so every team has a system… the teams developing earn revenue from the other teams, subsidising their outlays.

    if 2 teams are throwing in 50M each, the other 12 teams only need to throw in a few M each to subsidise that development, no different to the engines, gearboxes, or the mclaren/msft ECU.

    that’s my 45cents

    1. oh and not forgetting the fact that the f1 companies patent their findings and technologies and then sell those to the aforementioned companies – wind turbine manufactures, train manufacturers, other car manufactures, electric bike manufacturers, underwater energy recovery systems… really theres thousands of applications for the technology that yields a higher energy recover rate than the current systems, and f1 has developed that already and they are selling that technology already.

      not forgetting that williams bought into a KERS company that develops energy recover systems for those types of industries already. williams bought into the company to build their own device, and to also profit in the long term from their discoveries.

    2. IMO people who think there’s no benefit – especially in a technology like this – that is in high demand with a marketplace looking for higher efficiency are fairly close minded and are forgetting about what f1 has evolved into.

      f1 is more than just racing, gp2 is racing, karting is racing, f1 is as much about the technology race as it is the driver race.

      if f1 is just about the driver race, then yes, it’s way too bloated and way too expensive. if there’s technological benefits then there’s other ways for the teams to earn revenue, justifying the cost to develop them.

      obviously only the teams with R&D facilities could do this, but most teams have that, every team doesn’t need to develop every tech, some could specialise, but my point is already justified in years of cases from wheelchairs to satellites.

      “In 2006 NASA launched its Hinode satellite with the goal of gathering important information regarding the way the activity of the Sun influences our planet. The technology used in the satellite was also developed by F1 engineers, who provided their help in developing a 3-metre-long telescope. ”

      “In order to decrease the level of bouncing on even surfaces, scientists use hydraulic dampers in F1 vehicles. A team of engineers at car builder McLaren managed to use the same technology in a lightweight knee brace, which has already been tested on US marines.”

      “The casing of NASA’s Beagle Mars lander was made from the same plastic as a Formula 1 car’s exhaust pipe.”

      anyway, i’ve made my point, you need to think outside the box, there’s money to be made – for the teams outside of just sponsorship, the sport can’t survive on just sponsorship alone, with innovation and design they could be building tech to license to other companies. (which they do already).

      1. McLaren managed to use the same technology in a lightweight knee brace, which has already been tested on US marines.”

        Only McLaren are capable of doing something like that! :D

        That mclaren mp4-21 was aerodynamically a very efficient car. It was an evolution of of the ‘Killer’ mp4-20. but dunno why it performed abysmally mediocre. Must have been down to the lack of Merc V8 horsepower. Again a case of Merc letting down Mclaren. I’m praying Merc to split & burn their hands. They’ve let down McLaren on countless occasions. Even their KERS has been malfunctioning for the past few races.

    3. a couple of things you all seem to have failed to recognize is the fia was to have a one make standardized kers unit…so there would be no difference than now.

      It also has very little transfer to production cars, they only generated energy from the rear axle, and stored that small amount of energy into a battery (or flywheel), to perform boost.

      Toyota in fact have called it primitive and when you look at it closely it is.

      If you want a ‘push to pass; boost button for cars there is alot easier ways to do this. A simple ecu controlled rev increase via engine mapping would do the same a a cost of almost zero dollars.

      if you want innovation allow teams via a budget to develop fuel saving measures and keep while improving engine performance. That is something all car manufactures can transfer into production car straight away.
      Of course that would mean some lifting of engine development….
      Hell why not just let teams choose what type of engine they would like to run…be it a straight 4,6, v6, v8 v10, v12..who cares, in 2010 it comes down to engine speed and fuel economy or extra weight in car.

  14. Looks like it could be back in 2011

    Agree it must be used by all teams or none at all

    But will the “new” teams manage?

  15. See F1 shows how unfair life is sometimes. Look at Mclaren and Ferrari, they both spend significant a mount of money and developed the KERS System. Finally it’s working, and now people find it unfair and abandon the use of it. Hundreds of Millions down the drain. It didnt just cost them money, but both championship as well. If they were to focus on their cars rather than the Kers, things might turn out differently. Look at Red Bull and Brawn, even Force India came up from nowhere.

    Where is the incentive for F1 Teams to develop new technology in the future? Where was the revenue model for the KERS technology in the first place? Who would invest in something that might be “outdated” in a year time? Maybe thats the reason why F1 didn’t amend its technical regulations for 2010 and makes it clear that KERS will still be legal in 2010. They don’t want to admit the mistake they made.

    I hope F1 should seriously consider before making any of such major decision.

    1. If they were to focus on their cars rather than the Kers, things might turn out differently.

      True, but this is clear only in hindsight – it could easily have turned out the other way round. It was always possible that the KERS cars would runaway with the championship. They gambled and lost.

    2. Blame Mad max…it was all his idea…

      Why they even tried the idea in an era of cost cutting is beyond me to begin with.

  16. This is ridiculous. All the money spent to develop the technolgies on different concepts all down the drain. Is F1 not supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sports and technology development? So how does dropping it fulfill that idea?
    The FIA should set up a working group to establish the best concept – fly wheel or electrical – and set a contractor to develop a standard system that everyone has to use from 2011. As it evolves it will become more compact, more efficient and ready for our road cars.
    To drop it is dumb but then again teh FIA and now FOTA never have had the sharpest knives in the drawer running the circus that F1 has become.

    1. The FIA should set up a working group to establish the best concept – fly wheel or electrical – and set a contractor to develop a standard system

      FIA, Working Groups, Standardization…

      that was not the way F1 used in the past for being considered “as the pinnacle of motor sports and technology development”.

      This is the way of current F1 model for being more and more similar to any other GP series.

      1. Agree there IDR. Having a standard KERS in every car is no better than not having any KERS at all. The same with standard aero, standard engines and drivetrains…

        Opening up the regs is one likely answer. See how the heavily-revised aero regs for 2009 has completely mixed up the F1 pecking order. It’s not something that should be done every season, but we’ve seen this year that it has allowed different teams to step into the limelight and show what they’re capable of. For me, that is what should define Formula One.

        1. Yes but then again, if KERS was standard and since engines are standardized now, they could put KERS in place, reduce engine displacements and require better fuel consumption thus reducing emissions which they say they want to do (even though F1 emissions are not even a drop in the bucket globally) and lead some green technologies.
          KERS may be primitive to Toyota’s system but it was not designed for the same end purpose so to compare them is to compare an apple to a potato.

  17. What Im so surprised by is McL and Ferr agreeing to drop it when they bust a gut getting it to work, and making a car that carries all the gubbins around, with all the developmental challenges that entails, which McL did successfully, only to throw it out.

  18. KERS was a really gr8 idea….but it should be studied more and make it more beneficial and should be brought after few years maybe

  19. I absolutely and completely agree with Todd.
    F1 is not a sport, it a technological developement – racing series.
    I further think that areodynamic developement should be severely limited, as that is the area that is least useful to the manufacturers of road cars. Kers is and area that holds huge posibilities for the future, and the flywheel in my opinion has and advantage in that apparently it doesn’t use batteries, whichthe disposal of on a largescale is going to be expensive.
    I further think that the proposed 2013 engine efficiency formula that has been propsed has a lot of possibilities and promise.

    1. The flywheel KERS system had another advantage with slightly more usable torque output, from what I remember of a Williams interview. Shame that we’ll probably never see it.

  20. The problem was not KERS, it was it’s incompetent implementation through the FIA. ‘Thou shall slash cost, run under a budget cap, scrap testing, oh and spend millions and millions developing a new technology at the last minute but we won’t give you full technical freedom to make it even more painful, and then we will abandon it after you have already spent that cost, and not give you a chance to continue to develop KERS or recover those cost from customer teams’.

    1. The FIA hasn’t abandoned KERS at all. It’s FOTA that has agreed not to use it after 2009, for whatever bizarre and crazy reason.

  21. The Sri Lankan
    28th October 2009, 5:34

    Im hopeful we wont see Kers Next year. but williams will probably have something to say about it. Kers powered cars have ruined numerous races for toyota which happens to be the 3rd quickest car on the grid. if kers didnt exist im sure toyota wouldhave won at somestage. Kers was deployed completly in the wrong way by teams. it shouldhave been done the same way that the mclaren ECUs were deployed in cars this year- universal and same for everyone.

    1. Toyota might have had the third-fastest car early in the season, but it certainly hasn’t been consistently third fastest throughout. Toyota’s problems have been unrelated to the KERS teams — their performance at Bahrain then Monaco is clear evidence of that.

  22. Tribute to KERS… sob..sob..

    Great technology.

  23. like i’ve said before, the problem with kers is regulation, and further demonstrates ross brawn’s “we all build cuckoo clocks” statement. both the way kers operates and it’s effect are legislated into uselessness. kers has the potential to be a positive performance differentiator and constructive (and lucrative) spin-off.

    i’m pretty disappointed at the potential standardized kers in 2011. im my worthless opinion, it undermines a large part of what f1 is about. i think a kers war would be constructive, as opposed to a tire/computer/driver aid war, especially with relatively frozen engines and a large percentage running the same motors.

  24. KERS: Great in theory, poor in practice.

    The powers that be should go back to the drawing board with the idea and present a fresh plan to reintroduce KERS to the teams in 2011, to be implemented in 2012.

  25. The positive side of KERS you mention in this article, Keith are just because not all teams were using it. I think standardized KERS system for all teams as have been defined, will not produce any benefit to F1 Teams.

    Hybrid systems is something the biggest motorcar manufacturers are working on (Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, GM), and should be tested, improved and commercially promoted by F1 cars. Toyota, summarized quite good were is the problem on the solution proposed by FIA:



    I agree with HG about this (as many other questions) cannot be implemented through a Bureaucratic Committee

    1. Sorry, wrong doing and the comment is not complete.

      Hybrid technology is something important (and positive) for the industry, so give FREEDOM to work on that direction. In my opinion there are two things killing the spirit of F1:


      And I agree with HG about KERS (as many other questions) cannot be implemented through a “Bureaucratic Committee” as it seems is the new trend now.

      As a proverb says: “a CAMEL is a HORSE designed through a Committee”

      F1 cars were used to be “the ultimate racing horses in the planet”

      Maybe now, as they are racing in the middle of desserts in dusty tracks, CAMELS are more appropriate…

      1. No wonder everyone has got the hump. Badum-tish

  26. I think KERS as it is today is not the right solution to F1’s environmental Dilemma… other solutions could have been implemented that lead to cost cutting.

    KERS cost teams a lot, but if lets say an inline 4 cylinder with turbo and SC were implemented, it wouldn’t cost the company’s much to do it. not to mention if regulations on engines were de-restricted but fuel supply limited we could see a game changing effort for engine consumption development in a manner that would most definitely be spun off to everyday production cars, even if it has to start on expensive sports cars.

    I always use Honda’s V-Tec technology as an example of F1 tech gone humble…

    F1 should remain on the cutting edge, but it also must be a test bed for manufacturers, at least engine manufacturers, or else it wont keep itself alive on the long run…

  27. “In my opinion there are two things killing the spirit of F1:



    1. add control tyres to that list…

  28. KERS has been a huge missed opportunity. If the teams would’ve had more time to develop it (i.e. until 2010) and the regulations had been adapted before (smaller front tires, increased weight limit), we might have had most of the cars running it in 2010 (maybe even the new teams) and there would have been quite a few different devices, at least the 4 used this year and the Williams flywheel KERS. This would have made for some great racing (along with the refuelling ban), but thanks to BMW it is not going to happen…

    1. Thanks to BMW???

      1. I guess he means that BMW insisted KERS was introduced in 2009 and not delayed till 2010.

        1. exactly :)

    2. If KERS had been delayed any longer, the development costs would have been much higher. Considering the difficulties in the car industry in 2007/08, introducing KERS in 2010 may not have happened at all, the manufacturers may have pulled the plug before then.

      Your comments about smaller front tyres and increased weight limit take a lot of hindsight into account. Who says that KERS would have been successful if we were looking forward to it being raced next March? Another problem could have cropped up to scupper KERS. These things can only be solved by actually trying them out. Speaking with hindsight to manufacture perfect scenarios doesn’t help to improve F1 as it exists in the real 2010 season.

  29. I’m just curious what is the real reason FOTA went for this semi-voluntary KERS abstain.
    Was it an attempt to keep BMW, Toyota and Renault in the game?
    For a small team that already purchases engines having a KERS from some vendor could really make the difference between P20 and P15 for example. I’m much in favor of FIA’s position this time – allow KERS without imposing it.

  30. I think if they want a green competition is very easy: “here you are: X liters of gasoline per car for every grand prix” :-D

    1. Can you imagine all the slipstreaming there would be? Everyone would line up behind Jarno Trulli and have a MPG contest!

    2. absolutely

  31. I am certain when the ability to use KERS was announced, there was no limit set on the budget used by the teams who wanted to develop it. Although this benifitted the bigger teams with bigger budgets, ultimately it would have found its way to the smaller teams as the costs involved decreased as the technology developed.
    As it is, we are going to miss out on a KERS war as McLaren and Ferrari will not be trying to improve the current systems, and will not be looking to share it with other teams.
    It has turned into another cul-de-sac of lost opportunities of improving the F1 image, F1 technology and relating it to normal road cars, at a time when the motoring industry as a whole needs something to keep going.
    Thanks FOTA, you have effectively shot yourselves in the foot with this. All the teams might as well buy into Max’s Cosworth deal, since no manufacturer seems to want to spend the money on engines…..

  32. i bet if they allowed testing kers would be much better

  33. Cant express in words, how happy I am.

    Right from Mid-2008, I have hated the concept of KERS. Almost every comment from me regarding KERS has been filled with vile and contempt.

    It makes no sense to carry a large heavy piece just for some extra boost during the start. And needlessly, this technology has been fettered by 400 kJ, and energy be revived only from back tyres.

    Very happy to see it go. Too costly a technology, and beings NOTHING to the show.

    1. Are you a mechanical guy?? You always seem to have something negative to say about electrical/electronic aspect of formula one. Just my observation.

      1. Yes, actually. I am a final year mechanical engineering student.

        But that isn’t the reason why I am against electrical/electronic aspect. My final year project is infact based on Mechatronics :-)

        KERS is not strictly an electronic concept. It borders on Mechanical, Electrical and also Chemical engineering. It actually makes a fascinating subject to study about.
        And I make my negative conclusion of KERS based on my (whatever little) study on this subject.

        1. So what exactly is wrong with the concept of KERS? Your complaints seem to be about the implementation: the large, heavy equipment is because underdeveloped technologies tend to be large and heavy. Look at the first computer. The limited 400KJ output is a curious technical regulation.

          I find the concept itself is fascinating — instead of energy being wasted, it is harvested and reused. The problems with KERS come from the restrictive regulations and the short development. F1’s attempt at using a hybrid drivetrain looks clumsy because the main focus is making it smaller and lighter, which is a necessary process to make it suitable for racing (with benefits for road use too).

          I am also a mechanical engineer, and I guess studying KERS in F1 can be depressing. But the wider possibilities, for road cars and other racing formulae, are very exciting and could be the beginning of some huge developments. It’s a shame the FIA decided to restrict KERS so much as to neuter it.

          1. For starters, the restrictions on KERS are a big dampener. 1)400kJ limit. 2)Energy to be retrieved only from rear wheels.

            The systems can easily produce more energy.

            The reasons I do not agree with KERS are

            1. Too costly in today’s age of cost-cutting.

            2. It adds nothing to fuel efficiency as whatever little enrgy is recovered is re-used to carry that extra luggage.

            KERS can become good, the analogy of the first computer you mentioned is incredible. KERS will undoubtedly be an indispensable part of F1 cars soon. But F1 need not have to take charge and be the first to develop this technology. Formula One has enough issues on its hand with regular scandals, decreased overtaking, and teams leaving the sport on account of high costs. KERS is a huge distraction and investment of resources away from these problems.

          2. Formula One has enough issues on its hand with regular scandals, decreased overtaking, and teams leaving the sport on account of high costs.

            As for costs: the recession and poor performances made Honda and BMW quit the sport. The recession hurt their road car businesses, they didn’t leave because of costs to develop the KERS.

            As for other issues: are you saying that all the scandals and problems should stop F1 being a technology innovator? I find that ridiculous, but maybe that’s just me.

    2. “nothing to the show” but Kimi’s pass on Fisi, Lewis’ pass on Barichelo, a few exceptional starts with +3, +4, +5 positions … ;-)

      What is really bad – they limited the KERS to 6.6 seconds, when at the current level it can easily go for at least twice the time. Then it could change the game even more!

      1. I also have to remind you that Citroen is testing Hybrid/KERS technology in WRC cars, Peugeot (and maybe Audi) want to introduce it into Le Mans and Sports Cars, and lots of manufacturers appear to be making it work in both SUVs and ‘Supercars’.
        So why are the FOTA members being so lame about this? F1 should be there at the forefront of the development, not dumping it just as it begins to work…..

      2. lol and what about all the times the same guys that made ” these super passes” pushed the button and kept cars behind them that were quicker in every other part of the track except the kers button pushing moment.

        Simple fact Kers is not “green” it doesn’t save fuel, it actually increase fuel use… as I said before have a push to pass via a simple rev increase via the ecu and engine mapping at a cost ZERO dollars!!!

        Why kers had to be only harvested from rear wheels under braking load is just plain stupid, if you wanted a kinetic energy supplementary system you could harvest energy at ANY time the car is moving!
        To imagine the concept ..
        You have a motor that starts the car moving then as the car moves it is producing energy this energy can be used to keep the car moving with the “starter’ motor only coming into play when the car comes to a halt, if you add energy storage then the starter motor wouldn’t be used at all.
        A car could run on compressed air via this system, with energy used to produce more compressed air while moving to keep car going. And almost work with out any starter motor at all. as the compressed air would be stored and be used to feed engine from halt….

        Kers is primitive, energy capture is not new technology, energy storage is the major problem…batter technology is so far behind what can be done and there is no viable alternative to store energy…

        Forget this simpleton system it doesn’t need developing there are vastly superior systems already to capture energy…

        1. you could harvest energy at ANY time the car is moving!

          If you tried to harvest kinetic energy whilst the vehicle is moving, you’d slow it down. The movement is the kinetic energy. Effectively you’d be putting the brakes on whilst trying to race down a straight.

          Energy capture/release systems take many forms, the compressed air thing you mentioned is similar to a hydraulic hybrid system that has been tested on UPS vans in New York.

          1. yer you are right you would add some drag on movement, but a disc brake drag against the pads and tyre pressures add drag if too low, and a open window on a passenger car will add drag and same goes for roof racks, and etc
            The amount of energy lost wouldn’t be greater than energy produced if set up efficiently.

            thanks for the link I’ll check it out now.

  34. I can never understand why F1 wants to make all the cars equal! The only thing that should be equal, is the budget, which should be capped. F1 will never be Green, and I don’t want it to be, I’m tired of this ‘Save the Planet’ BS – this is motor racing. Let them fit Turbos, Nitrous Oxide, unlimited RPM! Surely a racing driver knows what is a ‘safe’ speed, and if he wants to drive into a hair pin at 500 mph, then he is a moron and deserves the crash barriers. All the technical s%$t is designed for two reasons only, to control the sport/outcome of events/situations and to make more money. I want to see more overtaking instead of these technical no passing tracks – Kers? Whats next, solar power? I want to smell Shell R, I want real racing!

    1. There isn’t any point in having all the cars equal I agree with that. I have liked how only 4 cars now regularly use kers, it gives an interesting start and has certainly helped Mclaren and Ferrari. I would prefer if the cars could overtake without the need of kers and for drivers to overtake without pushing a button so I’m not that sad that kers is going. But I think it will be back soon.

      1. Most of us have difficulty in accepting KERS, cos it was the brain child of Max Mosley :P
        Yes, I think KERS has great potential & it was a mistake to introduce one year too early. KERS’ potential has been overshadowed by the advanced aero packages of Brawn & white bull. Just image if red bull or brawn was equipped with KERS at the season beginning, or if mclaren or ferrari had a decent aero-package. one word.


        1. Kers was also slammed at the beginning as all the teams that had it were at the back. BMW, Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault were always expected to be at the front and so the system was blamed when after a while it was clear that the teams simply hadn’t got to grips with the rule changes and spent too much time of Kers for such little gains, allowing RBR and Brawn to leapfrog them.

  35. KERS was a potentially great idea, it was just bought in too hastily.

    KERS cars used up more fuel, and I think that could’ve been brilliant for 2010 with the refuelling ban, because it means cars would have to manage their fuel just like in the turbo days.

    1. The turbo cars had to manage their fuel because they were forced to carry less fuel than the non-turbo cars.

  36. If teams were allowed to develop KERS unrestricted then some of the major manufacturers probably would have invested more.
    But it was a half hearted rule to save money.
    Not that it was cheap to R&D.

    I like the idea of KERS and would have loved to have seen how far teams could have developed it. Maybe even using it to reduce fuel consumption and save weight for 2010 on smaller fuel tanks.

    But then my vision is not the FIA’s vision and I have to look at what KERS is now.
    Perhaps it should not be run, but I feel F1 should be going forward with technology. That is the nature of the sport and this feels like we are going backwards.

  37. KERS should be used to reduce fuel usage
    remove the Boost aspect of it and simply run it at its maximum efficiency constantly
    it would mean that the teams with the most efficient system would be able to carry less fuel and therefore be faster by being lighter
    additionally to this it would boost developement of KERS into something usable in a road car

    1. remove the Boost aspect of it and simply run it at its maximum efficiency constantly

      Electric motors run at max efficiency when they are accelerating. In other words, as a ‘boost.’

      I think the idea of using less fuel will only happen if the amount of fuel itself is restricted. Refuelling has been banned for 2010 and it was a missed opportunity to restrict the capacity of the fuel tank too.

      1. what i meant was that they remove the button that the driver has and run the electric motor constantly I.e. whenever the Batteries have enough energy to propel the car forward they use that energy to do so which would use less fuel for that period
        at the moment KERS is restricted to 80hp for 6 sec
        what i’m suggesting is removing those restrictions and letting the teams go at it

  38. KERS is just one step away from electric cars! This will be your F1 in the future gentlemen – Scalextrics! “eeeh, when I was a Lad, we used to have internal combustion engines…”! Agree to KERS and agree to imagine watching FI live, but without the volume! Sorry, but technology is ruining the sport; this same technology is being used to create this ‘level playing field’ to enable these Rich $$$$ $$$$$$$ to control the outcomes to make the sport more interesting. Budgets should be capped and the rest should down to the inginuity of the teams and drivers, i.e how can we make the car go faster to overtake more – because this is motor racing, not processional advertising! I want my racers, to hit the nitious button when they overtake, not some electric motor! You are seeing the death of your sport with KERS.

    1. Another mechanical guy :P

    2. F1 is known for being the pinnacle of technology. It does sometimes get frustrating and in the way of a good show but F1 is the most prestigious sport because it pushes the boundaries of what is technically possible in motor racing (and then the ideas are banned :P)
      More needs to be done to make drivers overtake and able to carry it off.
      Even if it ends in failure, I believe the sport should always push forward and learn from it.
      Turbos used to be allowed so no wonder they gave Kers a go.

      1. Mechanical? Yes, because that is what F1 is, or should be. I want to see F1 like, Led Zep in the early years, full throttle, in your face raw power, from the heart, like it has some real value, like your life depends on it; I wanna see engine blow outs because they they pushed their Superchargers past the limit whilst ‘overtaking’ like ‘racing drivers’. Where as, you tech guys, you want electric cars, and for safety, let’s put them on tracks, because this is what KERS will become – sterile, lifeless… So yes, I am mechanical.

        1. ‘Being mechanical’ doesn’t mean you have to favour petrol engines over electric motors. If you insist on having petrol-only racing with no alternative fuel options, then your precious engines will be internally combusting for only a limited time. At least electric propulsion offers some kind of future, even if it looks a bit weird and scary right now.

        2. Mechanical and technological advancements should be the way to move forward. Neither should be exclusive. I don’t think anyone here wants to see f1 become sterile.

          from the heart, like it has some real value, like your life depends on it

          Precisely what I want to see- heart and soul racing and fighting on the track.

    3. Accidental Mick
      28th October 2009, 11:34

      F1 is all about technology. If someone discovers a way of making an electric powered car fast enough to be competitive then I want to see it race.

      1. Scalextrix!

        All real motor racing is about the atmosphere, the smell, the red lining engines, the smoke, the danger etc etc.

        Save the planet!

        1. I would like to see an all-electric GP. Yes, I know its a way off into the future, but since we now have electric Lotus and MINI cars (as well as various French ones), it cannot be that difficult to think around the problem of fitting it into a GP2 or Formula Renault size package.
          Wake up and smell the Roses – racing is in the blood, not the engine!

          1. DGR-F1,

            Listen to what you are saying! F1 is the noise! I WANT to wake up and smell the mineral oil, I want to hear an engine screaming like it wants to give birth! KERS is the death of F1 and will ultimately give you what you want.

          2. KERS is the death of F1 and will ultimately give you what you want.

            Sorry, did you say KERS has killed F1? This article says the exact opposite. You sound like those folks who think global warming doesn’t exist. Go back and put your head back in the sand while the grown-ups talk.

  39. KERS is a good idea, just too expensive for each team to develop separately. I think only a standard unit would be the answer. Getting rid of KERS after all this time and money spent would just be stupid.

  40. If it is to make a comeback, it should be all or nothing. As in, all teams either have it or don’t.
    Someone suggested that maybe Williams can make the units in the same way that McLaren makes the ECUs.

  41. KERM should be in F1 and the restrictions around it should be dimensions, etc. – not the design itself. It would be a great place for innovation, esp. with refuelling going away.

    1. We all know I meant KERS

  42. Some of the best tech in modern cars has been from “expensive” development done in F1. Kers has potential to be a wonderful innovation for future cars and it is ashame it will be gone.

    Like others have suggested though, less restriction and free development should be encouraged, not abandoned.

    Imagine F1 teams were told to stop developing ABS, traction controls, turbo chargers, superchargers, etc, when those systems first came out. It is this tech that makes F1 the greatest racing sport in the world.

    Bring back KERS and let the boys have at it!

    1. You’ve made my point in a roundabout way. the teams developed ABS, traction control and turbochargers despite the rules, not because of them. KERS was imposed from without, at a huge cost, at a time when teams where told to cut their costs. A ridiculous and untenable and nearly impossible situation. More Max folly.

      Let’s look back through the smoke of history. Who was it that developed a rudimentary kinetic energy system years ago that if Max had allowed it, we would be years in the future in terms of its development, like many are arguing here? Not to mention CVT, mass and J-dampers, etc. Let’s not forget where we came from and what has happened and who’s guiding hand-or horsewhip-got us to where we are.

  43. KERS had potential but the restrictions placed on it from the start are one of the reasons why it wasn’t deemed a success.

    It also didn’t help that the teams who developed KERS the most didn’t have a good overall package at the start of the season. But even with the testing ban after a full season of racing experience and development they are now at the front of the field, and if FOTA members had not decided to ban it from next year then all teams who had serious ambitions would be forced to use it next season.

    If there was the will and more importantly the money to put F1 at the forefront of green technology the rules governing the whole power train, engine, KERS and anything else the engineers can think of would be completely freed up and the only constraints being the amount of energy available for each race and possibly making the parts last x number of races, as at the moment the teams are supposed to replace the KERS batteries after each race which isn’t very environmentally friendly.

  44. I think that KERS has been a total failure both for the federation and the teams.

    The federation failed big time introducing kers without increasing the minimum weight for the car, thus forcing teams and drivers to decide in favor of driveability or the little advantages brought by an undeveloped kers.

    The funny part is that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. Nowadays, you can’t develop ANYTHING in F1. Engines are freezed, everybody’s pushing for standardizaion, teams are rejecting KERS because they can’t handle it as the cons are greater than the pros.

    F1 should focus on innovation and clean energy.

    They shoud have built a circuit sorrounded by wind turbines and solar panels, they should at least ban fuel and consder adopting ethanol for the engines.

    KERS just need development, which lacks in every aspect of Formula 1.

    But no, F1 has been run by two men clearly showing signs of senile dementia, and I don’t see any change in the orizon.

    F1 lost his soul more than a decade ago. Now we’re harvesting the seeds once planted.

  45. I think many overlook the fact that KERS is not high technology. So it has nothing to offer F1’s high-tech image or downstream development for road cars. As Toyota have pointed out, it is pathetically primitive compared what they have beeng putting in a $25K road car forr 15 years. (Imagine the speed of an F1 car with a beefed-up Synergy Drive system.)

    Anyway, KERS was not implemented to promote innovation. It’s cost was seen as a fair price for Real Racing—that is, fake racing via steering wheel button. It is a “push to pass” system clothed in a thin green mantel.

    This is not rocket science: If F1 wants push to pass, let teams use a turbo-based system. It’s proven; and it will be cheap and effective. And the only thing that sounded as good as a Honda F1 V-12 is an 80s CART turbo V-8.

    1. As Toyota have pointed out, it is pathetically primitive compared what they have beeng putting in a $25K road car forr 15 years.

      Don’t get road car hybrid systems mixed up with F1 KERS — they have very different aims. The road systems are developed to be as efficient as possible, to enable more electrical propulsion and save petrol. The F1 systems are restricted in their output, so the development is towards making the KERS smaller and lighter (which McLaren has managed to do through this season). I understand Toyota’s comments were made when they considered the KERS tech regs, which restricted the systems too much and made it difficult to become viable.

  46. Those of you worried about other people using your names in comments, please just realise that COMMENTS can be left by ANYONE as long as they provide an email address, and those pople can call themselves whatever they want…

    if someone is posting under your username in the FORUMS, that is a LOG-IN ONLY activity. Comments are different.

    I can post a comment and call myself Keith Collantine if i want, only if a mod spots it and deletes it will it be purged.

    Hope that makes sense. In short, nobody is stealing other people’s names, you can enter your name as whatever you want each time, the email address is hidden, and that is the unique ID for article comments, not your forum log in.

  47. What is the point in everyone having KERS? They all press their buttons at the saaaaaaaaame time at the samaaaaaame point during the saaaaaaaame race; with the saaaaaaame output, with the saaaaaaaame weight. What part of this ‘level playing field’ can people not see?, it is killing racing (aka overtaking).

    You techno heads live in a dream world if you believe that F1 are doing their bit to help the environment. F1 is supposed to be gas guzzling, speed, fumes, fire and adrenaline, not cars controlled from the pit lanes with their electric boosters – no wonder WDC’s always thank their teams!

    Stop hugging trees, sell your Volvos and put your Petrol Heads back on, or one day you could be replaced by 7″ of plastic and 2 batteries, and that would be technology!

    1. You’re so right, who needs the environment anyways? I mean it’s not like we all need to live and breathe.

    2. They all press their buttons at the saaaaaaaaame time at the samaaaaaame point during the saaaaaaaame race; with the saaaaaaame output, with the saaaaaaaame weight.

      I don’t believe you know what you’re talking about. Who says everyone uses KERS at the same point on a lap? There are places where KERS has the most advantage (going onto long straights, going uphill etc) but each driver has the option to use it elsewhere. See Kovalainen’s pass on Fisichella as they both exited the pits at Suzuka.

  48. Mechanical and technological advancements in F1 are borrowed from NASA…show me one thing that is not all ready part of some space program

    1. we all stand on the shoulders of giants…

  49. I think the major stalling point with Kers at the start of the season is just how much it changes the driving experience and ‘feel’ – when the driver’s ‘feel’ for everything the car is doing, especially under braking with no traction control, is absolutely crucial.

    We all thought that Hamilton, Massa, Raikkonen and Alonso were driving dogs of cars: but actually now we’ve seen first Badoer and then Fisi struggle with the Ferrari, (especially under braking) it demonstrates how much effect it has.

    (Which makes Hamilton and Raikonnen’s wins even more impressive, much as I hate to admit it).

  50. I want it back because of the technical development it requires and for the advantage that it gives a team with a good KERS. A standard KERS would be stupid, IMO because then everyone has the same thing and its just another step to a spec series. Bring it back, but let everyone do their own system and/or offer customer systems to a limited number of the field, just like with the engines.

  51. mclarenproject4
    28th October 2009, 16:09

    i liek kers lol

    1. The above post is a “perfect” example of a spammer!

      1. Clearly not everyone has seen the thread about it :P
        As for kers, it will probably be back in some form. It was only agreed to be dropped when there didn’t seem to be much gain from it but now the cars have started winning races…
        The green statement was possibly more for show, it won’t do that much for the environment or save the ice caps and polar bears but it would have sounded like a nice idea for F1 to stay in touch with current issues. :P
        It’s still not great and I am not much of a fan but it has helped Ferrari so I won’t complain too much.
        The cars have been so close this year but unable to overtake and kers has been both positive and negative. It’s still to blurred for a clear judgement as to performance I would say.

  52. Good to see the two most dangerous things at the moment in F1 getting the boot. How KERS got off the drawing board is beyond me,and to tout it as an environmental device is rather strange as when has battery technology been green. And the Energy recovered using these devices would hardly provide the power to run one of Bernie`s ACU`s in the prawn sandwich section of He`s motorhome.

  53. Particularly funny to go back over what Max Pain said about KERS:

    [KERS] is set to revolutionise F1. It will make the sport at once more environmentally friendly, road relevant, and at the cutting edge of future automotive technology.

    He we are, revolutionized lol

    1. He might have been right if the KERS used in F1 cars was anything approaching cutting edge. You might as well revolutionise the music industry by introducing the 8-track.

      1. Talking 8 track, Animals is worth big bucks.

    2. Well there you go. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a more telling quote in shining a light into the dim recesses of Max’s Headroom. The man knows squat about racing and F1 and he proves it every time he shakes the stupid tree and one of his silly ideas falls out.

      Of course if one wanted to have a conversation about the finer points of dirty politics or dirty role-playing, I can’t think of a more likely candidate.

  54. I thought the idea of KERS was a great one, but its full potential will never be realised by the powers that be. There are two ways you could go about it:

    1) Unlimited KERS as a boost; teams will put money into developing the best possible KERS system so that even if everyone has their own, by developing your own you could have a better version and retain an advantage. This would bring speed to the car in a way that would shift the mechanical/aero balance in favour of the former, which can only be a good thing in modern F1

    2) Unlimited KERS as a green technology; to an extent the first option is a green innovation, since it will be a non-petrol way of accelerating the car, but in this sense I mean a KERS which acts automatically and replaces the engine to power the wheels. Standardised, but still useful, especially given the the re-fuelling ban (of course, this works on the principle that KERS supplies more power than the extra fuel needed to carry it would provide).

    But no, the FIA brought in a cost-cutting era at the same time as a new technology, and then limited it. Geniuses.

    Now we’re going to have the same with re-fuelling. Instead of just leaving it be, so that less fuel-efficient cars would have to have bigger fuel tanks and compromise their speed, they’ll probably decide that a better way to promote efficiency is to give a standard amount of fuel, which will encourage F1 to be more about driving as if it was a Prius race than fuel efficiency. So with two ways to produce the same effect, the FIA will go for the one that kills racing a bit more. Lovely.

    (PS: On the issue of screen-names – I usually post under the nickname “Nik” on this part of the site. I thought it was time to be consistent with my forum name, plus now I see the dangers of not doing so ;))

    1. they’ll probably decide that a better way to promote efficiency is to give a standard amount of fuel

      A car will only carry as much fuel as it needs. Why would anyone carry an extra 10Kg of petrol sloshing about if they never use it?

      It was said somewhere that the Force India cars used less fuel than most, due to the low-drag nature of their aerodynamics. I think “20Kg” for a long stint was mentioned, but that sounds like a lot.

  55. It stores a given maximum amount of energy so just standardise it (like the ECU) and let’s get on with the season.

    I agree with the first comment by AP, leaving it in the rules is counterproductive. I’m afraid it’s another teams vs FIA situation.

    Some things will never change.

  56. I know what, lets swap the KERS for howling V12 engines and make everybody happy! A return to 1200bhp and huge rear tires…

  57. I liked the KERS system. It would always make for great starts to the gran prix. I think that it overcame its early teething problems and was probably shelved too early!

  58. It’s a Catch-22. Cut costs but please spend money on KERS.

  59. McLaren should def keep it and Williams should use it.

  60. I did laugh when I heard Williams were working on a fly wheel KERS, why not throw in some Nitonol and elastic bands.

  61. the idea is good almost brilliant i think. but most of the team not ready to adopt the technology. maybe 2-3 next season all the team are ready to using it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.