While F1 dithers over KERS, road car hybrid technology leaves it behind

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

The Porsche 918's hybrid engine is more than twice as powerful as an F1 KERS
The Porsche 918's hybrid engine is more than twice as powerful as an F1 KERS

Right now, F1 should be enjoying a new turbo era.

We had a taste of it last year as some teams deployed Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems to gain a power boost on the straights. Those without it tended to be quicker in the corners – and that crucial difference gave us some great racing.

The teams agreed between themselves not to use KERS in 2010 to spare themselves the eight-figure development costs. But as road car hybrid technology becomes ever more sophisticated, can F1 afford not to be part of the revolution?

At the Geneva Motor Show last month Porsche unveiled a new concept supercar which they claim is close to production. The Porsche 918 runs a 500bhp V8 petrol engine combined with a 218bhp electric motor.

Even if the teams took advantage of the F1 rules allowing KERS they would only be allowed to develop 80bhp and use it for 6.7 seconds per lap. It’s a graphic illustration of how F1 now lags behind the sort of technological development it used to lead.

I had dinner with a friend of mine who’s an F1 engine technician a few weeks ago. He complained about how restrictive the F1 engine rules are. The development freeze has stifled innovation in engine technology in F1 – as it was intended to.

He voiced thoughts of leaving his job and going to work for one of several companies which have sprung up in recent years developing hybrid engines for racing as well as road applications. I suspect many F1 engineers who’ve found their job involves less research and development are thinking similar thoughts.

Bringing back KERS

The teams are divided over whether to bring KERS back and how it could be done. There’s a real concern over the costs involved and, with several new teams finding their feet and others clearly short on sponsorship, that’s a reasonable point.

That has led some to suggest that a standard-specification KERS should be introduced for 2011. But, as my friend the engineer pointed out, what’s the point in F1 embracing a cutting-edge technology but not play a role in developing it? Isn’t that the very point of Formula 1?

Still I suspect the appetite for F1 to bring back a technology that improves its environmental credentials as well as the quality of racing will ease the teams’ concerns over the costs. Perhaps a compromise can be struck.

The FIA are planning a new engine formula for 2013, likely to be based around lower-capacity turbocharged engines, which could provide an opportunity to allow teams to introduce and develop their own KERS.

In the meantime, why not let them use identical, off-the-shelf units, perhaps similar to those developed by Williams Hybrid Power which are already being used by Porsche?

Whichever solution they go for, F1 needs to find a way of saying yes to KERS.


111 comments on “While F1 dithers over KERS, road car hybrid technology leaves it behind”

  1. The dithering because of the costs involved with allowing KERS is silly. The decision is clear: either you try to improve your “green credentials” and spend money on doing so, or you keep costs low and entry into F1 viable for more (possibly smaller) teams. You can’t have both.

    But I think if they are going to have a KERS system, they should allow an all-out development war in it. Keep engines frozen as they are, except where it relates to integrating a KERS system. It will allow
    greener and more efficient solutions than the equally silly limits they imposed on KERS last time around, which kept costs “in check” depending on who you ask, but also limited actual road-usability. Witness Toyota’s desperaging comments about the primitive nature of what was allowed compared to what they are using already in their road cars.

    A cost-reducing compromise could be a same-chassis formula perhaps, focusing any development race and funds on the actual green side of the equation.

    1. F1 should be a sport, and should be treated as such, not as a show, or as a place to develop road technology. Is KERS come back is should be allowed to be freely developed.

      1. I agree. More and more it seems that F1 is about tuning and revising aerodynamics at infinitum. Something I feel has no relevance to road car technology.

        What are the concerns of road cars these days? Fuel economy, alternative fuel, cleaner/zero emissions, safety features.

        We used to see improvements in these areas such as turbos, active suspension, traction control, etc. All things relevant to road cars and all banned.

        Here’s what I say: ban wings and aerofoils, unfreeze engines, limit fuel consumption, allow mechanical grip innovation.

        1. I agree with you, Pete.

          Personally though, I am not high on road car relevance; F1 is about racing, going as fast as you can. Technology is secondary.
          F1 is not a lab, it’s a racing formula. The most powerfull one with the best drivers, road car manufacturers don’t need it however to develop cars. Le Mans would be more relevant for them in that respect.

          1. The problem is that who pays for F1? Car makers and big sponsors. They want more than just advertising for their money.

            I agree with the banning of wings. As I’ve posted before, get rid of wings and it spices the racing up as well as giving F1 real world relevance as engineers work on making cars slippery through the air.

            KERS is an incredibly easy way to keep the engine side of F1 real world relevant. Sure, to include it again you have to have some compromises on the chassis design side but that’s the F1 we all knew 15-20 years ago. You could either have a car quick on the straights and slower around the corners or vice versa. Now it’s all about downforce, unless you’re Force India at Spa and Monza…

  2. Great article as always.

    KERS was a real waste of resources last year. It was a good concept that was introduced. It gave engineers new challenges, unfortunately, the rewards for accomplishing these challenges was a measly 80bhp boost while it was clear that most KERS units on the grid could deploy much more than 80 bhp.

    Formula One lately instead of becoming about innovation, has become about reading the rulebook finely and stretching the rules to the limit. It is precisely due to this why a double decker diffuser trumped KERS so easily last year. The rules for diffuser had more loopholes than the rules for a KERS system.

    Bring back KERS, but only if teams are being allowed to use all the boost that is available to them and not just 6 seconds. Let the teams gather Kinetic Energy from rear AND front tyres not just rear.

    1. I’m not against bringing back KERS BUT if they are going to do so it needs to be more technical freedom. F1 technical cutting edge not anylonger as other stated. If you look at Indy Car they have a overtake button it can only be used 20 times a RACE. It also only give you 9bhp (yes only NINE) and only last for a very short period, ones it’s used you you have a few before it’s reset and you can use it again. Sure it’s used as defense but generally it’s in responds to another driver hitting their overtake button and once the front drivers overtake “worn out” the driver behind can hit his again and generally before the front drivers is reset your at the corner.

      Either your very restrictive like this (it makes for good racing) or you are very deliberate in the usage and power. Allow them an extra 150bhp and allow them only say to use it for say max 1sec at a time and have to wait 5 sec before next usage but allow unlimited usage per lap. Many straights are done in about 5-8 seconds. On shorter straights the one that hit the button first would be best setup to use it on the exit on the next corner. If straight is to “short” you might not have it reset again for exit on next corner will driver behind might be setup for it.

      The “advantage” from KERS last year was not enough advantage for many teams to even bother to bolt it on because the benefit of power vs weight and load issues didn’t make it worth it.

      Whatever they do FIA REALLY need to TEST on their proposed rule changes then just decide and say this is what we will do we think it will be good.

  3. “Environmental credentials” is a bit of a laugher. The amount of waste involved (batteries that last a single race, etc.) pretty much negates whatever minimal fuel efficiency is gained.

    I still don’t understand why KERS had to be limited to 80 bhp and 6.7 sec. Let the teams innovate and come up with creative solutions. If everyone operates under the same limiting conditions (80 bhp, 6.7 sec), then all you end up with is formulaic results. It simply becomes a matter of engineers crunching numbers to determine the optimum times for when to use KERS. All the teams can figure out the same thing, so there’s no variability. We saw this last year. The people that had KERS used it in the same places consistently.

    On the other hand, I do understand why KERS had to be limited: COST – the 500lb gorilla in the F1 room. They still have not come up with a good solution for cost containment, in my opinion. The solution so far has been shoe-horning F1 into a semi-spec series. This has stifled innovation and variability. I’m frankly surprised more engine manufacturers haven’t bolted. What’s the motivation to keep producing homolgated engines that are frozen for years?

    1. I partially disagree. If KERS is limited by cost, how can its true potential be reached? Imposing a budget cap means slowing down a good process and I certainly can’t agree with that. At the end of the day, Formula 1 is a race against time and space. Who is in front, wins the races. Simple.

      However, I agree with everything else you wrote.

      1. I think the whole cost thing is over exaggerated. In 2008 Red Bull’s revenues were less than Tottenham Hotspur’s for 2009. Tottenham Hotspur for Christ sake! The biggest cost issue is all the money that goes out of the sport via the commercial rights holder.

      2. theRoswellite
        10th April 2010, 0:09

        @ Xibi…

        YES, Yes, yes…

        In fact make F1 the leading edge of KERS development.

        In fact, make F1 the leading edge of electric powered auto technological development.

        In fact, let F1 engineering become once again the leading edge of all kinds of relevant-to-the-future technologies.

        It is time for the FIA to stop the constant restrictions and limitations, and start “legislating” for the future.

        Are you listening Mr. Todt?

  4. I think I’m on the side of your F1 engine tech. Lets just scrap the present rules and go back to the basics of F1. Let the FIA specify the weight, engine capacity, wheel sizes and the area’s where aero bits can or cannot be fitted.
    And lets see who can build the best open wheel sports car in the world, the way it is meant to be.

    1. But with a budget cap linked to inflation.

      We have all these rules about how many hours you can spend doing this, how many miles doing that, soon it will be how many people you have, etc.

      Just have one rule: spend no more than this. Add that to “don’t build your cars beyond this in these areas” and we’ll have sustainable innovation for the next decade at least.

      1. Exactly!!! If cost is the real driving force for all the restrictions, put the restriction on the cost (and the basic design principles – no 6 wheelers or fan cars again) and let teams do the best they can without going it.

        You could see teams with more powerful petrol engines going against more efficient but slightly less powerful diesels against hybrids.

        But as with every sport that has a “salary cap” the problem is enforcing this. Might be easier to make teams that are just a racing team comply, but what about a team like Ferrari who could say they are doing work for a hybrid road but then apply that to their F1 car?

  5. don’t undertstand with all this “green” issue with F1, they have said the informtaion about “climate change” is all a bunch of lies and was manipulated. so make the cars go up to 280mph or something and burn as much fuel as the old days and lets carry on as normal.

    Faster cars do mean older tracks would have to go or be upgraded to suit the speed/safety of drivers and fans but in the end Bernie calls the shots.

    In 10-15 years time road cars will outclass F1 cars in all catagories if they are not careful.

    1. Why not Williams KERS?
      Here you go: there is only one place you can put flywheel based KERS- behind the driver’s seat. It’s impossible these days (due to refueling ban)to accomodate flywheel based KERS along with such big fueltanks. Some of the cars are already long.

      Williams KERS is much cheaper, lighter and more efficient (in racing enviroment whrere you don’t have to store recovered energy too long- you use it every lap)

    2. “They”? Who is “they”? The oil industry and their cronies, perhaps?

      Just because some of the evidence for climate change was “sexed up” and manipulated doesn’t mean that the whole thing is complete nonsense.

      Not everything that Darwin wrote about natural selection and so on was correct. Does that invalid the whole thing too?

      1. “They” meaning scientists around the world who are seeing real evidence and are actually agreeing that this is a natural occurence that happens every 30 years, which as record show give more evidence then a computer telling us if we hit a certain point of CO2 we are “doomed”.

        When greenpeace start opening their mouths we have to listen, but when a guy who has better evidence saying “don’t panic, it’s a natural occurrence” he is silenced by the tree huggers and the media.

        read this.


        The north pole won’t melt fully until 2013 they reckon and not come back for a few years until the cycle repeats again. And not permanent as you all have been told.

        It has happend in the past, even before Darwin was born and his family before him.

        How did the vikings draw a maps of the land mass around them? it’s because there was no ice at the north pole 2,300 years ago.

        You go on with your life thinking the whole planet will become some wastland, while I’m going to open a ski resort up in scotland for the next 10 years until it stops and then laugh that i didn’t get sucked in by the media hype they always do….remember the HRN1 virus last year? yer a real threat to the world that was………

        1. The vikings were around 1000 years after that though?

          I think it’s slightly foolish to suggest all the chemicals we’re releasing into the atmosphere aren’t having any effect, simply because it has happened naturally before doesn’t mean we should initiate it ourselves.

          Finally, you actually believe something written in the daily mail?

          1. Global warming fear mongering is simply a way to get cash out of people, and keep them quiet. Want to put up the cost of utility bills? Simply say the increased cost is to stop you using the stuff, so you become green. More cost on petrol and diesel? it’s to stop you driving and make you green. Without the car the economy dies as no body can get to work. Ask yourself where is all the cash going?

            The truth is cows put out more green house gasses in the air than anything else on earth. Deforestation stops the planet converting CO2 back to oxygen. Forests are destroyed for Beef farming. Want to go green? Stop eating beef so the cow population goes down. (No, I’m not anti meat).

            The planet will be here long after mankind has died out. No matter what we do.

          2. Mark Hitchcock
            10th April 2010, 0:24

            Hate to break it to you Tiomkin but fuel prices are going to increase whether or not climate change is the real deal, and whether or not politicians are involved.

            Ever heard of Peak Oil?
            Basically we’ve reached, or are about to reach, the point at which we stop finding new oil. That obviously means that it will become more expensive.
            But it also means that if we keep wasting the oil on cars etc. instead of putting it into developing renewable energy then by the time we NEED the wind farms etc. we won’t have the resources to develop them. And we’ll be royally screwed.
            Billions of people will die, we’ll be plunged back to a way of life before the industrial revolution and the end of life on Earth as a result of climate change will be a relief!

            p.s I’m not entirely sure where this is gonna slot into the reply chain so apologies if it is in completely the wrong part of the conversation!

        2. You link to a single Daily Mail article, which you claims supports your conclusion that global warming is not caused by humans. How about some actual peer-reviewed science? The stuff you find in technical journals?

          The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities contribute significantly to climate change. No amount of head-burying will change that.

          1. Hey now lets not be down on the quality journalism of that well renowned bastion of objective reporting known as the Daily Mail. I mean it’s not as if they’d do anything as silly as blame facebook for a rise syphilis or claim that 2000 bugs are living in every train compartment:



          2. Guess you’ve never heard of the hacked Climate Research Unit emails….

            “K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

            Or you did hear of them, but you just chose to bury your head in the sand.

          3. BTW Andy, can I ask you, how was it that the ice age ended, when there wasn’t a single Hummer around?

          4. sorry for the swear, you can delete that word if you like keith. :o

          5. I’ve heard of the CRU emails but I prefer to keep a sense of proportion. The vast majority of climate science is sound and requires no fudging of data. Go down to your local university library, have a look in some climatology journals. If you don’t agree with what they are saying, do your own research and get it published. That’s what science is all about.

          6. Rob R. – your point about Hummers. I don’t think many sane people would argue that there haven’t been natural periods of global warming and cooling in the history of the Earth. The Ice Age was a long period of cooling which was ended by a long period of warming.

            However, at the moment we are dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This appears to be responsible for the climate getting warmer – not a new phenomena, clearly, but the first time it appears to have been caused by human activity. At the very least, we’re subjecting our climate to an enormous unchecked experiment. That clearly carries an awful lot of risk.

            The stacks of peer reviewed evidence is there, whether you like it or not.

        3. You may find this website a little more reliable than the Daily Mail:


          1. “I’ve heard of the CRU emails but I prefer to keep a sense of proportion.”

            Yes, that’s a nice way of saying “I just choose to stick my fingers in my ears.” How am I supposed to “keep things in proportion” when we now know we have “scientists” saying “yeah, let’s just keep that out of the peer-review process…. ”

            “If you don’t agree with what they are saying, do your own research and get it published. That’s what science is all about.”

            Obviously even if I did I couldn’t get published because there is a cabal of “scientists” plotting against dissent. And nothing is being done about it.

          2. “You may find this website a little more reliable than the Daily Mail:


            No, I may not. I doubt I will find anything funded by that crazy nutball George Soros. “reliable”. You probably don’t even know who he is, so obviously you are the ignorant one here.

          3. Mark Hitchcock
            10th April 2010, 19:32

            “I doubt I will find anything funded by that crazy nutball George Soros. “reliable”.”

            But you find reports and “research” funded by oil companies (who have a massive interest in muddying the waters) to be reliable?

          4. Wait, Mark, where did you hear that these studies from oil companies are questionable? Probably from the same politicians like Al Gore who were saying in 1990 “We only have ten years to save the earth from global warming!” And the same in 2000.

            Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from developing alternative energies. God knows we pay enough taxes, you’d think the government could have funded some kind of solution by now. We don’t have anything that can replace oil at the moment, and demonising oil companies will not make one magically appear.

            If you are really serious about “saving the world”, why don’t you go out and create something that will. I’m struggling to see how whining about the evil oil companies is helping you to do that.

          5. Mark Hitchcock
            10th April 2010, 23:20

            Why don’t I create something that will? Perhaps because I have no engineering knowledge whatsoever?

            And actually no I did not find out anything I know from Al Gore. I prefer to read, research and learn on my own.
            Believe it or not, that also involves looking into the counter-arguments. And I happen to not believe a word they say!

            The reason I would be highly suspicious of research funded by oil companies is the same reason I’d be suspicious of a report into the health benefits of fast food which is funded by Mcdonalds. They are paying off scientists to ignore the facts because they are going to lose a lot of money if some real action starts taking place! Are you really naive enough not to see that?

            The only way I can influence this whole debate in any way (not being a scientist, not being an engineer, not being a politician) is by trying to debate the issues with people like yourself.

          6. “Why don’t I create something that will? Perhaps because I have no engineering knowledge whatsoever?”

            Oh, I see! If only there was some place where you could learn about it, like some kind of “college” or “university”… damn…. nevermind, obviously it’s not your fault you haven’t come up with a solution – you weren’t born with engineering skills like some other people were!

            Jesus christ. This is the calibre of “argument” I have come to expect from you brainwashed…….. people.

            You know what my first response to you should have been? It should have been “WHAT oil-industry research”? We never hear anything about it. All you see on the TV and in the papers is OMFG IMPENDING ARMAGEDDON. That’s what we’ve had for the last 10 years except for the brief interlude of partial-sanity at the end of last year when these emails came to light. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

          7. Mark Hitchcock
            11th April 2010, 13:32

            It’s lucky universities and colleges are free isn’t it…oh wait. Yeah I’d rather spend my very meagre funds on food thanks.

            I’m not sure how you’re in the position to judge the calibre of my argument. Your position seems to be “If you can’t change it yourself, don’t bother talking about it”.

            Regarding research funded by oil companies. Google is your friend. I googled “Oil funded climate research” (without quotes) and plenty came up!
            Maybe it shows your real knowledge of the subject if your entire view of it is shaped by what the media is telling you…

            Aaaanyway, F1Fanatic isn’t really the place to be discussing this sort of thing. I come here for a nice, friendly chat about F1. So I’ll bow out now (unless your reply is especially compelling!)

          8. “Maybe it shows your real knowledge of the subject if your entire view of it is shaped by what the media is telling you…”

            Newsflash, the media are all on YOUR side. They’re all on board with the armageddon narrative. So I don’t know why you continue to peddle this stupid line where you insinuate that the media is somehow “for ignorant people”, or it is “keeping people ignorant”.

            It’s pure paranoid nonsense.

    3. Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in years!!

      Citing the Daily Mail as proof…

      Oh boy, that’s fantastic.

      Without getting into the debate as this is an F1 Forum, anyone who bothers to read up on climatology from proper sources, would know that regardless of claims and counter claims about the impact of humans, long term climate change (both hotter and colder) is the biggest threat posed to civilisation we know of – far greater than the meteor strikes Hollywood loves.

      I’d recommend “The two-mile time machine” as a great light read to get you up and running on known climate changes over the last 100,000+ years. Then if you want to get into an argument… perhaps spend a year or two in an academic library, something Daily Mail journalists wouldn’t even know how to find.

      Thanks for making my day

      1. (ok… nuclear war… i’ll give you that one… now let’s get back to F1)

      2. what does all this have to do with F1?

        1. In the longer term quite a lot, because depending on the findings of the 5th IPCC report F1 could find itself on the wrong end of draconian emissions regulations. Better to jump rather than be pushed and invest in the new tech now.

  6. Marc Connell
    9th April 2010, 19:56

    People say the £££££££ used on kers was a waste. I believe its a waste when nobody uses it after it was developed. F1 gave kers a future and now a few road cars are useing it. I believe that was money well spent…not a waste.

  7. KERS was ruined from the start with the restrictions placed on it. Had it been unlimited from the start, it would have become much more of an asset in the 2009 season, and probably not been dropped.

    As it is, it was too much cost for too little gain, so it was dropped. Now we have small teams in struggling for money, it’s even less likely to be brought back.

    I think it’s highly hypocritical that engines are frozen and yet aero development is allowed to run rampant, even within the restrictions currently imposed. We have the ridiculous situation where different engines are frozen so they stay almost equal in performance; this, in an era of supposed cost-cutting. We might as well just have one engine supplier if they’re serious about freezing performance for costs. KERS threatened to override the equalisation, and I suspect that’s why the FIA put such low limits on its performance capability.

    Hopefully the 2013 rules for engines and integrated KERS will be open and the only restrictions are how much you can spend on development. More than likely we’ll just get frozen engines with only a frozen mandatory KERS, manufactured by the teams with a standard option (like Cosworth is with the engines) making any difference from what we have now.

  8. I’m sorry Keith, but i’m really gonna have a rant now.
    I’m tired as hell about F1’s endless navel gazing.
    Why does Formula 1 have to be “green”? What exactly is “green” about welled heeled people, with money to burn, running enterprises that cost the GDP of a small African country. It consist of racing cars as fast as possible round and round again, paying prima donna kids millions of cash to do so, a freight/ logistics carbon footprint bigger than Australia.
    Any “greenness in F1 will be manufactured, no more than window dressing. F1 need not make apologies for what it is, and it need not appease any lobbies. It started as a sport for rich people, with time on their hands, looking for just another expensive thrill.
    70yrs from now, we’ll have made a sport out of the Gumball Run.

    You don’t see the WRC losing sleep over its lack of “green” credentials, or relevance to road car technology. Hell, they cut roads through huge swathes of countryside, they actively destroy and pollute the environment the races run through, and they even destroy the local flora and fauna in between!
    And we haven’t event got to Drag Racing yet, where the whole premise is built on burning as much fuel – Petrol, Alcohol, Nitrous Oxide as much as possible, in order to go as fast as possible.

    F1 was never about roadcar relevance. The manufacturers in F1 have separate R&D departments for their road car divisions, and have never treated F1 as conduit to introduce technology into road cars.

    Sure F1 should be about development innovation,but remember, that was not the point when it started, and but it need to bleed to into road cars. If it does, fine, if not, also fine.
    The 918 Spyder Hybrid can only do 15 miles on its electric motor on a full charge. What Porsche don’t mention much is the V8,550bhp fuel burning lump in the back. And the 599 HY-KERS is not much better. It still has its original V12, and consumption is only improved by 30%.
    If these are green cars, then I’ll print out every page of F1 Fanatic and eat it! Rant over.

    1. ”F1 was never about roadcar relevance. ”
      Wow where did that come from.
      When Mclaren introduced carbon it got into auto-moto, when Ferrari did shift gears on the wheel, also, carbon brakes, tunnel aero, tyre composition, engine development…
      F1 needs to stick to auto moto, that is why all the major car manufacturers are in it.
      Without it, it would be an enthusiast driven sport, with little money for those gadgets we all crave for ;)

      1. the bits you find on road cars off formula one cars were never designed for road cars initially, they just happily found their way down there and worked well. I dont want to see f1 cars with satnavs, cup holders and heated reclining electric seats :S

        1. So a cup holder equals carbon fiber, satnav equals gear wheel shift pads, and electronic heated seats equal kers, wow your logic is sound.
          Gadgets that revolutionize the automoto world equal accessories.

          1. Paul McCaffrey
            15th April 2010, 2:18

            I always thought the carbon fibre came from the aerospace industry.

  9. Welsh Chris
    9th April 2010, 20:52

    Got to say to Sumedh – Great reply! Completely agree

  10. Not much to add. I agree with everyone who has said that kers should be opened up and explored more. The idea of it being compulsory was thrown about last season but I have to disagree with that-just let the teams use it if they want.
    I wish engines were allowed to be tinkered with again especially now the rules have changed so much with regards to the ban on refuelling.
    I am pretty cynical that the green issue in F1 is just being used because it is fashionable. It’s something that I’m really indifferent about but there is the appeal of it being another new area to see some innovation and creativity which is nice.

    1. I agree that it shouldnt be compulsory. As far as i can see it should add a tacticle element. Teams could choose to carry around the extra weight of KERS hoping that the boost and the fact they have to carry around less fuel will outweigh the benefits of not having it.

      It would be a pretty crucial decision as if you got it wrong you would have to change the whole design of the car.

  11. Kers should be put in further development, but to get more overtaking put back 3.0 liter v10, allow only 18000 revs and give only 1-2 min of 20000 revs per race, and you got yourselves an unpredictable race.
    F1 spit itself in the face with its cuts of budget, so now they must be picky on what to choose.

    1. wouldn’t this be the cheapest and easiest solution?it could be in this year.
      even HRT can afford that right?

  12. Well hang me on a tree, but when it comes to F1 I don’t give a damn about our beloved planet Earth. It’s racing, the elitist sport where the best of the best should be driving high-end gas burning speed monsters, not their ecological substitutes. If you want some positive impact on the environment, go and make all manufacturers invest in green technologies, but keep your hands off the racing. This all “f1 green image” babbling is quite hypocritical. Suddenly everybody is interested in putting KERS in a racing car, but nobody realizes that an airplane which brought the car to the other hemisphere has burnt more fuel than all the f1 cars put together in a whole racing weekend.

  13. frank williams has said that his team’s kers it’s too big and with the current f1’s would make the car too long, better to use the battery type.

  14. KERS could be a good thing for Formula 1 if dealt good. Maybe it would be a good idea to limit its usage and not power – for example in a 50 lap race you can use KERS 25 times but the power output shouldn’t be capped or it should be capped at much higher output or time. You mention Porche 918 in your article but you could also mention Porche and Williams Hybrid Power have created a KERS system for new Porche 911.
    If Williams, the team who don’t have biggest budget in F1 keep pushing with the technology it means it isn’t only about ”green image” and roadcar revelance. They are racers first and last and everything they do is done to ensure to keep on running. If they can see future for KERS in F1 I believe it could be more then a flashy gimmick.

    1. Jarred Walmsley
      9th April 2010, 22:07

      Theres an idea but how about limiting the total Kw used in the race that way the teams could decide whether to have a more repetive lower power or smaller usage but more power. It would add an interesting aspect to the strategy wouldn’t it?

      1. Jarred Walmsley
        9th April 2010, 22:25

        in fact this theory could even be applied to the engines themselves if the FIA just set a rev and HP limit then let the teams build an engine around that of any size/cylinder count and aspiration. This would then affect fuel consumption so a team could decide to cut down on power too improve the fuel consumption i.e if the limit was 800HP they may decide to go 790HP to improve fuel consumption and thus decrease weight. And obviously the engine choice would impact fuel consumption as well. Having a range of engine types/powers/aspirations as well as differing KERS technology would make F1 very exciting to watch

  15. Finally an article which voices my thoughts!

    Formula 1 and cost-cutting should never ever be mixed. If you are not fit economically for Formula 1, stay out of it. There are other series which fit your bill and do so specifically.

    Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of technology, the ultimate technological fighting league. In physical combat, we never see lightweight fighters compete with heavyweight ones for obvious reasons. Yet, for some reason, Formula 1 rule makers and even competing teams, fail to see the obvious. In order to improve the show and the world’s technology , you don’t lower the difficulty and ambitions, but raise it so you push yourself and obtain more. In Formula 1, this inevitably means raising the costs. But the exact opposite is happening. As a result, we ended up with aero development taking over Formula 1 in favour of mechanical development due to cost restrictions. We might have more cars on the grid now, but is the quality of the show any better? Of course NOT!

    I challenge anybody to explain to me how through cost cutting, the very best green technology can be found and implemented, both on the track and on the road. Green technology barely has anything to do with aerodynamical technology. Yet, right now, that is practically the only thing engineers are free to develop. This isn’t even a paradox, but straight contradiction of concepts. I’m not against aerodynamic research, it’s part and parcel of racing (hate it or love it), but just like in nature, everything must exist in ratio to each other. Unfortunately, aero development far outweighs anything else.

    While I disagree with Ferrari on many fronts, they were actually right in their brutal description of Formula 1’s new teams. Effectively, in order to compete with the big ones, these teams are tying the hands of the likes such as Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes in what they can really achieve. Their full potential is not being reached and in the end, the loser is the bigger interest. The people of the world are suffering as a result. They can no longer benefit of the technical novelties brought by Formula 1’s genii. (plural of genius if you were wondering) Many things wouldn’t be what they are today if it wasn’t for Formula 1, including computer simulation technology which has a lot of applications including medicine; and also a KERS system. KERS has not been used as effectively as it could have, due to cost cutting (seriously, this is getting like a sick joke), but the data gathered to develop such a device was useful enough to get other manufacturers develop their own system for the road. Now imagine if the rules weren’t so restrictful, this technology certainly would have developed much more, both power-wise and efficiency wise. God knows were the world would be right now. I know we went through a recession and to a certain extent, cost cuttings were inevitable, but now that we are nearly out of it, everything should be restored to its full glory. More technical freedom on all fronts should be given. If anything, the only restriction which I’ll agree on is aerodynamic research. We had too much of it due to an imbalance in recent rules.

  16. If F1 wants green credentials.

    i) severely limit petroleum fuel. (15 % decrease from year to year)
    ii) unrestrict KERS & engines & allow hydrogen fuel cells.
    iii) Stop dragging wings down the straights.
    either allow electronically movable wings or set bounds on coefficient of drag.

    Let the engineers … engineer

    1. I mostly agree Peter. I’ve been banging on about limiting power (and limiting testing) via limiting fuel for years. I miss the engineering wars of different engine types against one another, and a power v efficiency puzzle for the engineers would have practical applications in the real world, and be fascinating.

    They will use much less fuel than a highly-strung nat asp engine. If there are engine failures, SO WHAT, it will spice up the championship. Teams should be allowed to spend millions.
    If formula one doesnt get its act together on rules and costs then we are going to see other series like indycar or champ car overtake f1 cars in terms of speed and spectacle.
    Why does F1 have to be ‘green’ aswell. F1 is totally not related to road cars.

    1. Kind of hard for Champ Car to overtake F1 considering they’ve been defunct for 2 years now. :)

      1. daym, your right D:

  18. F1 must be at the cutting edge of technology. F1 must be able to keep costs down. F1 must be more about driver skills. But… i dont see how they can all come together. To be at the cutting edge, you need to spend money in developing them, but if money is allowed to spend then the big teams will always run away leaving the smaller independent teams behind. more cutting edge technologies on the car means less driver input. I mean I know this article jus talks about KERS, but you can say that about every other aspect of an F1 car. Obviously every engineer wants to do innovative things, I as an engineer love F1 for all its technology and everything…. but then F1 wont be the bare bone racing that so many people want to see.

  19. Aha! I’ve been harping onto my friends for a few months now about how F1 can go about being green, increasing overtaking etc. etc.

    Firstly on the aero side. A Force India engineer was on the BBC 5 Live Free Practice session during one the races this year, not sure which one – I think Bahrain, and mentioned that currently the F1 engines are more energy efficient than a hybrid on the road currently. However in order to drive through the amount of down force generated on the straight, they have to guzzle up all that fuel

    My idea is that we firstly increase the track width of the car to be similar to that before grooves came in 1998. I recall it was around 200mm-300wider. Keep the front wing at its current width, which means the issues pointed out by JA: ( http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/04/sepang-special-technical-update/ ) here are removed.

    Then increase the rear wing by roughly the same amount of the track width in order to make it look more natural to the formula 1 cars. However we would then have still excessive rear down force and drag. The trick here is, is to limit the “Maximum angle” to something that we would of seen at the Indianapolis GP’s http://tinyurl.com/FUTURE-F1-WINGS . A nice idea I’ve thought of recently is to create a standard “Hanford Device” style system that would create a huge amount of drag for the front car, but create a huge frictionless suction hole behind it that in a straight will allow cars to be slip streamed from > 10M instead of around 2 car lengths currently. The only issue about this, it would increase the drag, thus increase fuel usage which is going against the whole thing I’m on about. However this would firstly sort out the racing a good amount.

    It would be nice to see a ‘F-Duct’ style system (without shark fins) or rear wings that would stall the rear wing (but not the F1 Hanford device). Given that F1 doesn’t go on ovals, remains full throttle. I don’t think the big “dangers” it caused in CART would be anything like that – but same again it won’t see us having 66 passes a race which was in CART. But it would first allow cars to take advantage of a slip stream further back, like seen in the past.

    Given that the diffuser regulations and floor regulations are changing for the better in 2011. I’d suggest bringing back a bigger front tyre again to be similar to what we had last year – more mechanical grip.

    Now to bring me on to my main point. I think its pretty much certain that we will be switching to 1.6Litre Turbo V6 engines from 2013 onwards. The steps above would decrease the drag and allow speeds to remain the same as currently. But we are talking about KERS, Green Technology etc. My idea is the following:

    A “KERS” Boost system which can be deployed around 10 times a race with a power output of around 180BHP for around 8-10 seconds. This boost system should be a standardised unit – with personal preference from Mclaren Electronic Systems (MES). A1GP had a boost system that worked quite well, as it was limited and meant that you had to be tactical as to whether to use it for defending or overtaking.

    Now to something that Peter just mentioned. That would be where the “spending” is done on green energy. Each year have a standardised fuel cell which is decreased each year.

    This year the fuel cell is around 220-230Litres

    For 2011 maybe they can limit the fuel sell to 200 Litres then 180litres etc..

    This will drive the teams to develop a KERS or any other energy device, seperate from the BOOST system, that will replace the energy lost from the amount of fuel that can be used. This will drive the teams to develop initiative ways of increasing the MPG of the engine, which will allow them to directly plug into the real world applications.

    I’m not fully convinced that man made global warming is true. However I do believe that we should extract the maximum of everything in terms of cutting back on our dependencies on fossil fuels to clean up the air we breathe.

    Just my 2 cents. – I have a fully detailed PDF document that I’m producing for personal use of how we can remain realistic with the future of F1 (cost, green energy) but also improving the “show”.


  20. Snap! Never thought I should lose it on this forum, but now is my time! lol

    First, F1 has many ideals. One is to improve the show.

    Another is to keep costs down.

    Thirdly, many involved in F1 wish to appear ‘green’ for marketing purposes.

    So, let’s start with “The Show”. Tyre manufacturers wish to be involved in competition so as to improve their products and train their chemists/ engineers.

    Well, greatly reduce the size of tyres (especially the front) and reduce or stop the ability to change tyres except after an incident (cut tyre, and so on).

    This shall minimize mechanical grip. That equals passing.

    Now, the tyre companies are happy.

    Now, we address aeros. Since when do road cars have double diffusers? Right. So, we go to “Andy-Wings” (tm reg’d) as previously mentioned. Anything outbound of the axle lines is mandated. More passing.

    Finally, the engines. One litre, four-cylinder in-line, turbo-charged engines limited to ten or twelve thousand RPM. No road car shall ever go over ten grand rpm. Now, about the KERS. Open. Period. Unlimited.

    Now, we get the green, the technology and the road car issues covered with the motor.

    Keep costs down? Each manufacturer must agree to supply a minimum of eight cars. Engines must last FOUR races. Done deal. Dawdle at ten Kay.

    Lap and corner speeds are getting higher and dangerous? Right … as in Canada, the so-called “pump” fuel must contain ethanol.

    At first, the fuel could be the regular ‘rocket-fuel’ that Agip, Shell, and the others provide.

    Speeds are getting too high? Introduce ‘green’ fuels that contain 5, 10, 15 per-cent ethanol as we have at the pumps in North America.

    Problem solved. You are welcome, gentlemen.

    Andy rant over. lol

  21. theRoswellite
    9th April 2010, 23:56

    @ Andy….

    You have the mechanical grip and tire size (width not height) going in the wrong direction…(that’s OK, we’ll argue that one out on another day).

    Well, as you say, “Since when do road cars have…”, well they don’t basically have aero period, or perhaps just for looks. Get rid of it, or reduce it to just “balancing devices”.

    KERS…..we are in perfect agreement, build them, use them, and don’t restrict them, then say hello to the future, before you’re not part of the future.

    ENGINES…. I like your ideas, but I’d like to see F1 still look to the future even more strongly. Have a limited size fuel engine and the possibility of a very large electric powered capacity…batteries….pit stop recharging…whatever, let F1 engineers lead the industry not follow meekly along in the shadows of real green development.

    FUEL…we disagree, don’t legislate poor performance, find a way to improve performance. (develop more mileage per liter…cut the possible weight of the cars drastically…in other words go in the direction the car industry must go)

    Problems solved, You are welcome.

    (Hey, Andy, why don’t they just listen to us (more declarative than interrogative really…)

    1. A-hahahaha! I like the cut of your jib, Sir!

  22. Prisoner Monkeys
    10th April 2010, 0:18

    If KERS is to be re-introduced, it needs to be mandatory (and possibly a spec part). The single biggest problem with it last year was that no-one bothered with it and so Ferrari and McLaren – when they got to a front-runing position – really destroyed the spectacle because no-one could pass them. Like Vettel trying to squeeze by Massa in Barcelona; a good battle was ruined because of Massa’s KERS button.

    If KERS isn’t re-introduced as a mandatory part, it shouldn’t be re-introduced at all. Otherwise, it’s just going to be a waste of time, effort and money.

    1. possibly a spec part??? This is one area where F1 can still develop technology allowing it to be both the ‘pinical of motorsport’, and ‘more relevant to road cars and casual viwers’. Why you would want to make it spec is beyond me.

  23. A lot of good ideas going around here, too many to clutter by individual replies so I’ll do another post here.

    Cost of KERS – if we have a budget cap, make “green” technology exempt. Teams can spend as much as they want on KERS, improving it to ever greater levels that will trickle into the world of road cars

    Costs in F1 being necessarily high – I agree that if we want the best racing series in the world, forcing every team to do it on £40million a year is plain ridiculous. But we still need small teams, for extra innovation partly but also as stepping-stones into F1 for up-and-coming talent (staff, mechanics, and engineers as well as drivers). My solution would be to bring back customer elements in F1. Chassis, engines, drivetrains, KERS, whatever constitutes a relatively major part of the car. The only restrictions would be that you can’t buy more than one component from the same team, and they have to be an “older” version (unless that area happens to be frozen, but I don’t agree with freezing anything). This would apply for the first year of the team’s existence, and from every year on you have to start making one or two (depending on how big the list of customer parts is) of the things you’ve been buying by yourself, until all you can have as a customer is the engine, at which point you can have the newest version every time it comes out. That way new teams can ease into the world of F1 with less chance of the USF1 and HRT dramas being repeated.

    The effect of downforce on fuel consumption – I hadn’t thought about this, but it makes sense. Downforce is good in corners, bad in straights. An idea I’ve entertained for a while is to have the wings act as air brakes. It won’t do anything to braking distances if you impose a maximum angle, but that’s arbitrary and it cuts out the strategy of using more or less wing to get speed from the corners or the straights, and make efficiency in aero (which I’m all for) less rewarded. Of course, if we reduce the overall level of aero downforce, which will improve racing, then we mitigate the effect of aero on fuel, so I’m falling back on that as a solution.

    1. theRoswellite
      10th April 2010, 6:05

      @ Icthyes..

      Very interesting ideas concerning new teams acquiring elements of the established teams. There would need to be some requirements forcing the established teams to “comply” with this system.
      Very original idea.

      “Of course, if we reduce the overall level of aero downforce, which will improve racing, then we mitigate the effect of aero on fuel, so I’m falling back on that as a solution.”

      Another excellent choice. I say, “Off with the wings (billboards)”, give us back a…car.

      Imagine if you will…

      A car of maximum lightness, with maximum mechanical grip, courtesy of wider tires (increased contact patch) and a driver modulated variable configuration suspension.

      A car with more than enough power from its hybrid, turbo charged, low consumption engine with a KERS unit interacting with a powerful electrical motor system.

      The overall shape of the car can also be changed by the driver (not the pits, not a computer) to enable the lowest drag when desired (straights) and the highest drag when desired (air braking).

      F1 at leading edge of numerous technologies. The place we should be.

      1. Ahhh …. wider tyres means more grip. When the grip exceeds the ability of the motor, we lessen wheel-spin. Wheel-spin at the start, or on corner exits then does not need control. No control, means no driver talent required. Less mistakes means less passing.

        Less wide tyres during cornering ensures that the pilot must be on constant vigil, else he oversteps that line and ends up in the drink! Mistakes make for over-taking. Mind I (and hopefully you ;) ) am discussing life in a non-aero world.


  24. Surley the cost of a few teams setting up the system and then only using it for one year is far more wasteful then long term investement into a technology that had the potential to add a new and arguably needed dimension to F1 racing.

  25. First of all last year was a bad example of KERS as only a handful of teams were running it. They were much faster on the straights and the other teams were faster in the corners. If all teams were required to run it the playing field would be a lot more even. I think there should be fewer regulations that stifle innovation, and put more emphasis on capping budgets. That would allow for smaller independent teams and new teams to be competitive, and reward those who are able to figure out how to innovate on a budget. Hopefully five years from now we’ll see much smaller turbo engines. The weight saved from the smaller engine would allow for KERS to be run without sacrifice.

    1. Oh, and that Porsche 918 looks awesome. I also love the fact that its hybrid technology operates in a number of different modes, everything from standard fuel saving mode like current hybrid cars on the road, to a push button power boost similar to KERS.

  26. Enrique Miguel
    10th April 2010, 1:03

    The solution is quite easy:

    If the teams are not willing to pay the price for the development of the system, then the FIA should appoint two or three companies willing to develop the systems (Say Bosch, Magnetti Marelli etc.)that eventually will find their way to commercial use and therefore recover the investment and make a large profit in the short term.

  27. the Sri Lankan
    10th April 2010, 1:10

    i wish the Lexus Lf-A had Kers in it. not that i can afford it or anything but after 8 years in F1, you would think Toyota would at least use something they learnt in their road cars

  28. I believe that suppling kers units like engine units should help a bit at least. instead of each team going with their own unit, teams could sell smaller teams kers as well. maybe we could see interesting pair ups, like mercedes engines with a ferrari kers or vice versa. maybe they should put less restrictions on kers and allow turbos as well. doing a sort of kers or turbo option. maybe some teams might prefer the smaller engine turbo options. others might prefer the kers units which could save fuel or provide more power. Defenitely although the pinnacle of motorsports F1 has been lacking in technological development (specially hard to proof for manufacturers who dont produce cars that have prices with 6 or 7 figures). at times i wish they simply did not put restricions and let the engineers develop the fastest most efficient machine possible. I do agree wit what the owner of the Aussie GP said that drivers are at times “prima donnas.”

  29. his_majesty
    10th April 2010, 2:30

    The racing last year was good with kers I thought. I don’t see why everybody cries about it. Lets move forward and embrace the future. It sounds like hippie talk, but its the truth.

  30. Must off been asleep when the green brigade admitted defeat to the global warming incorrect data correlation collation coefficent…..Theres One born every minute…

  31. KERS should be free
    We have limited engine so why not live KErs without this?
    I’m mean no limit for kW, power and how long it could be used in one lap.

  32. K. Chandra Shekhar
    10th April 2010, 6:23

    What about electric formula1 cars? Advantages : No burning of fossil fuels. No more Ride Height Systems as the weight will be similar in Qualifying & Race trim. Can stop Terrorism(don’t argue how, u very well know how?). Disadvantage : Charging times?

    1. disadvantage #2: a procesinoal race with all the fan fare of an electric egg beater.

  33. I think F1 should lift engine freeze, totally agree with your friend Keith if I can’t develop something whats the point in spending my time behind it?.I also voice that KERS should also not be restricted but the teams needs to make sure that they don’t use too much money behind it.

    1. And there’s the rub! Lots of technical freedom, but don’t allow the teams to spend too much. How can that be achieved I wonder?

      It was interesting that under the ‘budget cap’ rules that those teams accepting the cap would be able to run constantly adjustable wings, engines with no rev limit, more powerful KERS systems, and – in theory – four-wheel drive. They would also be allowed unlimited out-of-season track testing with no restrictions on the scale and speed of wind tunnel testing.

      An opportunity missed?

  34. I would love to see KERS, but the problem is the refueling ban. So the tanks have to be larger which means that their will be less space to put the KERS. So the choice is KERS or refueling ban.

  35. I think Formula 1 should encourage the development of eco-friendly technologies. The best way is to have a fuel-flow limit.

  36. NO to KERS.
    If you want parades of 6 meter long cars in Tlkedomes out in far away places with empty grandstands, then Kers is what you want.
    I want real racing in beautiful historic tracks.

    NO to the Krazy Economy Ruining System

    1. 6 meter long cars

      What on earth are you talking about?

      1. The cars are already made longer this year because of the bigger fuel tanks, and then will have to be made even longer to fit a Kers unit – if cars keep getting longer, it is more and more difficult to pass !

  37. In my view its wrong to think that F1 has to be at the absolute cutting edge of every technology in detriment of its core reason to exist – Racing -. Most of the younger fans grew up accustomed to associate F1 with high technology first and racing second. The technological development in F1 only occurs with a view to beat your competition. Its racing competition that drives technology and not the other way around. At the moment someone has to look at the long term viability of the sport, and with new teams on board I don’t think any more money should be spent developing KERS. I think a viable solution would be to provide a standard system to all teams, the same way the Engine management system is at the moment.

    1. anthony davidson was saying if you want a cheaper form of kers simple, allow movable wings thats can be ‘stalled’ like macca’s instead of kers.

      1. The cheapest form of KERS is to limit revs to 17,000 rpm and allow the driver to boost that to 18,000 rpm at certain points during qualifying and the race.

        I would like to see a system where the ‘boost’ that you use in qualifying also counts towards the race. So if you use too much in qualifying, then you will have less for the race.

        1. yes, it is the simplest all right. Even A1Gp managed it, as well as indy

  38. I really can’t understand where this whining about costs comes from.

    Engine manufactures where spending up to 200 million a year on squeezing a couple dozen more horsepower out of their engines.

    Mosley then said that they should stop wasting money on those insignificant changes and froze the engine designs.

    Then the manufactures insisted that they needed to be allowed to show their technical prowess and to that end KERS was suggested.

    The costs of KERS are at worst 10% of amounts that they were previously wasting on engine development.

  39. It is important f1 cars have KERS, as it makes them go faster.

    1. We must go faster! We must go faster! ;)

  40. No bailey Bass it only makes them go faster out of corners

    1. You could use it on the straights to increase acceleration, but it did not allow top speeds to be increased simply because of the 18,000 rpm rev limit. So KERS did not make the cars ‘faster’ from a top speed point of view.

      1. They use a higher gear ratio to get more speed from the same RPM.

        1. Cars with KERS didn’t have the highest top speeds. The Force India car had a consistently higher top speed than any other car over the 2009 season due to its slippery shape and lack of downforce. KERS was generally used to aid acceleration.

  41. The problem is that the teams spend too much time and money on the stuff that doesn’t matter (aero etc) and not enough time and money on the stuff that does (practical use of innovative technologies).

    1. Having said that, I am now of the opinion that F1 is moving more towards the entertainment side of things rather than having much to do with technology, mainly because no one wants a spending competition to decide an F1 championship any more.

      It’s patently obvious that companies such as Honda and VW have no need of participating in F1 in order to lead the way with regard to new and relevant automotive innovations.

  42. Isn’t the question whether the money to be spent on KERS is most profitably spent in the F1 arena or somewhere else?

    That would mean determining whether the level of competition and overall expenditures within the F1 environment would meet an R&D cost benefit paradygm.

    Yes you can possibly also mix in a marketing cost benefit marketing paradygm but that has been found wanting in F1 in the past years except in the case of those committed to top end entwined associated merchandise sales with supersports car supremacy that are finding relative value.

    So it comes back to KERS R&D and F1. There can’t be a benefit if they share a common system. And that means more spending for competing developed systems.

    So what then needs to happen is lower overheads/rent from the F1 rights holder, or lower expense on other elements (like aero or other non general auto r&d materials or systems).

    The problem keeps coming back to the dollars Bernie took out with the over the odds buy-in by CVC.

    If KERS doesn’t fit F1 then the questions remain over F1 relevance. Williams efforts likely wouldn’t have occured unless Mosely backed KERS but that is a question well worth exploring because it is central to F1 team futures.

    Can teams benefit in their F1 performance or commercially from developing technology that can only be applied outside F1?

  43. spanky the wonder monkey
    12th April 2010, 10:27


    not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere, however, rather than have a fixed power output, have an adjustable unit whereby the driver can decide on the level of boost, and change it at any time. output is measured in kw/h and once a threshold of energy use has been reached (an equivalent of say 100hp for 10 secs per lap), KERS is ‘depleted’. the upshot being that you can have higher boost for shorter time or lower boost for longer periods. kinda like the old turbo boost settings in the early 80’s

    those teams that want to chase mega high output from KERS can, those teams that don’t want that cost can use less powerful units, yet still get the same energy quota.

    sound viable?

  44. The KERs for Porsche is actually built by Williams. However Williams never ran a KERS in F1. Because it does not work! There are too many rules and resitrictions. KERS is wonderful if you can run all the power that you can gain. Unrestricted.
    Basically I think more could be found in actually making F1 engines more fuel economic than in introducing an electric engine. Unless you make the entire engine electrical powered.

  45. I’m a supporter of kers. These kinds of developments epitomise the very ethos of F1 and what F1 should be like and thus keeps it high in the forefronts of our minds of perceived technological development and advancement.

    Bringing in new comprehensive changes has brought huge debate amongst the fans as well as thrown the cat amongst the pigeons in the tradition teams placings. But as the tech heads get on top of the issues and challenges, we see the usual predictability and thus change should be administered again to spice things up.

    Hopefully lessons are being learnt along the way by the rule changes…

  46. Here’s our chance. If we all come together, pool our resources and work for the common good, we can buy two of the Ford Mustangs used in the filming of the thankfully-deceased Knight Rider remake. Why would we want to lay our hands on the distastefully-modified NBC creations? To kill them with fire. Think of it: a world in which the only bad Knight Rider was the original Knight Rider; a world where children are safe from thinking that KITT was anything other than the world’s most awesome self-aware Trans Am. We can do this.

  47. I think that F1 cars should have hybrid propulsion or KERS in the future. Anyway, KERS and an alternative solution (hybrid propulsion for example) to a more efficient propulsion system! Engine development should be allowed and fuel consumption reduced, a maximum volume of fuel should be specified for each driver. By doing this the engine manufacturers would be forced to make more fuel efficient engines while keeping performances to the same level!

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.