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

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.

KERS

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

  1. bronek82 said on 10th April 2010, 5:42

    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.

  2. K. Chandra Shekhar said on 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?

  3. wasiF1 said on 10th April 2010, 8:22

    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.

    • 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?

  4. Nixon said on 10th April 2010, 8:25

    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.

  5. Pingguest said on 10th April 2010, 18:55

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

  6. Bartholomew said on 10th April 2010, 19:11

    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

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th April 2010, 10:52

      6 meter long cars

      What on earth are you talking about?

      • Bartholomew said on 11th April 2010, 11:34

        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 !

  7. Gilvan said on 10th April 2010, 21:37

    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.

    • HG (@hg) said on 11th April 2010, 6:17

      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.

      • 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.

  8. Patrickl said on 11th April 2010, 11:01

    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.

  9. Bailey Bass said on 11th April 2010, 12:28

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

  10. Mr Juggie said on 11th April 2010, 12:31

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

    • 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.

      • Patrickl said on 11th April 2010, 20:17

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

        • VXR said on 12th April 2010, 1:27

          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.

  11. 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).

    • 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.

  12. m0tion said on 12th April 2010, 8:38

    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?

  13. spanky the wonder monkey said on 12th April 2010, 10:27

    KERS…..

    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?

  14. PeterG said on 12th April 2010, 11:38

    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.

  15. Chaz said on 12th April 2010, 20:30

    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…

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.