Tue
Jun 09 2009

The death of KERS

Andrew Frankel
It now seems certain that the future purpose of the much vaunted KERS energy recovery system is to enable F1 anoraks to look smug when its name appears on the question sheet of the local pub quiz in a few years time.

Expensive, unreliable and of unproven merit, all the F1 teams want shot of it save BMW which, in the interest of keeping the peace among FOTA members (and because it has no choice but to go with majority opinion) will not use it next year either.



It won’t be banned but nor does it need to be: another slice of high grade F1 anoraxia is that you could have entered F1 in 1954 with a car powered by a supercharged 750cc engine. Nobody did because nobody was quite that stupid.

I was one of the few that welcomed KERS because I thought it would encourage overtaking and require addition skill from the driver to master, ensuring the gap between the best and worst pedallers on the grid became more pronounced.

But as the half way point of the season approaches, no KERS car has even looked like winning a race and is now being used as much as anything by drivers of Ferraris and McLarens to prevent overtaking by theoretically quicker non-KERS car.

In fact and as far as I can see, its only real merit is to have proven such a blind alley that it at least assisted in making the big money teams design uncompetitive cars, precipitating the first really big shake up in the F1 hierarchy in decades.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Andrew Frankel

Talents are limited to "driving cars and writing English." In 19th century France he would, therefore, have been stuffed; as it is, Andrew's the perfect Autocar road test writer.

Comments

TegTypeR June 8, 2009 12:59 PM

My view has always been that F1 technology should have some sort of relationship with road going cars.  KERS has never even come close to looking like it could be utilised by the manufacturers.

I wonder what's up Bernies sleeve next?

Splash n Dash June 8, 2009 2:05 PM

There should be some relationship between F1 tech and road cars but it depends on what tech and what roadcar. Ferrari has alot of scope but Toyota has little scope with which to do this. BMW are somewher in the middle.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the knowledge the engineers gain being applied to roadcars rather than trying to shoehorn in some engineering principle that is only appropriate to F1 into a raod car.

Winston June 8, 2009 2:10 PM

Does this put Williams at an advantage? - I thought they have said that they have resolved the issues with it and that their system will be much more competetive next year with a doubling of the permitted power as they do nothave to contend with even heavier batteries?

Also next years design is due to oncorporate smaller front tyres negating the front heavy design of today's cars.

trocadero June 8, 2009 3:54 PM

It was Mad Max's idea, so much for money saving. How much has this cost the teams that tried it?

kurtverbose June 8, 2009 4:45 PM

When they went to 3 liters in the 60's you could also have 1.5 liters supercharged. No one did because you'd be laughed at.

Renault did in the late 70's and were laughed at, till they started winning.

Uncle Mellow June 8, 2009 7:24 PM

That 750cc supercharged engine idea wasn't THAT stupid. The 2.5 litre F1 engines of the day were making maybe 250 BHP and BRM were making around 580 BHP with their supercharged V16 1.5 litre in 1950. It was never reliable as materials were not up to the job , but a 750cc 8-cylinder would have used a far simpler crankshaft.

optimal_909 June 8, 2009 7:31 PM

Although I also like the pure thing without such gadgets, we should not forget, that the usage time of KERS is restricted, so the system can not show its full potential.

phenergn June 8, 2009 8:07 PM

I'm not strongly anti-KERS, but the idea of some cars having it while others don't is crazy.

Yesterday we saw Rubens driving heroically to get past Kovaleinen. He could't get close on the straights due to the McLaren's KERS boost, so he kept darting around at every corner looking for an openning, then with a mix of brave late-breaking and excellent car control squeezed through a last minute gap to get ahead.

Then down the next straight Kovaleinen just hit his magic boost button and drove round the Brawn car to take the place back. Pathetic.

NiallOswald June 8, 2009 9:55 PM

"KERS has never even come close to looking like it could be utilised by the manufacturers."

If anything it's been a technology transfer in the opposite direction. If you look at the electrical KERS used in F1, it works in exactly the same way as a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight - or any other parallel petrol/electric hybrid for that matter. The real question is whether or not F1's use of the technology has brought improvements - for example to the energy density of the batteries used.

I don't know if you're trying to imply that the KERS cars are slower thanks to KERS - have the teams at the bottom of the table given this as a reason for poor performance?

david RS June 8, 2009 10:03 PM

I'd like a pure F1 without buttons...

Without pit stops and those stupid x sorts of tyres.

Why not a restricted capacity of fuel but more freedom for the engines?

And a pure qualifying Q3 with a minimum of fuel for everyone...

autohead June 8, 2009 10:54 PM

I agree with the above posts KERS doesn't really help anyone in the real world. We need to go back to the days of the FW14B with chassis control and traction control to see how positively formula one can contribute to road cars. I recall an article by LJK Setright in the late 90s after an encounter with Damon Hill's championship winning car where he de-cried the use of crude technologies in a car which was supposed to represent the pinnacle of motorsport engineering. I personally think he was on to something.

vpande June 9, 2009 7:29 AM

To Andrew Frankel,

A little short sighted point of view isn't it. Especially when you consider the way KERS was introduced this season. For 2009 KERS was introduced to the F1 championship in such a way so that a team running without it would not be penalized if it didn't use it. I.e the power boost restricted to 80 bhp. From next year it was to go up to 160 bhp.

Now imagine Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa at this year's Monaco Grand Prix driving their F60s fitted with a 2010 spec KERS running not that much slower than the Brawns on a track where weight balance and mechanical grip play a greater role than aerodynamics (Massa had the fastest lap and Kimi finished behind Barrichello only because of sloppy pitwork at Ferrari). They were beaten at Monaco this year because of the strategy of the Brawns starting on soft tyres.

With a 160 bhp boost they could have easily done to Button and Barrichello what Massa and Rosberg did to Vettel coming out of the tunnel before the chicane (got a huge run on them and passed them).

BMW having to ditch a technology that could have had the same effect on F1 as turbocharging because they need to show solidarity with FOTA to take on the FIA is the sad part of this whole messy ordeal. Think back to the time when Renault were the laughing stock of F1 because their turbocharged cars would always keep going up in smoke until the early 80s and what followed when they started to get it right.

Broom Broom June 9, 2009 12:18 PM

F1 has no obligation to use technology that can be applied to road cars beyond the requirement for four wheels and space for a driver.

As far as I can tell, the belief that F1 must necessarily cater to this hypothetical imposition is just a meaningless, arbitrary and almost ideological little code that some people on here appear to have conjured up; and about as useful as if I were to proclaim that Formula One cars must be able to carry a set of golf clubs.

Was Ground Effect ever considered for use on a road car. For that matter, is downforce often hugely relevant on the road? No.

Are the sort of suspension settings that are dynamically limited to the odd destructive excursion onto a patch off grass relevant for the road; with its moronic speed bumps, undulations, potholes, curbs and constantly variable weather? No.

Do you need to go through a brake heating sequence, or warm your tyres before going up the chip shop, to avoid spearing off the road at 170 mph? Well, possibly, but you must really love fish and chips to even consider it.

In my opinion, it is important, for whatever infinitesimal significance these forums might have in the grand scheme of regulating Formula One, that we do not create and potentially sentimentalise these hollow aphorisms, as, in doing so, we sully the debate about how to reconcile the often divergent motives of the internal F1 world and the semi-educated, thrill-seeking audience.

david RS June 9, 2009 12:49 PM

I agree.

The most important for the F1 is the art of the driving...

No traction control of course for that!

vpande June 9, 2009 4:24 PM

Why can't F1 teams be allowed to think outside the box should they feel like it?

If the argument is that F1 has a sole purpose of entertaining the "semi-educated" thrill seeking audience then why not go further and say every car should be nothing more than just a utilitarian piece of kit. Give the whole world Tata Nanos and tell them that they don't need to go for anything more because car companies should have no obligation other than to make something with four wheels and space for a driver to get around?

As far as transfer from racing to road cars go, that ball started rolling a long time ago. Its not an obligation but racing just happens to be an excellent environment in which to test products under extreme conditions.

Car prototypes undergo testing in the Arctic circle and deserts but how many car buyers in the world take their cars to such extremes?

How exactly does having KERS diminish the art of driving an F1 car? Its just another element that drivers need to take into consideration.

Broom Broom June 9, 2009 8:05 PM

Vpande, you seem to have almost completely reversed and jumbled-up most of the gist of what I was saying.

My point is that Formula 1 has no obligation to be a testing ground for, or reflection of, the engineering principles of a road car.

You appear to introduce the word 'utilitarian' as the antithesis of its true relation to F1 design: the very essence of a Formula One car is that it is utilitarian, more so, perhaps, than any vehicle outside of the army; being designed to be as fast and race-worthy as possible. Aside from a few stickers, it is not borne of any aesthetic judgement whatsoever. Though F1 technology inevitably filters through to road cars, that potential outcome would be considered incidental at the point of design, with the designer trying solely to produce a car that is as fast as possible.

I refer to the semi-educated, self-proclaimed thrill-seeking audience, whose shrill voices seem to be the ones that are most often pandered to, as a disparagement. In my opinion, setting aside accusations of snobbery, there is such a thing as a true F1 fan, which this section of the audience probably never wish to be.

You begin to illogically ramble about Tatas at some point, but amid the confusion, I can just about make out that you might well agree with me if you'd got the right end of the stick. Car companies have a critical, commercial obligation to consider much more than just adherence to a format of four wheels and space for a driver; Formula One teams have only one motivation beyond that conformity: to produce competitive pace. This is probably where you got most muddled up.

As far as KERS is concerned, I have posted a point before, asking if I am right in thinking that it is, at present, configured in a very inefficient way, with the energy storage needing to have a capacity of 160bhp over a single lap, yet never being more than half utilised.

My proposal for KERS would be the only logical one that I can envisage, and one that would provide a genuine step forward not only in efficiency but also race dynamics and power. It is this:

In 2010, the full capacity of the KERS system, being 160bhp, would be available for the entirety of the race, free of constraints within any lap, and at each corner the system would or could harvest energy as the driver wished. This could then be used on every appropriate part of the track until it was exhausted or until the next bend is reached - at which point it is topped up. This would be massively efficient, especially when compared to the sheer idiocy and inefficiency of the current regulations; which demand that the car carries roughly 200% of the storage weight that is actually needed to provide 80bhp per lap, and only uses it for 6.67 seconds.

In its current format, KERS is indeed madness, but if the principle I have outlined above were followed, it would unquestionably add a fantastic new dynamic to both the cars' performance and the drivers' craft.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - cover 8.2.12

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>