With no refueling allowed in 2010 I was wondering if it would be advantageous to use KERS in such a way to increase the fuel millage.

I envision it working like this.

When the KERS button is pressed instead of increasing the HP to overtake another car it would knock down the HP the engine produces and KERS would kick in keeping the total HP at a give throttle setting the same thus reducing fuel consumption.

This of course would be in addition to the fuel settings they now utilize.

Could this save enough fuel over the distance of the race so the car would be lighter thus reducing average lap time by having a weight advantage?

I don't think it would save enough fuel to really make a significant difference, I would think that at the most, you would save, probably not even 2 laps worth of fuel.

Not even that... KERS is about 8% of the potential engine output for 6 seconds... so average of 100 minutes worth of an average 65 lap race gets you to a total potential of about 35 seconds worth of full engine potential or there abouts... Either way it isn't enough to make much of a difference. The biggest effect for next year is going to be dropping the RPM down and increasing the gear ratios. We probably won't be seeing much 18krpm any more.

impatientinventor - 27 September 2009 01:04 AM

Not even that... KERS is about 8% of the potential engine output for 6 seconds... so average of 100 minutes worth of an average 65 lap race gets you to a total potential of about 35 seconds worth of full engine potential or there abouts... Either way it isn't enough to make much of a difference. The biggest effect for next year is going to be dropping the RPM down and increasing the gear ratios. We probably won't be seeing much 18krpm any more.

Why do you say that, engine rule is the same for next year, they don't need to increase reliability, (except Renault lol).

Do you see teams doing something like restricting their engines to 17.5k, or 17k for reliability, then adding a button that allows them to run at higher revs for a short time for passing purposes?

I think the teams will run a lower power band to minimize fuel needs.

impatientinventor - 27 September 2009 01:35 AM

I think the teams will run a lower power band to minimize fuel needs.

Why?

Are you saying that the fact that they need to carry 100% fuel onboard (with no limit on total fuel held – as far as I know) somehow will drive them to be fuel efficient? I don’t understand. Why do you suspect a team would volunteer a lower power-band? What would driver that notion? Total weight?

I assume KERS being equal. (Which is a wrong assumption.)

Other than initial attack off the line (and qualy?) I don’t see how fuel efficiency (read: having less initial weight) can serve any purpose – relative to the finish line.

Ipso - 27 September 2009 03:33 AM

impatientinventor - 27 September 2009 01:35 AM

I think the teams will run a lower power band to minimize fuel needs.

Why?

Are you saying that the fact that they need to carry 100% fuel onboard (with no limit on total fuel held – as far as I know) somehow will drive them to be fuel efficient? I don’t understand. Why do you suspect a team would volunteer a lower power-band? What would driver that notion? Total weight?

I assume KERS being equal. (Which is a wrong assumption.)

Other than initial attack off the line (and qualy?) I don’t see how fuel efficiency (read: having less initial weight) can serve any purpose – relative to the finish line.

But it's not merely initial weight; it's less weight all race long. Granted, the disparity would decrease as the race progressed, but it is conceivable that there could be enough of a cumulative difference to either 1) pull out to and maintain a lead; 2) require less pit stops for tires; 3) utilize the softer of the tires for more laps, or a combination of all three. Also keep in mind that the less initial fuel load, the smaller the change in ride height as the fuel burns off, so the lighter car can start lower - read better downforce. Less weight + better downforce = faster cornering resulting in more exit speed and less power required to reach the same speed at the end of a straight.

You can bet that engineers are working the possibilities right now. F1 is the single most weight conscious racing series on the planet, after all.

wilmywood8455 - 27 September 2009 04:07 AM

But it's not merely initial weight; it's less weight all race long. Granted, the disparity would decrease as the race progressed, but it is conceivable that there could be enough of a cumulative difference to either 1) pull out to and maintain a lead; 2) require less pit stops for tires; 3) utilize the softer of the tires for more laps, or a combination of all three. Also keep in mind that the less initial fuel load, the smaller the change in ride height as the fuel burns off, so the lighter car can start lower - read better downforce. Less weight + better downforce = faster cornering resulting in more exit speed and less power required to reach the same speed at the end of a straight.

You can bet that engineers are working the possibilities right now. F1 is the single most weight conscious racing series on the planet, after all.

yup that was my point... A gotta go slower to be faster kind of thing. Full race length fuel is looking at somewhere around 215 Kg of fuel which is a LOT of weight. If they can cut fuel consumption by 15% it would have the overall impact of a compounded effect on all aspects of the car. I think it will make for great racing... The lead driver has to use more fuel or drive slower and anyone can change from shifting at 14500 rpm and wrap it up to 18k rpm to pass... It would be a "don't shift to pass" system and if you don't manage your fuel properly you run out. I hate to think that the F1 cars would start sounding like IRL engines but I think the racing could make for some great battles!!!

Right now there is on average 2.3kg of fuel used each lap but with a 55 gallon drum of fuel on the chassis it might be as high as 3.4kg per lap at the beginning of the race or higher and every kg of weight comes down to about 0.042 seconds. (thats an estimate) So if you can cary 20kg less fuel at the beginning of the race that could be one less pit stop for tires which comes to 28 seconds on average as well as a n aditional 20 seconds across the race. Potentially we could be seeing differences of up to a minute across the entire race at some tracks based upon fuel and tire usage. I'm not saying it will come into account at all tracks but it might at some.

Now I'm pulling these numbers out of some pretty painfull areas but the logic is there... somewhat... and I'm pretty sure that up to a minute across the race distance could mean the difference between the top step of the podium and no points at all.

I thought I'd read somewhere that they weren't going to be using KERS next year.

Frankie32 - 27 September 2009 10:27 PM

I thought I'd read somewhere that they weren't going to be using KERS next year.

The guys here no doubt have better info, but my 2% understanding is thus:

KERS is definitely in the regs for 2010 (but I don’t think explicitly for 2011 and beyond). I don’t think there is any way the FIA will remove it so soon (2010) because they will get lambasted for mandating so much effort and expense to begin with, when now they are supposedly all about limiting budgets and making the sport more approachable and sustainable.

However, the FOTA were almost unanimous in agreement recently (like last month) that they, as a group, decided not to use KERS in 2010. I don’t know why. This may or may not have been induced by the FIA itself to try and get teams to cut it out of the budget(s). I think Williams was the only holdout. I think someone said Williams has quite a bit invested in a completely new and different KERS system that engages at the flywheel (vs. the rear diff).

To my mind holding out on KERS use is probably 100% poker strategy – probably a sandbag (group wink) gamesmanship technique trying to see if they can get one or two teams to believe it for just a moment and back off 5% development effort. If it’s in the regs, and can serve as a competitive advantage, well then….

My question is with three new teams entering the series, how are they not going to look like total chumps compared to McLaren/Ferrari/Renault/Sauber level teams (the teams who have KERS systems) with a couple years and ~$30M each of KERS development under their belt?

This season’s early non-KERS car dominance, I think everyone agrees, was more or less because the long-term teams mentioned frontloaded/invested huge development effort into technologies (KERS) that would pay huge dividends over the next few years. I don’t know if Brawn (for example) even has a plan to ever have KERS. If true, maybe we can expect Brawn to be hero-to-zero pretty dramatically come January, if not already.

I have not heard this before but perhaps KERS can be leased out to other teams, like engines.

I have no idea if any of all that^ is remotely close to accurate. I think it falls down in a couple places.

impatientinventor - 27 September 2009 09:46 AM

wilmywood8455 - 27 September 2009 04:07 AM

But it's not merely initial weight; it's less weight all race long. Granted, the disparity would decrease as the race progressed, but it is conceivable that there could be enough of a cumulative difference to either 1) pull out to and maintain a lead; 2) require less pit stops for tires; 3) utilize the softer of the tires for more laps, or a combination of all three. Also keep in mind that the less initial fuel load, the smaller the change in ride height as the fuel burns off, so the lighter car can start lower - read better downforce. Less weight + better downforce = faster cornering resulting in more exit speed and less power required to reach the same speed at the end of a straight.

You can bet that engineers are working the possibilities right now. F1 is the single most weight conscious racing series on the planet, after all.

yup that was my point... A gotta go slower to be faster kind of thing. Full race length fuel is looking at somewhere around 215 Kg of fuel which is a LOT of weight. If they can cut fuel consumption by 15% it would have the overall impact of a compounded effect on all aspects of the car. I think it will make for great racing... The lead driver has to use more fuel or drive slower and anyone can change from shifting at 14500 rpm and wrap it up to 18k rpm to pass... It would be a "don't shift to pass" system and if you don't manage your fuel properly you run out. I hate to think that the F1 cars would start sounding like IRL engines but I think the racing could make for some great battles!!!

Right now there is on average 2.3kg of fuel used each lap but with a 55 gallon drum of fuel on the chassis it might be as high as 3.4kg per lap at the beginning of the race or higher and every kg of weight comes down to about 0.042 seconds. (thats an estimate) So if you can cary 20kg less fuel at the beginning of the race that could be one less pit stop for tires which comes to 28 seconds on average as well as a n aditional 20 seconds across the race. Potentially we could be seeing differences of up to a minute across the entire race at some tracks based upon fuel and tire usage. I'm not saying it will come into account at all tracks but it might at some.

Now I'm pulling these numbers out of some pretty painfull areas but the logic is there... somewhat... and I'm pretty sure that up to a minute across the race distance could mean the difference between the top step of the podium and no points at all.

Oh - so when you say “lower power band” you must mean basically not driving the tires of the car – vs. limiting RPM max. Because the latter still makes no sense.