The Red Bull KERS system

[snowy]

After qualifying today it became apparent that Red Bull’s drivers did not use KERS during qualifying.
Asked why not, Mark Webber said that the team had internal reasons why not.
But tonight it has emerged that the team may have a lightweight KERS system which is designed for use off the startline only. This is necessary because KERS confers about 7 metres advantage on a car using it over one that isn’t on the start straight.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/

 

[snowy]

his “start only” system would give a gain in terms of weight distribution and packaging because such a system requires only a small battery, which is trickle charged, compared to the 20 kilo system that Red Bull’s rivals use. One of the reasons why the normal KERS batteries are large and heavy is for reasons of rapid charging.

But surely weight distribution is fixed by the rules?

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Did I read that right?
Do Red Bull not even have a KERS system fitted that is usable after the standing start? If so, if Hamilton can stick within a second or so of Vettel, he will then have the advantage of full KERS every subsequent lap and the DRS on the main straight.
Or is the weight saving from not having a full KERS system so great that the Red Bull will still have the necessary performance to stay ahead? It will be fascinating to find out. This season is starting to hot up already!

 

[Josephiah]

Did I read that right?

Do Red Bull not even have a KERS system fitted that is usable after the standing start? If so, if Hamilton can stick within a second or so of Vettel, he will then have the advantage of full KERS every subsequent lap and the DRS on the main straight.
Or is the weight saving from not having a full KERS system so great that the Red Bull will still have the necessary performance to stay ahead? It will be fascinating to find out. This season is starting to hot up already!

Surely if it only works from a standing start then it doesn't fit the definition of KERS - as at no point does it recover any kinetic energy. It's just an electric motor with a little battery attached. Doesn't that completely undermine (one of) the point(s) of introducing it in the first place?

Edit: In which case might that spark some controversy over its legality?

 

[MCLS]

I wouldn't be suprised to see some accusations

 

[sportsman]

But surely weight distribution is fixed by the rules?

It is snowy.But there is an allowance for the teams to add ballast to trim the car.The article in question sound complete speculation to my ears.During all testing Red Bull have used the Magnetti Marelli KERS system used by Renault and several other teams.Not fitting KERS gives no advantage in either weight distribution or overall weight as compared with 2009.
FIA technical regulations.2011

ARTICLE 4: WEIGHT
4.1 Minimum weight:
The weight of the car must not be less than 640kg at all times during the Event.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.
4.2 Weight distribution :
For 2011 only, the weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively at
all times during the qualifying practice session.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set
of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.

 

[SmL9]

Surely if it only works from a standing start then it doesn't fit the definition of KERS - as at no point does it recover any kinetic energy. It's just an electric motor with a little battery attached. Doesn't that completely undermine (one of) the point(s) of introducing it in the first place?

Edit: In which case might that spark some controversy over its legality?

It's more like a Kinetic Energy Supply System. Quite ridiculous if it's true.

 

[sportsman]

If it is true then it can easily be legal.The regulations only state the maximum amount of energy that can be recovered, not any mimimum.
Provided that it is powered by a motor/generator and coupled to the drive train as per regulations and does charge some tiny amount of energy when activated it would be within regulations.
The battery can be fitted fully charged within the regulations and only have adequate power to be used at the start.
During the race it would receive a tiny amount of energy but would still be legal.
But it makes no sense to have such a system.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

The Technical Regulations state:
1.20 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) :
A system that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking, store that energy and
make it available to propel the car

I would have thought that any device which was not specifically designed to be capable of recovering kinetic energy would come under the category of a simple auxiliary one-use power unit, and not within the rules. whether anyone would challenge that though, is another matter. Anyway, we don't actually know for sure yet if this is what Red Bull have.
But I do love a controversy.

 

[sportsman]

The Technical Regulations state:
1.20 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) :
A system that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking, store that energy and
make it available to propel the car

I would have thought that any device which was not specifically designed to be capable of recovering kinetic energy would come under the category of a simple auxiliary one-use power unit, and not within the rules. whether anyone would challenge that though, is another matter. Anyway, we don't actually know for sure yet if this is what Red Bull have.
But I do love a controversy.

As I pointed out as long as it recovers a tiny amount of energy no matter how little it would be legal.
But for it to have any useful power for the start would require a standard size KERS battery to be of any use.
Ride height anyone?

 

[snowy]

When asked why he hadn't used his KERS in his final qualifying run Sebastian replied:

I couldn't find the button.

"All I will tell you is our system is not the same as others' but it's at its most beneficial at the start."

 

[Jen]

Sounds remarkably like "launch control" - hasn't this been banned in the last few years?

 

[F1Yorkshire]

I'm not sure why Red Bull would go down this route.

What advantage would they have with a system that can only be used once? They are still penalised by the extra weight of the system so any advantage at the start would be negated by all the subsequent laps that other teams with operational KERS complete.

Is it a case of too many buttons for young Seb to handle?

Hopefully someone will tie his shoe laces for him before he gets in the car tomorrow.

 

[Brogan]

Once again Red Bull are up to something and no-one quite knows what yet.

Horner was reluctant to go into the reasons behind the decision not to run KERS – but said that it was a deliberate tactical move.

"Strategically we elected to not use KERS in the qualifying – it was a team decision," Horner said when asked by AUTOSPORT about the reasons behind the KERS decision. "But I'm not going to tell you what you are fishing for."

When asked if the team would be using KERS in the race itself, Horner again did not wish to disclose anything.

"You will have to wait and see and watch the television," he said. "I am not going to spoil the excitement."

Horner conceded that the time lost by not running KERS may well have cost Webber a spot on the front row, but said that there was a good explanation for why it was doing what it was doing.

"Everything we do has a reason behind it," he said.

Autosport article here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90255

I wonder if they've managed to somehow "bend" the rules on this, as they have done with the front wing (pun intended) ?

 

[Josephiah]

As I pointed out as long as it recovers a tiny amount of energy no matter how little it would be legal.
But for it to have any useful power for the start would require a standard size KERS battery to be of any use.
Ride height anyone?

Sounds like one of those "in the letter - but not the spirit - of the law" things. I think I'll actually be disappointed if no-one at least challenges them on it...
Jo

 

[johnnoble1990]

Everyone seems to be assuming Red Bull have made the right decision running this system - if it is in fact what we believe it to be. I think it is yet to be seen whether this is a clever move or not. What Red Bull essentially have is a car that is a lot quicker in Quali or clean air but could well be a sitting duck if Lewis can stay with Vettel or beat him to the first corner. If Lewis can remain within 1 second after the first 2 laps, then with KERS, DRS and the Mercedes engine he will surely be able to have a proper go at Vettel. Also, if Lewis can beat Vettel into the first corner, then he will just need to copy Vettel's strategy or pit before him and Seb will not be able to overtake. We will have to wait till tomorrow to judge whether Red Bull have made a clever move here.

I think this revelation is good news for Mclaren. It proves once again that Mclaren are closer to Red Bull than the Quali time suggested because Lewis didn't have KERS when he should, and that fact that Vettel didn't have KERS was irrelevant because he wasn't suppose to.

 

[MCLS]

Don't forget Vettel was miles ahead in the last sector, meaning lewis wouldn't be in a position to overtake on the straight unless he left kers for the last corner

 

[Brogan]

Didn't Coulthard (or someone) say KERS is only worth a tenth per lap?

In which case, as soon as Red Bull (Vettel) get out in front then it makes little difference.

I do however fail to see how the Red Bull KERS system is in any way related to a kinetic energy recovery system.
It sounds like a one-shot battery to me.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Didn't Coulthard (or someone) say KERS is only worth a tenth per lap?

In which case, as soon as Red Bull (Vettel) get out in front then it makes little difference.

I do however fail to see how the Red Bull KERS system is in any way related to a kinetic energy recovery system.
It sounds like a one-shot battery to me.

I think it is probably the most controversial thing they have done. It is not bending the rules, it is rewriting them.

I think it gives more than this. When you see it being used on board you can see the difference. General opinion is 0.3 seconds per lap.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Don't forget Vettel was miles ahead in the last sector, meaning lewis wouldn't be in a position to overtake on the straight unless he left kers for the last corner

Don't fall into this trap. Just because the DRS zone has been introduced doesn't mean it is the only place to overtake.