The Red Bull KERS system

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.
That's an interesting point. But what I still don't get is, why would the saving of a few kilos of weight overcome the loss of KERS to such an extent as to make the car that much quicker in the final sector? As we know, Hamilton's first and middle sector times were much closer to Seb's, so I still can't help feeling that there's some key element we're missing.
 
That's an interesting point. But what I still don't get is, why would the saving of a few kilos of weight overcome the loss of KERS to such an extent as to make the car that much quicker in the final sector? As we know, Hamilton's first and middle sector times were much closer to Seb's, so I still can't help feeling that there's some key element we're missing.

I'm not certain but i'm guessing that KERS is irrelevant to this. I think it will have something to do with being a higher downforce sector compared to the other 2.
 
The weight saving is not a factor this year.The higher mimum weight has eradicated any disadvantage in running KERS.
During practice Red Bulls simulated race pace was faster than other cars fitted with KERS so I think that this is just speculation.
If and its a BIG if Red Bull are not running KERS they will suffer a huge disadvantage in the early laps carrying a heavy fuel load.
Horners comment about their KERS being most beneficial at the start is equally true of any KERS system.
I will wait and see what happens tomorrow.
 
Article from Adam Cooper on it: http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/03/26/rbr-keeps-us-guessing-on-start-only-kers/

Here's his summation.

So does RBR just have a regular KERS system that can be easily set-up just for start use, with a few elements removed or disconnected? Or does it have a dedicated ‘mini KERS’ that meets the letter of the rules and is never intended to work over a race distance? Does it have both and thus the option to fit either, depending on the track and the circumstances?

We should get some answers tomorrow, with a little help from the TV KERS graphic. Then the question could be whether other teams feel that such a system is within the rules.

It’s pretty clear that some might think it contravenes the spirit of the regs, in that having a system that doesn’t harvest energy over a race as it is intended to doesn’t do a lot for the green image of F1.

Tonight I asked a very senior FIA guy if any of this made sense. He said he had no idea, but would ask his experts in the morning…
 
What we are going to end up with is something that is in the letter of the law legal but in the spirit of the sport illegal. It remains to be seen how much of a help or a hinderince it will be in race conditions.

Interesting article from Ted Kravitz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9436936.stm

Equally, as the system relies on the rear wheels to provide its charge, it can increase tyre wear in races because it unsettles the handling of the car

That could basically mean that the Red Bull's rear tyres won't degrade as fast as the other cars which is as much an advantage to them as less weight.
 
What we are going to end up with is something that is in the letter of the law legal but in the spirit of the sport illegal. It remains to be seen how much of a help or a hinderince it will be in race conditions.

Interesting article from Ted Kravitz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9436936.stm



That could basically mean that the Red Bull's rear tyres won't degrade as fast as the other cars which is as much an advantage to them as less weight.

Its the same difference.The electrical resistance provided by the KERS generator applies exactly the same load on the rear tyres as normal braking would.
It simply replaces the one form of braking with another.What kinetic energy that usually is removed by the brakes is channelled into the KERS generator.
Same loads.
 
I'm not sure it is legal.

If fundamentally it doesn't recover energy and has been designed or implemented in such a way not to do so, then it isn't a KERS device and certainly doesn't achieve the objectives set out for such devices.

I really hope the FIA get to grips with this blatant rule-bending cheating as it's starting to get annoying.
 
We don't even know if its true.Same as the ride height accusations last year.They were untrue
 
We don't even know if its true.Same as the ride height accusations last year.They were untrue
The ride height accusations were, yes.

The wing though is clearly illegal, and has been for quite some time.
A flawed testing regime doesn't excuse the fact that the wing is clearly going below the reference plane during races.
 
The ride height accusations were, yes.

The wing though is clearly illegal, and has been for quite some time.
A flawed testing regime doesn't excuse the fact that the wing is clearly going below the reference plane during races.

The wing yes.Something very odd about that.Its not helped by the fact that the reference plane is not a stipulated height.
 
It's all very odd tbh, why have a system you can only use off the start when everyone else can too?

They are all limited to 80bhp boost (I think) and all have a minimum weight to make 640Kg (I think) so unless it's so they can move ballast to improve weight distribution I really can't see the point.

RBR must feel it has some benefit but I'm with Brogan on this one - it's certainly iffy if not downright dodgy if it doesn't recover energy.
 
So is it a type of Plastic KERS they use one time only, it meets the regs as they are written but not in spirit.

Reduces the weight in a key area so ballast can be spread wider & so reduce tyre wear.

The reduction in the tyre wear, therefore these benefits exceeds the benefit from KERS = RBR Result.
 
The weight saving is not a factor this year.The higher mimum weight has eradicated any disadvantage in running KERS.
During practice Red Bulls simulated race pace was faster than other cars fitted with KERS so I think that this is just speculation.
If and its a BIG if Red Bull are not running KERS they will suffer a huge disadvantage in the early laps carrying a heavy fuel load.
Horners comment about their KERS being most beneficial at the start is equally true of any KERS system.
I will wait and see what happens tomorrow.

I asked James Allen how the weight saving could make a difference when the weight distribution is fixed in the rule book? He replied:

James Allen said:
Only front to rear – not lowering C of G etc
 
It's all very odd tbh, why have a system you can only use off the start when everyone else can too?

I'm guessing they came at it from the other direction - first deciding to forego KERS due to the saving in weight, better balance, better downforce and less tyre wear, no doubt all borne out by their computer simulations, but realising (either straight away or later) that they would be at a disadvantage off the all-important start compared to the cars around them with KERS. So then they would have had to develop the one-shot start line KERS to negate that disadvantage.

Out of interest, does anyone know whether they were running KERS in any of the winter tests? Of course if they weren't, the start line issue wouldn't necessarily have been apparent to anyone else.
 
What we are going to end up with is something that is in the letter of the law legal but in the spirit of the sport illegal. It remains to be seen how much of a help or a hinderince it will be in race conditions.

Interesting article from Ted Kravitz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9436936.stm



That could basically mean that the Red Bull's rear tyres won't degrade as fast as the other cars which is as much an advantage to them as less weight.

From what we have seen so far in practise, Red Bull's tyres degrade faster.
 
Back
Top Bottom