So what is all this fuss over the new KERS technology? What is it? How
does it work? How is it likely to affect the future of F1 racing?
Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS), whilst sounding like it
came fresh out of the latest Star Wars movie, is very much
a technology of today and is already applied to some extent by
manufacturers of modern road cars. Put simply, KERS requires teams,
and therefore manufacturers, to find recoverable energy every time a
Formula One car brakes for a corner. This braking energy converts into
electrical units which trickle into a storage device to be used as extra
power, delivering a boost of around 80 bhp.
This stored energy will only be available for approximately six to seven
seconds of maximum boost at any one time. The driver can deploy this
power in a variety of ways, such as in overtaking or on a flying lap.
The FIA is continually under pressure to bring the sport into line with
"green technologies" and KERS is just one measure. Believe me, there
will be many more developments on this front over this decade of F1.
But KERS is the hot gossip of the paddock now, particularly with the
techno-geeks, and is already beginning to throw up some concerns for
drivers and teams.
As early as 2009, the rules dictate that KERS systems are to be
available. They are limited to 60 kilowatts of stored energy, with
around 400 kilojoules of power squeezed into the storage device on every
lap.
However, it is going to be tricky to decide when to use this extra
power and when to hold on to it. Using it too soon will mean the driver
behind will have his boost available for a later challenge. Of course
the driver behind will not be sure whether the car ahead has any boost
available to counteract any attempt to overtake.
Team strategies and driving techniques are certainly going to
change. We can safely assume that the governing body will disallow
artificially-charged systems prior to qualifying or race day, though
clarification of this rule is pending. To benefit from full boost the
driver will need to first put in 15 laps, which will also mean very
different strategies.
The spectacle of qualifying will radically change, almost becoming mini
sprint races. If F1 continues to use the current qualifying format,
drivers will wind their cars up for around 13 laps before pitting for
new rubber, engaging their boost for one flyer. A clear and clean lap
will become critical to attain pole position.
Furthermore, Q1 will become even more important because it will be
difficult to find a clear qualifying lap when all cars will be on track
using similar tactics. I can already hear leading drivers complaining of
traffic obstructing them. Perhaps the qualifying format will change once
again because of this.
So why introduce KERS so rapidly? Moreover, who will benefit? This is a
puzzle that is not so simple to answer. In fact, it contradicts previous
FIA plans to cap team budgets.
Teams are working flat out to develop and finalize their KERS flywheel
or the more popular battery design.Tankerloads of money and human
resources have been ploughed into this single development. In a sporting
climate of frozen engine development, future budget limitations and
a stated goal of closing the gap between the manufacturer-based and
independent teams, the introduction of this new technology appears to be
divisive.
Sure, the manufacturers will benefit from this green technology rolling
into road car production. The green lobbyists and the recycling
brigade will praise the FIA, but KERS provides no direct benefits for
independent teams except as a method of staying with the big boys. I
cannot help feeling that its rapid introduction is demanding in the
extreme, showing all the hallmarks of paying too big a price in the
short term.
The KERS system itself will add significant weight to the race car,
somewhere in the region of 36 kg. This could potentially unbalance the
car, particularly under braking -- the very place it derives its energy.
The energy gain will be marginal at first, delivering only three or four
tenths of a second during a given lap.
Bringing health and safety into the equation, what is the risk versus
gain? We have already seen accidents and malfunctions. In testing a BMW
technician touched a fully-charged car and was flung violently to the
ground by an electrical shock. During a controlled experiment at the Red
Bull stable, a storage battery exploded and caught fire, forcing people
to evacuate the building.
The implications of combining high electrical energy, sparks, exploding
batteries and pressurized fuel rigs do not bear thinking about. This new
technology places drivers at the greatest risk, perhaps promoting the
introduction of rubberized racing suits. Rubber suits? Maybe flippers
and snorkels will become compulsory accessories immediately. But
seriously, teams and trackside crews will need specialised equipment
to isolate or discharge the electrical energy, probably slowing pit
stop times, or worse, hampering the rescue of drivers after an on-track
incident.
Still, the KERS concept definitely has a place and needs the distinction
of F1 -- and what better place to develop leading-edge technologies than
the premier motorsports arena?
In the fullness of time KERS components will be made safe and bring an
exciting dimension to F1, whilst over the next few seasons we will see
significant gains. The winners are the manufacturers and leading teams
with significant budgets and almost limitless resources. The losers
naturally will be independent teams who are unlikely to develop and
introduce these technologies, certainly by 2009, unless independent
suppliers make them available to the smaller teams.
Margins between these two groups could widen dramatically, though
interestingly the likes of Toyota, Renault or BMW could prove to
be jokers in the pack. The team on the move should be Honda: its
restructuring and development program for 2009 combined with the
tactical and strategically enhanced technical requirements that KERS
demands should play into the hands of one of Formula One's current
leading strategists, Ross Brawn.
