I don't know how credible this source is but it sounds entirely plausible to me: http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/02875 Sounds like a good idea to me, and evidently it's working. I imagine it can still be used in the race, just not as often because it takes time to charge, so their race pace should be slightly stronger than their quali pace.
I wonder who that is. It still seems strange to me that the cars start the race with a charged battery. They probably charge it from mains electricity so if Red Bull are only using it off the start they're doing nothing to promote the green side of the sport, which is what this expensive addition to the sport was designed to do wasn't it?
Will the install and formation lap not be enough? All of the teams are in the same predicament off the start I guess and the Red Bull will actually use less as it's a much smaller system.
I think they charge it before they go out, otherwise you'd see drivers braking heavily during the formation lap. I could be wrong though, I don't know how easily the systems charge.
if its charged up before the race via a plug then it isnt KERS as KERS is Kinetic Energy Recovery System. surely that would make it illegal. Im Interested to find out what its about
Thanks, so the risk is if a car is faster and comes up behind, they will be mugged. So the goal is be quick and not let them catch up. Also interesting the teams are protesting the flexi-wing again now
There'll be times when it catches them out, but over the course of the season I expect the gamble to prove worthwhile. I can't see who will complain about the wing flex, it was McLaren who went on and on about it and their's looks like it's got some give in it now as well. I saw this quote on James Allen's blog which sums up how I feel about it: You can't say no flex, because the laws of physics state such a thing is impossible. You can only set a stiffness for the wing, and evidently Red Bull's is deemed sufficiently stiff. This issue isn't going to go away, there's nothing the FIA can do to police it, rival teams will have to adapt or suffer.
A few people have questioned the legality of Red Bull's solution, since the design doesn't use recovered energy and as a result, isn't actually a KERS, so I've dug out the technical regulations: 5.2 Other means of propulsion: 5.2.1 The use of any device, other than the 2.4 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1 above and one KERS, to power the car, is not permitted. 5.2.2 With the exception of one fully charged KERS, the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ. Any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ. 5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW. Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap. Measurements will be taken at the connection to the rear wheel drivetrain. 5.2.4 The amount of stored energy in any KERS may not be increased whilst the car is stationary during a race pit stop. Release of power from any such system must remain under the complete control of the driver at all times the car is on the track. Since the regulations don't actually define what a KERS is, Red Bull's system doesn't break them. I expect the FIA to close this loophole for next season, but for the time being it sounds legal to me. Nowhere does it state that the energy has to be recovered under braking.
No. Simply because I think the partnership is too young to have yielded something like this yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they're working on a more conventional system for next season though, especially as I'm certain Red Bull's KERSLite will be outlawed.
A nice bit of research there AG. Although I don't think there is anything which states that the energy must be recovered through braking, I am quite certain it specifies somewhere that it must be recovered (from somewhere). This would preclude being pre-charged before getting onto the track. All teams using KERS in the spirit of the concept are able to charge up their unit within the formation lap. I feel it is completely unethical (and should be found to be illegal) if a unit is capable of deploying more energy than has been 'recovered' through the action of driving the car. It certainly should be illegal.
They probably didn't feel the need to specify that. I doubt they'd have envisaged a situation where a team was only interested in using once over a weekend.
The plot thickens. Horner seems to be suggesting they have a full system, but left it out because of reliability concerns. It's ominous for everyone else that they could have an extra 3 tenths to come.
