FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[csrracer]

I thought it was about KERS in general??????

as why my comment!

I just don't understand why anyone would like KERS. If they wanted to give the drivers an opportunity to boost HP for 8 seconds a lap for passing than why not give them a button to raise the rev limiter an extra 2000 RPM? No added weight, no safety issue, no development cost. That way teams could decide on HP over reliability of their engines. KERS doesn't save gas or the environment, if anything it's worse for the environment because the teams are binning the battery packs after every race, and that doesn't even consider the energy and resources it takes to make those batteries in the first place. It may sound like a way to save the earth but under the surface it does more damage than good.

[Jensonb]

I'm with the FIA's intentions behind KERS, in that F1 developing Greener Technology is the way to lead the world car industry into an eco-friendly future.

I am at loggerheads with them over their approach. As with everything else these days, the FiA has decided to make the ares where this technology can be developed and used so limited as to be meaningless. The FiA has made F1 development incredibly restrictive, so useless systems like KERS become essentially standard - where is the development use in that, eh?

If the FiA is serious about a greener F1, they should lift restrictions on R&D, allowing the teams the kind of unfettered development work of the old days - as long as it makes the cars greener. They could incentivise the greenest cars in many ways and in doing so would make F1 much greener than KERS ever will.

"Look, you can see they're eco-friendly, they have green stripes on their tyres..!"

[bud]

I thought it was about KERS in general??????

as why my comment!

I just don't understand why anyone would like KERS. If they wanted to give the drivers an opportunity to boost HP for 8 seconds a lap for passing than why not give them a button to raise the rev limiter an extra 2000 RPM? No added weight, no safety issue, no development cost. That way teams could decide on HP over reliability of their engines. KERS doesn't save gas or the environment, if anything it's worse for the environment because the teams are binning the battery packs after every race, and that doesn't even consider the energy and resources it takes to make those batteries in the first place. It may sound like a way to save the earth but under the surface it does mare damage than good.

Youve got to start somewhere and no matter which way they went you would get people like yourself against it!

[f1ea]

The future of KERS... i prefer the fly-wheel approach. Its actually cleaner on the environment, and i think it would be easier to develop a lighter fly-wheel than a lighter battery.

So, get rid of those bulky batteries! they will just end up polluting our little home, besides the cars have to carry all that extra weight and this means consuming more fuel.....

As for the spectacle side... once everyone has it, then it will be no big difference....

[Gaz]

The future of KERS... i prefer the fly-wheel approach. Its actually cleaner on the environment, and i think it would be easier to develop a lighter fly-wheel than a lighter battery.

So, get rid of those bulky batteries! they will just end up polluting our little home, besides the cars have to carry all that extra weight and this means consuming more fuel.....

As for the spectacle side... once everyone has it, then it will be no big difference....

Yeh Williams Flywheel system will work for a full season.

Mclarens Batteries are disposed of at the end of each race.

The flywheel in Williams car will work for a liftime in a bus so defintly a green alternative.

i don't think Bus drivers get a Kers button they can only use a for a limited ammount of time for each route tho

[csrracer]

I thought it was about KERS in general??????

as why my comment!

I just don't understand why anyone would like KERS. If they wanted to give the drivers an opportunity to boost HP for 8 seconds a lap for passing than why not give them a button to raise the rev limiter an extra 2000 RPM? No added weight, no safety issue, no development cost. That way teams could decide on HP over reliability of their engines. KERS doesn't save gas or the environment, if anything it's worse for the environment because the teams are binning the battery packs after every race, and that doesn't even consider the energy and resources it takes to make those batteries in the first place. It may sound like a way to save the earth but under the surface it does mare damage than good.

Youve got to start somewhere and no matter which way they went you would get people like yourself against it!

What are you starting though, If the sole intent is to save the environment, KERS isn't helping. Lets make the cars Hydrogen powered as that seems to be the most logical step into saving oil and the Ozone. Hybrid technology is a false economy.

[f1ea]

i don't think Bus drivers get a Kers button they can only use a for a limited ammount of time for each route tho

to evertake those silly scooter guys

[Gilles 27]

The point of KERS is not to make F1 greener but to make it appear greener. It's the same principle of Bridgestone painting the tires green in order to promote green attitudes in F1 while simultaneously doing nothing to help the environment. in fact they were voted (mainly because they own Firestone) the most unethical company in the world 2008 on the grounds of human rights and environmental abuses.

KERS and green paint are both facades and are massive insults to the intelligence of F1 fans

[csrracer]

The point of KERS is not to make F1 greener but to make it appear greener. It's the same principle of Bridgestone painting the tires green in order to promote green attitudes in F1 while simultaneously doing nothing to help the environment. in fact they were voted (mainly because they own Firestone) the most unethical company in the world 2008 on the grounds of human rights and environmental abuses.

KERS and green paint are both facades and are massive insults to the intelligence of F1 fans

Exactly. If you want to appear greener to quite down the tree huggers run the cars on a different fuel. It would be a better PR move saying that" F1 uses no fossil fuels " . Than to say "for 8 seconds a lap we run partially on a battery."

[texasmr2]

I thought it was about KERS in general??????

You are right.

why would you suggest that when this thread is about McLaren not committing to KERS?

You are wrong. There is no mention or reference in the threads title to Mclaren.

[bud]

why would you suggest that when this thread is about McLaren not committing to KERS?

You are wrong.

wtf?

[McLaren Fan]

I like KERS. I think it's an interesting piece of technology. It's tricky and there's a lot that can be done with it. Although KERS isn't really that green at the moment, it does have potential and could lead into other developments. For Formula One to remain a technical challenge and be relevant to the automotive industry, KERS must stay.

[texasmr2]

why would you suggest that when this thread is about McLaren not committing to KERS?

You are wrong.

wtf?

Please reread the title of this thread and you will see there is no mention of McLaren in it. McLaren was only mentioned in a post .

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren was mentioned because somebody asked whether or not bud was only in favour of KERS because McLaren did a good job of it...

[csrracer]

I like KERS. I think it's an interesting piece of technology. It's tricky and there's a lot that can be done with it. Although KERS isn't really that green at the moment, it does have potential and could lead into other developments. For Formula One to remain a technical challenge and be relevant to the automotive industry, KERS must stay.

Couldn't agree less, Hybrid Technology is already here and works well in a Prius. A battery KERS system is not anything new that'll save the the world. Flywheel KERS ditto the cars are still powered by Fossil fuels and none of these technologies add anything to the racing except for cost, unreliability, and safety issues. It'll cost each team 15 to 20 million a year to develop a technology that already exists. That money would do the environment and all man kind a lot more good if it went into a Hydrogen infrastructure. Or feeding the Hungry.