Costs and politics to decide the future for Kers
The and energy storage systems have certainly enlivened the racing this season but it had looked as if these would become a .
The teams had agreed to but a new twist behind the scenes has raised the possibility they may yet survive - and in the process fuelled some bad blood within the sport.
, and are similar to those that are becoming increasingly prevalent in road cars - , and are among the manufacturers already using them to reduce fuel consumption in their models.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit 叠叠颁听奥别产飞颈蝉别 for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The systems were , president of governing body the FIA, partly for the entertainment value and partly to help , as well as setting a bad example, at a time when and global warming is .
But they have been heavily criticised within F1 because of their vast cost - some teams are said to have spent as much as 拢45m on the systems - and they have proved difficult to implement. Only is widely recognised as the best, and .
The eight teams in the - McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, Toyota, Brawn, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and BMW - agreed unanimously to abandon Kers for 2010 on the grounds of saving money.
But Kers is still allowed in the 2010 and, to get it removed, there is a complicated system of checks and balances. First, it needs to pass the (TWG), the body that basically agrees the detail of the rules.
Then it needs to be approved by , a group of representatives of F1's stakeholders, after which it is rubber-stamped by the , the sport's legislative and executive body.
There was a TWG meeting here on Wednesday, the first one that has been attended by all next year's prospective 13 teams - the Fota members, current teams Williams and , and new entrants , and .
But when it came to the vote on Kers not all the hands went up. You might expect the one not to agree would have been McLaren - they, after all, are the ones who appear to have most to gain. But instead it was , although they are not close to being able to race it yet. (Force India abstained, for the record).
This move by Williams, whose , did not go down well with the Fota teams - especially as it is the latest in a series of positions they have taken that have disrupted the harmony Fota is trying to engender in F1.
Williams were , for example, for lodging an entry for next year when Fota was in the middle of - which they have since won.
Williams made even fewer friends in the TWG meeting when they objected to a change in the allowable brake-disc thickness for next year.
The other teams want to increase it to 32mm, because they believe that next year's cars will need bigger brakes to last race distances when cars are starting much heavier because of - with no fuel stops, cars will be at the start of a race.
Williams are alone in believing they do not need the thicker brakes but their stance still mystifies the other teams, who say they're welcome to run smaller brakes if they want, but why stop the others using bigger ones? The other 12 teams all believe they would have to spend millions on researching expensive brake materials to make 28mm discs last next year.
was cagey when I asked him about why Michael took the stance he did on Kers, but he did tell me: "It keeps our sponsors in the game - Kers has the strong support of several of our sponsors." A source at another team told me it was more of a commercial issue -Williams want to , which is unique among F1 teams in that it uses a to store the energy , and sell it outside F1.
Whether Williams's stance will be enough to keep Kers in F1 next year, though, is another matter. Despite Williams's objections, a majority is all that is needed for a vote to pass the TWG under the new Concorde Agreement that was signed last month. But the F1 Commission is another matter. A majority there is enough to make the change for 2011, but for next year it needs to be unanimous. And Williams have a seat on the F1 Commission.
So what happens next? Well, even if Williams vote against for a second time, Kers is still unlikely to be in F1 next year. That's because, to use it, a team needs a Kers driver on their engine - and all the engines come from Fota teams. So would simply come without the parts needed to make Kers work.
Nevertheless, even if it is not around next year, it looks unlikely that F1 has seen the back of Kers for good.
Williams think that, philosophically, having Kers in F1 is the right thing to do, for . And, broadly, the Fota teams - whose road cars will be making increasing use of 'hybrid' systems in the future - agree.
said Kers was "a good initiative but perhaps it came at the wrong time". In other words, the middle of the , when teams are , was not the time to be introducing an expensive new technology, however much of a good idea it was on a number of levels.
"I don't think F1 should turn its back on Kers," Whitmarsh said. "Perhaps we can find in future years a lower-cost way of developing it."
NOTE: This blog is no longer being updated, for Andrew's latest articles please visit
Comment number 1.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Free_By_2014 wrote:It does inceasingly seem that Williams (formerly a leader among F1 teams but now an also-ran, and with Red Bull's acceleration up the grid not even the best of the non-manufacturer teams) are desperate to flex what little muscle the team has.
If the intention is to promote a particular innovation, then being in a minority of one has some notional merit; when the intention seems to be to thwart the settled view of all other competitors, it smacks of bitterness and pique.
The article suggests that sponsors are dictating the technical stance of the team, and that seems both perverse and dangerous!
If he wants to leave the sport with some integrity intact, Sir Frank [Williams] should sell-up and require the team to adopt a name distinct from his own - if, indeed, he has not already signed away the right to the name of Williams with respect to F1.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Tim wrote:i think that KERS should not be banned and shouold be allowed to be used and developed if a team wants to. Also, Williams are a bunch of annoying men and every team hates them now.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Slater582 wrote:"are desperate to flex what little muscle the team has."
I doubt Williams are objecting for the sake of it.
"The article suggests that sponsors are dictating the technical stance of the team"
It does not.
The sport would be poorer without SFW.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Free_By_2014 wrote:@3, Slater582 wrote:
"The article suggests that sponsors are dictating the technical stance of the team"
It does not.
Oh, no?
The artticle attributes to Sir Frank Williams the comment that "It keeps our sponsors in the game - Kers has the strong support of several of our sponsors."
In other words, there is a suggestion that a Williams stance against KERS would cost the team one or more sponsors.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Free_By_2014 wrote:Taking an apolitical stance, Williams are of course entirely correct.
ALL of the teams entered this season in the belief that KERS would be available both this and next year; changing the rules just because implementation turned out to be more difficult or expensive than some of the teams imagined (esp. BMW) is defeatist.
The very idea of Formula One not being heavily political is risible, but matters would have been so much easier if there had been a single off-the-shelf KERS bolt-on system available to all teams, on a 'take it or leave it' basis; not as easily achieved as in other formulae with a single engine supplier (the late ChampCar series is perhaps the best example), but vastly preferable to what was actually brought in.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Always Blurting wrote:Road cars have benefited from the technological developments made by F1 teams for a number of years and Williams appear to want to continue this. Innovation, such as a flywheel, should be encouraged if it improves the safety and efficiency of all our cars in the future.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Andrew Benson wrote:After I wrote this article, Williams chief executive Adam Parr was keen to expand on the team鈥檚 stance on Kers. His points make interesting reading.
鈥淲e have always been behind Kers and our view is it would be quite wrong for F1 to ban it.
鈥淭here are three different broader issues, in no particular order.
鈥淭he first is the environment. F1 is a fantastic sport but there is always the criticism that we are burning fossil fuels for fun. That issue is not going away. The concept behind Kers was to unleash F1 thinking on energy efficiency and power trains. It was a very smart move because F1 is a fantastic place to develop new technology fast. Now, the whole world is taking the motor car in that direction, and we are going to say, well, it didn鈥檛 really work and that has implications for our partners, the attractiveness of our sport, etc.
鈥淭he second is that F1 is about technology. One of the arguments I鈥檝e heard, which I find ridiculous, is the fans don鈥檛 understand it, or can鈥檛 understand why some people have it and some haven鈥檛. Well, some people have been clever in developing a system and putting it into a car and good for them. It鈥檚 not us. I鈥檓 jealous. If we ban it, it sends a message of Ludditism that is completely inconsistent with everything we stand for.
鈥淭he third thing is I think the more Kers impacts on the race itself, the more it will add and I think it will add more next year because it will make a bigger impact.
鈥淓veryone has spent their money on Kers. The sport has spent getting on for 拢150m on it. We鈥檝e got systems that work. Williams could fit Kers next year for probably 拢1.5m. That鈥檚 not even the cost of a gearbox programme. I just can鈥檛 see any reason to go back on something we have put so much into.鈥
Parr says Williams would not be using their flywheel system if Kers was allowed in F1 next year, so would not benefit commercially from such a decision, even if they are selling the flywheel technology for application outside F1.
He believes there are a number of systems in existence in F1 that various teams could buy 鈥 such as McLaren鈥檚 or BMW鈥檚. And although he admits that would mean expense, his belief is that F1 teams have to spent their budget on something, and that Kers is a better way to spend it then some of the other areas teams would invest in if it was banned.
鈥淭he improvements to an existing system would be relatively modest compared to what we spend on aero, for example, and I feel this is an area that matters.鈥
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 22nd Aug 2009, Lopek wrote:I think the idea of KERS as a means of making F1 looks more environmentally friendly is completely laughable. Firstly it is used to increase power, not reduce fossil fuel consumption. Secondly it was introduced at the same time as night racing of Singapore, which has energy needs for lighting that make the mind spin.
Having said that I hope that it does stay as it has made the racing interesting in places. I think the biggest issue with it's implementation has been that it was set a such a low level of power it made it very marginal vs the weight/balance disadvantage. If the charging capacity and usage time/power were increases to change that balance significantly to it's advantage it would change everything.
Combine that with a well mapped out, year on year reduction of the maximum fuel allowed in a race (say 4% per year) and you have an interesting and green development that F1 can be proud of.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 22nd Aug 2009, H Kratz wrote:This might be a very unpopular thing to say, but with the maximum weight for F1 cars set to be raised to make up for the weight penalty imposed by KERS why would you now want to remove KERS? Everyone knew KERS would be here for 2009, 2010 and 2011, with KERS being part of the rule change negotiations for 2012. Fota originally campaigned for Mosley to keep the 2010 rules unchanged. That would mean that KERS must stay. Also, with KERS onboard F1 rules in the future could start to make F1 increasingly important in the environmental technology development for road cars. We might eventually find that F1 cars could become Hybrid powered! And why not? It will ensure that manufacturers remain interested in F1 because they'll have a vested interest in the technologies developed, and it will make it more feasible for new teams entering F1 as they can incorporate a commercial technology development side to the team from day 1.
Come on guys, we need to look at ways of not only making F1 cheaper, but ways of making it better value for money. If F1 keeps cutting back costs and making things increasingly simple and cheap there will be no difference in a few years between F1 and all the other premier single seater formulas. Why does it have to be cheaper? If BMW know that F1 will deliver to them a KERS system that could deliver real benefits to their road cars they would never decide to leave F1. So let's be realistic and find a way of making F1 what it is: the premier car racing formula!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 23rd Aug 2009, smilingSpongeMuffin wrote:Formula 1 is a science as well as a sport. I personally dislike the offense that has been taken by the comments of the Williams team. They attended a meeting. Questions were discussed about the KERS system, and they spoke only what they thought. Their argument presented by Mr Parr was solid and sound. Now you may not agree with him, but his views are sound, and he needed to be heard as a result, and not suppressed. It is risible that people feel that this is not the true way to manage technical meetings, or feel that people who share a different view than theirs should be quiet. It is laughable nonsense.
There are arguments for KERS inclusion, and valid reasons to leave it out.
When people seem to personally attack others for just expressing their view, then that conflict will only have a negative outcome, and is beneath the majority of technical directors and their teams.
There seems to be two types of journalism going on here. That which concentrates on the pros and cons of the technical details, and that which concentrates of the tabloid drama, which in reality, doesn't exist.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 23rd Aug 2009, Czar-Orac wrote:Andrew you're wrong in your statement that "The teams had agreed to abandon the systems (KERS) at the end of this year". FOTA teams agreed to abandon KERS, and in fact one of the main reasons given by Dr. Goschel of BMW for their exit was FOTA's or more precisely Montezemolo's instance in scrapping KERS.
Lopek
Your argument about night racing in Singapore being environmentally bad is wrong, as the majority of F1 viewers are in Europe, staging the race at 2:00pm Singapore time would mean millions of Europeans getting up early, switching on TVs lights and kettles etc, and then also watching the re-run, this far out-weighs the use of lights to help show the race at a European friendly time, it has been estimated that if all the suitable races were run at night and under lights this would save 14,880 MWh, which is nearly enough energy to power the whole of Montenegro :)
Whether night races are exciting is another issue, but they are certainly more environmentally friendly than 100s of football teams flying half way around the world to play friendly games.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 23rd Aug 2009, BLUNNBOTTLE wrote:KERS,IS THE BEST INVENTION USED IN F1 SINCE DISC BRAKES CAME IN. AND THEN USED ON ROAD GOING CARS.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 23rd Aug 2009, Hedge wrote:FIA, TWG, FOTA, non-FOTA..... They all need to get it sorted out!
The teams have got millions to spend and millions they WILL spend. That's not likely to change.
At the moment, a vast proportion of those millions is being 'wasted' on developing 'aero-tweaks'. What use is that to the world at large?! The reason being because, especially with an 'engine freeze', that's what the rules currently encourage.
What if they changed the engine freeze to an 'aero freeze'? Imagine if the teams were free to develop whatever powerplants they wished, but with an ever increasing carbon output allowance.
F1 really would have some relevance for the future then!
FIA, TWG, FOTA, non-FOTA..... Please go forwards, not backwards!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 23rd Aug 2009, Lord_Lancashire wrote:I simply hate this KERS system, and Williams are doing themselves no favours by taking increasingly opposing views to the other teams.
OK, if KERS is going to be used, then all the teams should have it, rather than just a few. Otherwise, get it banned.
The next time I see a racer make a brilliant overtaking move only for his opponent to press his KERS button and blast back past, I'll end up going spare...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 23rd Aug 2009, Dreaduk wrote:Thankfully KERS is probably going and Williams must have known that any objections they raised were going to be token ones. Max Mosley's drive for standardisation of everything in F1 was, I suspect, partly behind the reason for an extraordinarily expensive system during the worst financial crisis the world has seen. Having said that, the program would have been started a number of years ago when times were better and development by Ferrari, McLaren and BMW would not have allowed for the abandonment of the system at the eleventh hour.
There is one interesting point that Adam Parr made which is that improvements to an existing KERS system would represents a modest cost compared to Aero; so if there is a drive for cost saving why doesn't the FIA ban underfloor venturi which is the main area of aerodynamic 'downforce' maintained at vast cost by the teams. Let the cars run what configuration of engine they want, engines won't be as costly to develop as just being able to use all the power available will be a problem as reliance on mechanical grip will be the issue. There will be little, if no aerodynamic disturbance to hamper overtaking and corner speeds will be lower and safer for the drivers. Run off areas will not need to be as big and spectators will benefit by being closer to the track and the TV spectacle will be better as drivers will be able to drift cars through corners.
The downside? well I honestly can't think of much, KERS could be introduced, perhaps with even smaller engines as less power is needed to overcome the drag and frictional forces created by downforce which is potentially a downside but at least it could be used for overtaking properly. Only one argument I have heard makes possible sense which is that F2 cars would be quicker than F1 cars but as they are never going to be raced together, who cares? F1 is about the spectacle, technical innovation and variety and the most technically innovative thing we have seen this season are almost invisible changes made to diffusers, McLaren's imperceptible changes in its aero package and one team chucking out KERS. The cars only look marginally different to last year and the claimed benefits of front and rear wing changes are just not working. One would have thought that the rule makers would have grasped that the downforce generated by wings is pitiful in comparison to the partial vacuum created under the car which is where the problem lies in F1 today not with KERS.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 23rd Aug 2009, smifffies wrote:It seem strange to me that F1 teams and the FIA are under the inpression that KERS is a new innovation, it is approx 100 years old incorporated within a production electric car built by a Frenchman and used by an American senator in approx 1906. In fact the very type of KERS that Williams are promoting has already been done by Cambridge Universities and is actually a very compact within wheel design, copy and paste link into web browser address bar for a powerpoint presentaion: The company BHR technology is the commercial arm of Cambridge Uni's, although i personally have no involvement i am a Cambridge lad (Townie), and am aware of the ability of the Uni's to produce next generation products having some of the top minds in the country available, no flames from Oxford graduates thanks. So i really cannot understand why they are taking this stance as there are already products out there which are more efficient and have working models, whereas from what information have been released by Williams is that they have yet to produce an efficient model that is viable correct?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 14th Sep 2009, Wot Kuyt 'e did wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 21st Sep 2009, quicksesh wrote:Williams are just trying to recapture some of their old glory - I hope that they follow the majority and put aside their commercial interests to that of the interest of the sport.
Failing that, I hope their KERS is woefully unreliable and their brakes melt.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 3rd Apr 2010, Jack Butterly wrote:This KERS battle is all nonsense, if all the teams want to use it, fine bring it in but if some of the smaller teams cant afford it, then it shouldnt be brought in.. fair play to force india who abstained from the meetings, and rightly so!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)