Quote:
Originally Posted by synclastica_86
Wait, is the problem with KERS the technology or the regulations? The KERS give 6 seconds of boost a lap, is this their mechanical limit or is this a time imposed by the rule book? What I understand is that F1 cars use quite a bit of ballast to make up the required weight. Don't you get to remove the 20kg of ballast to offset the weight of KERS? No matter how little advantage KERS give, having something for nothing is always something you should go for. That said, there must be something wrong with my logic since most teams dropped KERS (they are, after all, engineers), but I just can't figure out what.
|
You're quite correct. From the point of view of the _total_ weight of the car, it makes no difference. Instead of using, for example, 60kg ballast, a KERS equipped car would just use 40kg or however much their KERS weigh.
The difference lies in _where_ that 60kg (or 40kg) of ballast goes in the car. One very important aspect of F1 car set up and performance is the over/understeer characteristics of the car for a given tyre regulations, track, compound, etc. Because of the changes in aero regulations as well as those that govern the tyres, getting the right weight distribution appears to be a bit of a learning experience so far this season. (I think it's mainly people trying to get more weight towards the front end. Perhaps more than they had anticipated.)
One of the things you see teams do a lot is move the ballast around the car to get distribution they want and so having a lighter car (i.e. without KERS) allows you to carry more ballast and the more ballast you have the greater your ability to move the weight distribution around the car.
It just so happens that the ability to put that 20kg somewhere else rather than where the KERS sits is more beneficial than what you get from the boost it provides.
I'm quite certain that had they chosen to introduce KERS in 2010 or 2011 having kept tyres and aero unchanged since 2009, we'd be looking at a very different picture.