Originally Posted by HeilSvenska
It's pointless. If they really wanted to give cars "power to pass", they'd just lower the power restrictions that nearly all race cars are stifled with.
I agree with nth and RC. It's all politics. Pathetic attempt to imbue racing series' with insubstantial "green" image, which has no place in any racing series, really.
"1) Passing in the race"
Lowering power restrictions AKA airflow restrictors do the same.
"2) Fuel mileage in the race"
I found that fewer pit stops make a race more uninteresting.
"3) Team strategy in the race"
Can do without KERS. Last thing a team needs is a crew member being shocked for no reason other than that he touched the car.
"4) Affect on qualifying"
"Boost" system during qualifying is extremely gimmicky.
"5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages."
Racing cars used to be simple. Engine + driver + and things that make it turn. It adds another unnecessary element for the sake of shallow image campaign. "Look! We're hip! We're with the times! Our other cars would be Priuses!" Racing's fine without extraneous technology. Advancements in safety, I can appreciate, but not this.
"6) Effect upon the commercial automobile industry"
None. Certain racing series don't have any significant impact in the industry. One is F1. Sure, we get F1 themed Ferraris, but when was the last time you saw a hatchback with 7 speed sequential and an engine that revs to 20,000rpm?
|
I didn't mean or expect that people would try to touch on every point, a cogent view on any point is welcome.
As you did comment on each one here are some additional thoughts on each one
1) Power to pass
Although the rules limit the maximum amount of stored energy and the maximum rate of power application systems will differ in their characteristics and the application of power is under the control of the driver. I think it will be interesting to see the effect on passing a hotly contested position, passing when coming through the pack, and passing backmarkers.
Removing all restrictions on engine design will certainly give someone power to pass but the cost will rise and, I feel that as a result, the competitiveness within the field will suffer resulting in pretty much being able to predict the race results before the start.
2) Fuel mileage.
Good fuel mileage is already a consideration in car design because it affects weight and less weight means faster lap times this applies whether you have pit stops or not. I see fuel millage as not about "economy" but about strategy. Since we do pit will KERS have an effect on in laps and out laps?
3) Team strategy.
See above, when to use power for passing, for stretching out fuel to make one more lap before pitting, for fast in laps and out laps.
4) Affect on qualifying.
I wish you would elaborate on your comment. It sounds like you feel it shouldn't be used during qualifying. As far as I can tell the rules don't prohibit it's use during qualifying.
5) Energy recovery, storage, and delivery systems, advantages and disadvantages.
I have to take the comment that you see it's disadvantage as being "not simple"
simpler has cost impacts too. Eliminating the pneumatic valve system and reverting back to springs would make the engine "simpler" but F1 engine reliablity with valve springs was much worse that the pneumatic systems, that and performance advantages made everyone switch to pneumatic.
Having said that these systems do not appear to be simple but who's to know that 5 years from now they are like the pneumatic valve system that had problems early in its life.
6) You may be right, there may be no effect. I really don't have an opinion on it's effect. It may well be none but I hope someone here with more insight than me on this aspect will post some cogent comments this and on all aspects. That, after all, was the reason for this thread.