The Weekly Grapevine

Although the KERS incidents and pitfalls, first predicted in this column almost seven months ago, have of late come too horrifically close to realisation for comfort, there exists little doubt that Formula One's determination to make things work - safely - will ultimately prevail and that cars thus equipped will hit 2009's F1 grids.

Whether, though, racegoers in Australia, Malaysia or Bahrain, as the first three events on the provisional new calendar - and flyaway races all - will be treated to the new 'green' technology is a separate issue entirely as the sport's governing body has made KERS systems optional.

More than a few folk in the Hockenheim paddock, ranging from drivers through technical directors to team principals, expressed doubts in this regard both on and off the record in the wake of fire evacuations at Red Bull Racing's Milton Keynes facilities (note plural). The subsequent electrocution of a BMW Sauber technician during Jerez testing can hardly have changed many minds.

A mechanic is shocked during the first hybrid test by BMW Sauber © XPB

Little known at the time was that BMW had already experienced 'one or two' incidents during testing at its private Miramas test track in southern France - Mario Theissen at the time refused to elaborate, as doing so would divulge which of the trio of KERS options BMW had settled for, but that is now a matter of record. Had these been in the public domain during the German race weekend, no doubt even more scepticism would have resulted.

Solving such problems in F1 is invariably a matter of money - shed loads of it - so it is fair to assume that the wealthier teams, i.e. those with motor manufacturer support of whatever form, will be the first to incorporate KERS technology in their race cars, with the independents following on in due course.

Present indications are that Ferrari, Toyota, Renault, Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso and Force India have settled for Magneti Marelli's generator/control unit system - albeit with a variety of storage solutions - with McLaren, BMW and Honda doing their own thing in one form or other. Williams will likely use the hybrid-hybrid technology they bought into.

But, saliently, each will develop their system independently in line with their requirements and philosophies. Thus, at races some teams, or even entries within teams, will be equipped with KERS, while others will obviously not, depending upon preferences, particular states of development and car set-up (the power gain versus weight penalty varies from circuit to circuit).

Then, certainly during the early stages of development, some operations will have achieved greater levels of efficiency than others - both on overall basis, and as batteries and/or capacitors deteriorate, while flywheel solutions will degrade less, if at all.

Already it is evident that a disparity in power (of up to 60kW, or approximately 10 per cent of engine output) at some stage during a lap will result, and this power will cut instantaneously when the permitted six-seconds 'blast' is up - without any indication to following drivers.

Compounding this situation is that KERS, by its nature, is driver selectable, and thus one driver may elect to use his entire dosage in one 60kW blast of six seconds, while another may decide that 12 seconds of 30kW better suits his prevailing circumstances, or even six times one-second 60kW blasts per lap. The list of permutations is effectively endless, being dictated only by the recharge rate, the lap distance and the blast rate applied by the driver.

In this regard the following articles from the 2009 Formula One Technical Regulations are particularly instructive, particularly when the definition of a kilojoule (kJ) is factored into the situation:

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 while 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.

A joule is defined (by Wikipedia) as: The work done to produce power of one watt continuously for one second, thus a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules or 3.6 megajoules (and) the kinetic energy of a 2kg mass moving at a velocity of 1 m/sec.

A proposed KERS unit © Flybrid

Therefore, it figures that a linear time element enters the equation where less than the permissible regenerated power is harnessed, provided, of course, that the total energy released per lap does not exceed 400kJ - whether that lap be a 3.340 kilometre circuit of Monaco or Spa-Francorchamps's full 7.004 km distance.

According to Renault engine director Rob White, three distinctly different KERS usage scenarios will occur:

• A 'fast lap' scenario, whereby a driver augments engine power in such a way so as to set his fastest possible lap (ie in qualifying, or while running in relative isolation);

• a defensive situation in which a driver uses just enough KERS power to stay ahead of a following driver at vital points along the circuit and applies these tactically; and

• 'attack' mode, whereby a driver will effectively second-guess his quarry and apply power accordingly.

Logically, any of the three scenarios could all occur during a single lap, in certain situations almost simultaneously, thus adding to the permutations from which the drivers can draw.

Now imagine 20 drivers applying varied power outputs at different parts of the circuit, with these outputs varying by up to 10 per cent of their total power from lap to lap or even sector to sector, and imagine the tactical demands on drivers already said to be on ten tenths without these added demands. Even without twice-per-lap adjustable front wings.

The run down to first corners does not bear thinking about, particularly if the FIA does (as some believe will be the case) clarify a presently grey area by permitting cars to take the start with charged-up KERS systems.

But, drivers are paid exceedingly well to master the technology of the day - which ultimately differentiates them from one another and across generations - and, as such, the cream of the crop will rise to the top. He who best masters KERS (and the variable aerodynamics) wins; he who doesn't sinks.

However, F1 is not only a technical exercise, but is also, as the FIA constantly reiterates, a sport, one which captures the imagination of massive, live, and vast television audiences. As such, the governing body has a responsibility towards this support base to 'keep it simple, stupid' and provide education. (Talking of which, what happened to the AMD-sponsored fan surveys, held annually for a couple of years amid so much fanfare?)

The best weapon in a driver's armoury is an ability to overtake cleanly, and it is upon this skill that their reputations as racers ultimately hang. But, really, should any 'push-to-pass' (P2P) manoeuvre, particularly one executed with a dollop of instant horsepower, ever be considered scintillating? Does it not merely denigrate this supreme skill by adding temporary spice, which demands little from the driver save for selection of electronic settings for a given period?

Graham Rahal's rainlight engages to signal that he is using Push-to-Pass in the Champ Car race at Cleveland © LAT

Ergo, does it not do those drivers committing genuine overtaking manoeuvre unaided by KERS for whatever reasons, particularly on a KERS-fitted car, a grave disservice? For unless the paying public knows exactly who is KERS-equipped and who is not, a skillful pass could be dismissed as a P2P.

But, even if clarifications are issued or announced by track/TV commentators a la A1GP - who chart the exact number of P2P bursts a driver has remaining from a finite quantity granted all drivers before the start - the fan base has no way of knowing exactly how much assistance a driver received from KERS at any one time. With KERS there is, though, no blanket allocation to track.

So did, for example, a driver use the full 60kW in one burst, then drive defensively to turn the tables, or did he use 30kW for five seconds to pass and then 30kW for a further seven to maintain his position? Or were both bits of driving just demon manoeuvres? Ditto all the way down the field.

Ultimately, gizmos could be incorporated into the technology which could, in turn, incorporate KERS percentages and times into TV graphics, but what about the poor fans sitting in the stands who would, having paid out a month's salary merely to sit there, have no way of knowing whether the spectacle just delivered before them was executed through supreme skill or clever electronics (or fast flywheels)? Unless, of course, they shell out for hand-held TV devices.

After all, white lines were incorporated into the grooves of specification Bridgestones in order to provide visual differentiation of the two compounds made available to drivers. Can a case not be made for illustrating that some form of optional technology has been engaged to aided a driver materially, to illustrate KERS usage, particularly as the FIA is on a mission to prove it has embraced green technology?

(As an aside - how will F1 convey the optional tyre message when slicks return next year? White walls of the type popularised by Elvis?)

Yes, a 'Flash Gordon' painted across airboxes of KERS-equipped cars could partially address the problem, although this would not convey to fans exactly who used what amount of power for how long at which point of which manoeuvre.

So, a row of flashing green or red lights atop the airbox, lighting up in sequence as KERS is applied or recharged respectively, would appear to be the only answer if both track and TV audiences are to be educated in the sport's application of F1's latest piece of techno-wizardry.

But, in the final analysis, would teams even agree to such gizmos, given that the average lap takes around 80 seconds: sufficient time for race engineers to communicate to drivers exactly who has used what level of kilojoules by which sector. And, if the gizmo is TV-only gizmo, spotters will update race engineers who has used what portion by when, leaving hardcore fans in the stands in the dark.

So, while the dual questions of KERS safety and efficiency are concentrating engineering brains, it would appear the sport's administrators and commercial rights holders face another, albeit related, set of problems - how to educate 300 million fans out there about the usage of green technology without devaluing the sporting spectacle.

And, like the engineers, they have but seven months to solve the conundrum.