The F1 Pit Box

An extra 80 horsepower for a burst of 6.7 seconds will be produced, it has a certain amount of 'green' thinking behind it and it showcases the break-through technology for which Formula One should be known.  It also delivers a DC current in the hundreds of volts and the tens of amps, weighs between 25 and 40 kilos, requires cooling and costs plenty to research, test and produce.  KERS stands for Kinetic Energy Recovery System and it could be the most controversial rule change in 2009 F1.

You'd think all the teams would welcome the opportunity to bless their cars with some more power, however few teams seem to be singing the praises of KERS as yet.  Toyota are saying the device may have a detrimental effect on performance around certain tracks thanks to changes in weight distribution and braking issues, Ferrari can't seem to decide where to put the thing inside their cars, Williams have gone for a different system to everyone else and even BMW, who champion the device and had the first working system, haven't decided whether they'll run it in Australia!

Then there's the safety aspect.  BMW had a 'man down' during early testing thanks to an electric shock and there is the fear the cars may become electrically charged and be a danger to marshals around the track, who must handle the body in order to recover it.  This is before the thought of such a thing happening during refueling or any battery-related issues.  However, Charlie Whiting has assured us that KERS will be safe and there will be plenty of warning systems in place for handling the car.

To me, it's not the safety aspect - as there's no way it would be considered for use by the FIA if it was unsafe - or the issues with performance gains which makes it controversial, but the fact it won't be law to use it in 2009.  Toyota have said they won't be taking a KERS-equipped car to Melbourne and have yet to say when they will introduce it (although the start of the European season would seem like a safe bet),and Williams, Ferrari and BMW have yet to commit too. 

While I appreciate there will be ballast for the cars without KERS, ballast tends not to go wrong but also doesn't directly aid overtaking or increase straight line speed, and if KERS does prove to be highly effective and not everyone has one on their car, there won't be much 'increased overtaking' going on.  When testing is restricted and budgets are tightened, the introduction of expensive new technology is hardly the best plan, and neither is 50% of the field running it and the other 50% trailing behind, restricted in this case by issues essentially out of their control.

Ultimately, the decision not to make KERS mandatory in 2009 was the mistake.  It's either used or not, by everyone or no-one.  This is why the FIA are there, make the rules and tell them KERS has to be used in 2009 and it would have been sorted out by now, tell them 2010 and it would be ready by then.  Leaving them swinging in the wind with this 'if you like' attitude makes it difficult for the teams to know where to focus, difficult for the spectator to know who is or isn't running the system and could potentially skew the racing in what was supposed to be a 'reset' season.  Surely this is no different to letting the teams choose between grooved or slick tyres?  

Clear rules make for clear understanding, which is what should have been realised from the start.