Alternative engine formula idea

[Vortex37]

1. You get rid of the inefficiencies associated with converting a mechanical force into electricity so immediately you have an efficiency bonus.

The efficiency of advanced MGU's is somewhere around 98.7%

2. Because there is less energy to store as the MGU-K is only powered by electricity from the battery which gets electricity from braking, the battery itself can be made smaller and lighter....and cheaper (ya know, that whole thing that they've been blabbing on about for a while now).

Alternate to your concept. Something I posted months ago in the Honda thread? Keep the current MGUH, but have it attached to a small flywheel, which could be in a concentric layout. Modulated waste gate and BOV. for control. Maximum efficiency.

3. It focuses much more on conventional car technology which is far more applicable to the current road car industry.

A number of car manufacturers are moving to electrically driven hybrid supercharger/turbocharger, for road cars. Andy Cowell(Mercedes HPP F1) talked about this recently.

6. 8 gears is enough that at any part on almost any circuit the car will be in its rev range therefore the compressor will be spinning at a sufficient rpm regardless of throttle load without having MGU-H assistance. This means that lag is pretty much a non-issue. Before somebody says "but that reduces efficiency just remember at present we have to take electricity from a battery (efficiency loss) and turn it back into mechanical energy (more efficiency loss) just to spin the turbocharger. I didn't work out the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if in a total lap using electrics is less efficient to keep the turbocharger spinning for the low load sections when there isn't much exhaust flow.

Electrical machines are more efficient, less inherent loss, than a mechanical machine? Lag see reply to 2

7. These new engines have probably been a headache to develop as most of it hasn't been tried before. I'm sure quite a lot of the costs have been pure R&D which were then passed onto the teams (more money blabbing talk)

All the technology is available, and has been for a number of years. The real cost is making versions suitable for F1. I agree with you that the cost of R&D has been passed on to customer teams. I am pretty certain that part of the problem is that manufacturers are so secretive that they want to do all the development of the various MGU's etc as an in-house project. I know that one team buys in the battery cells, to make their own storage unit. Of course they had zero battery failures this year!

[trinidefender]

1. You get rid of the inefficiencies associated with converting a mechanical force into electricity so immediately you have an efficiency bonus.

The efficiency of advanced MGU's is somewhere around 98.7%

2. Because there is less energy to store as the MGU-K is only powered by electricity from the battery which gets electricity from braking, the battery itself can be made smaller and lighter....and cheaper (ya know, that whole thing that they've been blabbing on about for a while now).

Alternate to your concept. Something I posted months ago in the Honda thread? Keep the current MGUH, but have it attached to a small flywheel, which could be in a concentric layout. Modulated waste gate and BOV. for control. Maximum efficiency.

3. It focuses much more on conventional car technology which is far more applicable to the current road car industry.

A number of car manufacturers are moving to electrically driven hybrid supercharger/turbocharger, for road cars. Andy Cowell(Mercedes HPP F1) talked about this recently.

6. 8 gears is enough that at any part on almost any circuit the car will be in its rev range therefore the compressor will be spinning at a sufficient rpm regardless of throttle load without having MGU-H assistance. This means that lag is pretty much a non-issue. Before somebody says "but that reduces efficiency just remember at present we have to take electricity from a battery (efficiency loss) and turn it back into mechanical energy (more efficiency loss) just to spin the turbocharger. I didn't work out the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if in a total lap using electrics is less efficient to keep the turbocharger spinning for the low load sections when there isn't much exhaust flow.

Electrical machines are more efficient, less inherent loss, than a mechanical machine? Lag see reply to 2

7. These new engines have probably been a headache to develop as most of it hasn't been tried before. I'm sure quite a lot of the costs have been pure R&D which were then passed onto the teams (more money blabbing talk)

All the technology is available, and has been for a number of years. The real cost is making versions suitable for F1. I agree with you that the cost of R&D has been passed on to customer teams. I am pretty certain that part of the problem is that manufacturers are so secretive that they want to do all the development of the various MGU's etc as an in-house project. I know that one team buys in the battery cells, to make their own storage unit. Of course they had zero battery failures this year!

Thats 98.7% efficient one way. If used directly in the MGU-K then it will have another conversion factor of (just for this example to keep it simple) 98.7%. That is a total efficiency of 95.6%. That doesn't include any losses through the control systems and wires.

If the electrical energy isn't used immediately then it has to be stored in the battery. What are the electrical efficiency factors when it comes to storing and releasing the electrical power.

My idea wasn't so much about making the PU more efficient. It was an idea that I hoped can maybe keep similar end efficiency numbers while being much cheaper to design and manufacture than the current crop of overpriced PU's with very complicated energy recovery systems.