saviour stivala wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:41 am
There is no question or doubt about how the F1 turbocharger is driven (being spun/rotated), why confuse this here discussion by pushing the possibility of turbocharger being gear or mechanically driven by the engine? When the turbocharger as used in F1 is driven/spun/rotated by the exhaust gasses it is working as a turbocharger, when the turbocharger (as a unit, compressor and turbine mandated to be on a common shaft) is driven/spun/rotated by the “H” with waste-gates open it is working as an electrically driven supercharger.
I did not mention mechanical supercharger, that is your interpretation of what I said, see below.
But you do agree with me that when driven by the H it is an “electrically driven supercharger
”. Where we differ is that you think the H does this with no assistance from the turbine. That’s OK, it doesn’t change the way the system works just the numbers, the H consumes more energy at a higher rate (power) in your understanding.
When the “H’ is helping to reduce/eliminate turbo lag or to control the boost (turbo RPM) the turbo is being electrically assisted. The thing cannot be called or described/termed as just a supercharger without drive description.
Criticism accepted, I will remember to prefix supercharger with electrically driven.
The supposition that the FERRARI ES/battery inside the size and weight mandated box is split in two, with one part being charged by the “H” and one part being charged by the “K” does not make sense, as the part that is supposedly being charged by the “K” could never be fully recharged.
I did not propose this. So I won’t discuss it with you.
The 2017 Mercedes Spielberg “ERS” (and not “ES”) deployment article states that they managed to deploy 160 bhp for 33.33 seconds of the lap which amounts to approx. 50% of the 68 second lap, this on a lap with more straights than braking points. The article did not said or in any way meant that that deployment was deployed in one go, I am 100 percent sure that deployment was effected at viperous calculated advantageous points around the lap, if with the unlimited flow from “H” to “K” (160 bhp) being possible/allowed to flow from “K” to crankshaft for unlimited time, what was holding them back from deploying for longer than a time of 33.33 seconds per lap?.
Once again we return to this article.
You must trust your own knowledge and understanding of the regulations and not something written by someone who obviously understands it less well than you.
The answer to your question “ if with the unlimited flow from “H” to “K” (160 bhp) being possible/allowed to flow from “K” to crankshaft for unlimited time, what was holding them back from deploying for longer than a time of 33.33 seconds per lap?
” is nothing in the regulations
Whoever wrote the article didn’t understand this, I think you do but you are being mislead because the article is on Mercedes’ web page.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus