Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by Facts Only » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:36 pm

timbo wrote:
PlatinumZealot wrote:The 2014 compressor is very different - a bit shallower? but wider?
Where was the oiltank located in 2014?
In the same place, it wasn't fitted in those press shots.

Interesting that they have fitted it for the 2015 press shots, suggesting there is something they don't want people to see on the Compressor which is now hidden.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

gruntguru
431
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by gruntguru » Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:32 am

Craigy wrote:
gruntguru wrote:Turbo inertia is of little consequence as far as harvesting is concerned ie the rotational kinetic energy of the turbo/MGUH would be equivalent to a fraction of a second at 120 kW.
Citation needed. How do you know what Mercedes did?

If they chose to make the MGUH/Turbine/Compressor/shaft assembly out of tungsten-weighted flywheels, it'd be an additional energy store...
LOL. Citation? How about 2 grams of common sense?
je suis charlie

LookBackTime
622
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by LookBackTime » Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:39 pm


Craigy
73
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:20 am
Location: UK

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by Craigy » Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:36 pm

jure wrote:
Craigy wrote:
gruntguru wrote:Turbo inertia is of little consequence as far as harvesting is concerned ie the rotational kinetic energy of the turbo/MGUH would be equivalent to a fraction of a second at 120 kW.
Citation needed. How do you know what Mercedes did?

If they chose to make the MGUH/Turbine/Compressor/shaft assembly out of tungsten-weighted flywheels, it'd be an additional energy store...
And it would be extremely hard to control speed of rotation. It would accelerate and decelerate very slowly. There would also be cog consequences. Ice would also get quite a lot of back pressure because it would take time to spin the assembly.
It would also take a *relatively* long time for the assembly to slow down under load, as compared with a compressor with limited intertia.
If the compressor/turbine/MGUH/shaft had high rotational inertia, it could act as a secondary (additional to the ES) store of energy -- but importantly that kinetic energy is not counted in the 2MJ/4MJ ES transfer rules.
You could potentially spin it up under braking using direct power from the ERS-K and then dump that energy back into the ERS-K directly on corner exit. There's no limitation on energy transfer between those two items (ERS-H and K)

It'd be nice to see someone doing the sums on a flywheel going from (for example) 60,000RPM to 125,000RPM and back again, in terms of energy transfer.

Edit: did some quick sums. With total guesses: (5KG rotating mass, 50000rpm delta, 15cm diameter flywheel) you come to 192KJ, or about 10% of the ES transfer limit per lap... but this would potentially apply more than once per lap.

Can someone please shoot a hole in this for me? (ideally with numbers, rather than just "because").

LookBackTime
622
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by LookBackTime » Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:12 pm

Some answers could be in this article:

Analysis: Why Mercedes doesn't believe in Honda's size zero concept

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... pt-672435/

...

And although the split turbo and compressor was not the only reason Mercedes has been successful, Cowell acknowledged that the design had played an important part in its delivering the benchmark power unit.

"I don't think it was over-played," he said. "Is it the silver bullet? I think it is something where there are lots of positive contributors that go into it to make that comment.

"It is not done for one reason. There were many reasons that go together; to make it something that we think is still attractive.

"I think the thing that goes against it, is it is bloody hard! In the whole debate, there wasn't one big reason why we should do it, but there were lots of medium sized reasons why we should do it: on the contra side of the table – it was, 'bloody hell how are we going to do this?' Which is the 1000 pound gorilla in the room.

"There was nothing that said it couldn't be done, it just hadn't been done. But it makes it quite fun doesn't it?"
...

Tommy Cookers
512
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:32 pm

Craigy wrote: ......If the compressor/turbine/MGUH/shaft had high rotational inertia, it could act as a secondary (additional to the ES) store of energy -- but importantly that kinetic energy is not counted in the 2MJ/4MJ ES transfer rules.
You could potentially spin it up under braking using direct power from the ERS-K and then dump that energy back into the ERS-K directly on corner exit. There's no limitation on energy transfer between those two items (ERS-H and K)

Can someone please shoot a hole in this for me? .....
there is a shortage of braking-phase recovered KE (relative to the amount permitted)
generally it's not much over 1 MJ/lap
so there's little or no value in an additional energy storage route

my take on this was that there's some energy storage (from the rotating machinery) even without any move to increase inertia

ringo
227
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by ringo » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:13 pm

An advantage that Cowell may be coy with is the Motor generator's geometry. It most likely has a very small diameter, which reduces it's inertia. They get enough magnetic flux by having a very long motor body with long conductors in it.
With such length, they can harvest a lot of power without the drawbacks of large inertia, large diameter, large number of poles motor.
The longer motor also has less turns in the windings, so it have less windage losses and thus be mor efficient.
In fact you dont even need a lot of torque from the MGUH, so a long low intertia, low torque, motor is not a bad thing. The high speeds and low torque is pretty much a good match for a high speed turbine. The MGUH is sending it's power to a energy controller so it's torques isn't as important as if it were driving a wheel. Also the turbine's intertia when the mguh is driving it isn't very great.
i believe there was a thread created that looked into the motor in more detail.
For Sure!!

Blaze1
90
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by Blaze1 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:19 pm

ringo wrote:An advantage that Cowell may be coy with is the Motor generator's geometry. It most likely has a very small diameter, which reduces it's inertia. They get enough magnetic flux by having a very long motor body with long conductors in it.
With such length, they can harvest a lot of power without the drawbacks of large inertia, large diameter, large number of poles motor.
The longer motor also has less turns in the windings, so it have less windage losses and thus be mor efficient.
In fact you dont even need a lot of torque from the MGUH, so a long low intertia, low torque, motor is not a bad thing. The high speeds and low torque is pretty much a good match for a high speed turbine. The MGUH is sending it's power to a energy controller so it's torques isn't as important as if it were driving a wheel. Also the turbine's intertia when the mguh is driving it isn't very great.
i believe there was a thread created that looked into the motor in more detail.
The Honda MGU-K is notably longer and thinner than that on the Mercedes if I recall correctly.

ringo
227
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by ringo » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:43 pm

I was referring to the MGUH and it's capacity to harvest at high rotational speeds.
For Sure!!

wuzak
354
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by wuzak » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:52 pm

Craigy wrote: It would also take a *relatively* long time for the assembly to slow down under load, as compared with a compressor with limited intertia.
If the compressor/turbine/MGUH/shaft had high rotational inertia, it could act as a secondary (additional to the ES) store of energy -- but importantly that kinetic energy is not counted in the 2MJ/4MJ ES transfer rules.
You could potentially spin it up under braking using direct power from the ERS-K and then dump that energy back into the ERS-K directly on corner exit. There's no limitation on energy transfer between those two items (ERS-H and K)

It'd be nice to see someone doing the sums on a flywheel going from (for example) 60,000RPM to 125,000RPM and back again, in terms of energy transfer.

Edit: did some quick sums. With total guesses: (5KG rotating mass, 50000rpm delta, 15cm diameter flywheel) you come to 192KJ, or about 10% of the ES transfer limit per lap... but this would potentially apply more than once per lap.

Can someone please shoot a hole in this for me? (ideally with numbers, rather than just "because").
If you are putting energy into a flywheel you are not putting it into the battery. They have a hard enough time getting 2MJ from brake energy at most circuits as it is.

Blaze1
90
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by Blaze1 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:15 am

ringo wrote:I was referring to the MGUH and it's capacity to harvest at high rotational speeds.
My mistake.

godlameroso
337
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:47 pm

ringo wrote:I was referring to the MGUH and it's capacity to harvest at high rotational speeds.
I'm glad you bring this up, we all should know that there's only 3 real ways to increase electromagnetic induction. The regulations also create a few limitations on those 3 ways. For instance, the total system voltage cannot exceed 1,000 volts, I don't think anyone is using 1,000v yet, so there's scope for development there. We're also limited to 125,000 rpm for the speed of the conductor. We're not limited however by the geometry of the magnetic field, or the geometry of the conductor. So do you design a stubby but very wide MGU-H, or a long skinny one, or somewhere in between? Being that it's unlimited if your MGU-H is powerful and efficient enough at generating electricity, you could deploy indefinitely.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

ME4ME
162
User avatar
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by ME4ME » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:40 pm

Andy Cowell explaining the 2015 US-GP winning PU.


MangoMantango
0
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:13 pm

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by MangoMantango » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:50 pm

Mercedes hinting at 1000 BHP.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBnO0XYKECy/

nevill3
23
User avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Monaco

Re: Mercedes Power Unit

Post by nevill3 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:14 pm

First couple of images of the WO7, what can we see :shock:


*Edit Wrong thread I have moved the photos to the car speculation thread

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 89#p617689
Last edited by nevill3 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sent from my Commodore PET in 1978