Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
subcritical71
91
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

Tzk wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:48 pm
As acula pointed out, any bypassing of the current sensor which is placed at the ES would break the rules. You may only run energy through the sensor from or to the ES. There‘s no room for your „agreement“ in the rules.

I belie e that ferrari splits the battery internally into two sections, but still has to run all current through the sensor (energy from/to H and K)
Technical Directives.... we need access to the TDs!

User avatar
Red Rock Mutley
25
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
It does rather rely on a gentleman’s agreement between Ferrari and the FIA. Ferrari say “we only use this little bit of ES for the MGU-H, because we only use it to deal with turbo lag, like you intended.” And the FIA say “OK”.
It does feel a little on the edge of legality to approve a scheme on the basis that it is of little importance, only to open the flood gates later on. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time. But, yes, I think it's reasonable to assume an agreement is needed covering the design of the Control Electronics, the partitioning of the Energy Store and the positioning of the ES sensor

Personally, I prefer the energy transfer methods using the MGU-H, as it doesn't require that extra fudge factor, although, the electronics offers a more efficient scheme
Last edited by Red Rock Mutley on Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
It does rather rely on a gentleman’s agreement between Ferrari and the FIA. Ferrari say “we only use this little bit of ES for the MGU-H, because we only use it to deal with turbo lag, like you intended.” And the FIA say “OK”.
It is a bit odd. The 'unlimited' connection between the H & the K makes sense for encouraging turbocompounding. But the 'unlimited' link between the ES and the H does little for turbocompounding, and surely turboshaft speed control alone wouldn't require an unlimited link to the ES. Perhaps a further goal was to encourage big harvesting from the H during braking. K is rather limited in this regard.

gruntguru
gruntguru
455
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

Simply to allow H harvesting to fill the gap. K harvesting is max 2 MJ/lap whereas K deployment can be 4 MJ/lap.
je suis charlie

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:54 am
Simply to allow H harvesting to fill the gap. K harvesting is max 2 MJ/lap whereas K deployment can be 4 MJ/lap.
Agree, K harvesting of max 2MJ per lap allowed by the rules were always hard to achieve on most tracks, in fact some that couldn't compensate by the H were resorting to harvest from the K by burning fuel, like Honda was doing. with the cars new configuration (wider tyres+ aero rules) it is even harder now because braking needs are less, The allowed 2MJ per lap harvesting is 50% of the charge allowed into the ES, Those if any that could achieve that harvesting limit by the K needed a minimum of 50% harvesting by the H, the two front teams are now able to reach or better 60% harvesting by the H.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:26 am
henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
It does rather rely on a gentleman’s agreement between Ferrari and the FIA. Ferrari say “we only use this little bit of ES for the MGU-H, because we only use it to deal with turbo lag, like you intended.” And the FIA say “OK”.
It is a bit odd. The 'unlimited' connection between the H & the K makes sense for encouraging turbocompounding. But the 'unlimited' link between the ES and the H does little for turbocompounding, and surely turboshaft speed control alone wouldn't require an unlimited link to the ES. Perhaps a further goal was to encourage big harvesting from the H during braking. K is rather limited in this regard.
Turbo compounding is not allowed in formula one.

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:36 am
roon wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:26 am
henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
It does rather rely on a gentleman’s agreement between Ferrari and the FIA. Ferrari say “we only use this little bit of ES for the MGU-H, because we only use it to deal with turbo lag, like you intended.” And the FIA say “OK”.
It is a bit odd. The 'unlimited' connection between the H & the K makes sense for encouraging turbocompounding. But the 'unlimited' link between the ES and the H does little for turbocompounding, and surely turboshaft speed control alone wouldn't require an unlimited link to the ES. Perhaps a further goal was to encourage big harvesting from the H during braking. K is rather limited in this regard.
Turbo compounding is not allowed in formula one.
But that is what these rules allow - electrical turbo-compounding!

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
In reality at, say, Spa they will run electric supercharger for most of the run through Eau Rouge and up past Rascasse, feeding more than 0.5MJ to the MGU-H and twice that to the MGU-K.
Do Ferrari have to drive all the way to Monaco, or is that for all Ferrari powered cars? Or all cars?

Do you mean from Eau Rouge, over Raidillon, along the Kemmel Straight and past Les Combes?

Certainly the will want to do it from Stavelot/Curve Paul Frere through Blanchimont all the way to the chicane as well.

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:07 am
saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:36 am
roon wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:26 am


It is a bit odd. The 'unlimited' connection between the H & the K makes sense for encouraging turbocompounding. But the 'unlimited' link between the ES and the H does little for turbocompounding, and surely turboshaft speed control alone wouldn't require an unlimited link to the ES. Perhaps a further goal was to encourage big harvesting from the H during braking. K is rather limited in this regard.
Turbo compounding is not allowed in formula one.
But that is what these rules allow - electrical turbo-compounding!
Actually the rules don't just allow turbo-compounding, they encourage it.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:14 am
wuzak wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:07 am
saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:36 am


Turbo compounding is not allowed in formula one.
But that is what these rules allow - electrical turbo-compounding!
Actually the rules don't just allow turbo-compounding, they encourage it.
If you meant "electric turbo compounding" YES you are correct, but the your wording was "allows turbo compounding" so you cant blame me because saying turbo compounding directs one to the path of using the already used exhaust gases to be directed to another turbine or turbines, the 18 cylinder cyclone used three.

User avatar
henry
268
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:13 am
henry wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:56 pm
In reality at, say, Spa they will run electric supercharger for most of the run through Eau Rouge and up past Rascasse, feeding more than 0.5MJ to the MGU-H and twice that to the MGU-K.
Do Ferrari have to drive all the way to Monaco, or is that for all Ferrari powered cars? Or all cars?

Do you mean from Eau Rouge, over Raidillon, along the Kemmel Straight and past Les Combes?

Certainly the will want to do it from Stavelot/Curve Paul Frere through Blanchimont all the way to the chicane as well.
Yep, Radillon is what I meant. As you say there are opportunities elsewhere to show the likely deployment.
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

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:51 pm
Tzk wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:48 pm
As acula pointed out, any bypassing of the current sensor which is placed at the ES would break the rules. You may only run energy through the sensor from or to the ES. There‘s no room for your „agreement“ in the rules.

I belie e that ferrari splits the battery internally into two sections, but still has to run all current through the sensor (energy from/to H and K)
Technical Directives.... we need access to the TDs!
correct, all that goes in and out of ES and MGU-K goes through the FIA specified and FIA specified positioned measuring sensors. But my surprise was Mutley coming here and saying that “It doesn’t seem possible to regulate the 2/4MJ per lap energy transfer limit between ES and MGU-K”. While Mutley might be an electrical engineer it has to be remembered that here we talking about the only regulator (the caliber of the FIA) that is by law responsible for formulating rules/regulations and the tools to police them.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

@WUZAK. In my replay to you I said: if you mean “electric turbo compounding” YES you are correct. I said that because I understood what you really meant/what you was talking about. And that’s the way it should be when one is not exact with proper technical terms, why complicate a discussion when one understands the other aims?. Anyhow if not for us (me and you) for the benefit of others reading us, this here “electric turbo compounding” subject and what is allowed and not should be clarified. At least in my opinion.
There are two modes of turbo compounding, mechanical and electric. The rules/regulations those not allow mechanical turbo compounding in F1 because: the technical regulations specify 1 turbocharger with no more than I compressor and turbine stage. Exhaust gases out of the exhaust turbine scroll are only allowed out of exhaust turbine scroll housing through its own tailpipe that ends in a specified position and at a specified angle at rear of car, ditto for the exhaust gases out of exhaust waste gates.
I believe that the FIA does not recognize the MGU-H as qualifying the turbo as turbo compounding, this because it is an MGU and not just a generator, as such they believe that the MGU-H qualifies as both a turbo controller as well as a generator, which in fact its functions are.

User avatar
subcritical71
91
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

Red Rock Mutley wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:28 pm
The flow diagram would look something like this

http://s50.photobucket.com/user/3874619 ... u.png.html
I just had a random thought. I don't know how battery construction works or how two virtual batteries might work. But, what if you could take a battery, virtually split it in two using the controller (say an ES-H and ES-K). This would be a dynamic allocation of the cells. For example 2MJ for ES-H and 2 MJ for ES-K (SOC). Charge the ES-K from the K (2 MJ limit) and then under certain conditions, re-allocate the battery cells instead of transferring energy, either partially or fully (a sort of ES <> ES transfer but by way of re-allocation). I don't see a limit on ES to ES transfers. This would minimize losses and time incurred by cycling the H (for the K -> H -> ES route), for example. This would ensure that on tracks where the K can send its full 2 MJ of energy from the K straight to the battery, and then reused wherever they desire (either the H or the K). It could also be used the other way, H charges its 2MJ to ES-H, reallocates it to the ES-K, do this twice a lap, therefore 4MJ delivered to the K with minimal losses.

:?: What do you think? Has this been covered already? I'm sure there are other strategies that could be used that I haven't thought of.

Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
47
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Using intermediate components to exceed 4MJ per lap energy transfer between ES and MGUK

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:07 pm
Red Rock Mutley wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:28 pm
The flow diagram would look something like this

http://s50.photobucket.com/user/3874619 ... u.png.html
I just had a random thought. I don't know how battery construction works or how two virtual batteries might work. But, what if you could take a battery, virtually split it in two using the controller (say an ES-H and ES-K). This would be a dynamic allocation of the cells. For example 2MJ for ES-H and 2 MJ for ES-K (SOC). Charge the ES-K from the K (2 MJ limit) and then under certain conditions, re-allocate the battery cells instead of transferring energy, either partially or fully (a sort of ES <> ES transfer but by way of re-allocation). I don't see a limit on ES to ES transfers. This would minimize losses and time incurred by cycling the H (for the K -> H -> ES route), for example. This would ensure that on tracks where the K can send its full 2 MJ of energy from the K straight to the battery, and then reused wherever they desire (either the H or the K). It could also be used the other way, H charges its 2MJ to ES-H, reallocates it to the ES-K, do this twice a lap, therefore 4MJ delivered to the K with minimal losses.

:?: What do you think? Has this been covered already? I'm sure there are other strategies that could be used that I haven't thought of.
This wouldn't make much sense.
The ES is made up of a multitude of individual cells anyway. With the voltage the MG-Units working in F1 it must be atleast several hundred, because every individual Cell will only give you a voltage of about 3.7 Volt. So you have to manage the whole Pack anyway and technically it doesn't make much difference for the energy managment software if you have one big pile of cells or two smaller piles.
One intresting aspect is the thermal managment though. If one pile alone is able to deliver the necessary voltage the MG-units need, you gain time to cool the other down which means you can get away with a smaller and lighter cooling system for the ES.