mzso wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:39 pm
hurril wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:34 am
I guess the people that actually work on these things should give you a call then?
Perhaps. They could also stop claiming nonsense.
NL_Fer wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:02 am
But it is the combination of ICE, Turbocharger and MGU-H which makes it complex. These parts are designed to match eachother perfectly. Any change to one of these, or even new fuel brings the need redesign and manufacture of those parts.
This feels vastly over-exaggerated.
[*]The electric motor for one if once optimized for such high rpm running it will always function optimally. No matter how everything else changes, it's working conditions remain the same. You can always want it lighter and smaller, but that's not a combination effect.
[*]The ICE and the turbo charger is always designed together, but even then from the info engine manufacturers released, overwhelmingly their efforts were spent on the combustion process the make it more efficient and such powerful. And another big cost was following Mercedes and re-designing the whole thing for split turbos .
Most of which feels costly on it's own, and more importantly, already developed.
What definitely requires gross redesigns is suddenly dropping the MGU-H. So why bother, if not going for something drastically different? (It would come handy for RB, since they have a time limit on Honda's IP, but otherwise its nonsense.)
As they look towards further cost reductions (engine charges by the builders already goes part way to achieving this), surely a standardised “GU-H” would be a good middle-ground (these are already commercially available), this would still allow for the efficiency of the engine to be maintained, while throttle lag considerations would determine how the boost is controlled (it may lead to some power reduction as it would no longer be possible to ‘drive’ the turbo artificially). Doing that would allow energy recovery to be increased with a front axle “GU-K”. Personally I’m not averse to 4wd and allowing it to be a “MGU-K”, but from a purity perspective Rwd makes sense.
I would also go for a reduction in available fuel volume (to offset the energy potential created by front axle recovery), not sure what that would equate to as a numbers reduction, but it would offset some of the extra mass (as would smaller/lighter front brakes and hubs). I would also like to see a split on battery architecture, allowing a mix of super capacitors and li-ion for short and long term storage/use.
All a bit pie-in-the-sky, but you have to believe in the power of dreams!
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….