BassVirolla wrote: ↑11 Sep 2025, 19:59
wuzak wrote: ↑11 Sep 2025, 18:47
dren wrote: ↑11 Sep 2025, 18:38
Oh yeah, revving engines through the bends. It'll be interesting sounding for sure!
The rpm is constrained by the gearing.
At the hairpin at Monaco, for instance, the engine speed can dip as low as 5-6,000rpm. This will still be the case.
What will change is that the ICE will be making power and the MGUK recovers, more or less, the same power, matching the driver's power demand of approximately 0kW.
I don't remember the numbers, but the fuel flow is also restricted to throttle pedal position. Some time ago I did some calculations and the amount of recovery through this is not a lot, but not negligible.
Fuel flow is regulated by:
C5.2.3 Fuel energy flow must not exceed 3000MJ/h.
C5.2.4 Below 10500rpm the fuel energy flow must not exceed EF(MJ/h)=0.27*N(rpm)+ 165
C5.2.5 At partial load, the fuel energy flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
EF (MJ/h) = 380 when the engine power is equal to or below −50kW
EF (MJ/h) = 9.78 x engine power (kW) + 869 when the engine power is above −50kW
At 5,000rpm, the fuel flow defined by 5.2.4 is 1,515MJ/h, just over half the maximum. Or ~202kW, assuming 48% TE.
I think 5.2.5 may refer to the PU output, since the ICE doesn't really produce negative power.
At 0kW PU, the fuel flow allows ~116kW power from the ICE, assuming 48% TE.
Under braking, where the PU is recovering more than 50kW, the ICE makes about 51kW.
At 100kW output, the ICE can make ~246kW.
At the hairpin at Monaco, the recovery will be limited by 5.2.5 (~116kW at 0 power demand) rather than 5.2.4 (202kW @ 5,000rpm).