F1technical.net

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

Holm86 wrote: ↑

23 Jun 2018, 01:31

Didn't they say there would be a clarification on the 2021 regulations by end of June?
So maybe next week we will see some news

Daimler didn't pour all of this money into their F1 project to terminate it , Honda wouldn't join F1 if it wasn't hybrided and mgu-h'd .. no PU contracts goes after 2020 till now .. i honestly think the 4 manufacturers will protest to withdraw
if mgu-H will be removed.. its the way forward to achieve high efficiency and the thing is there is still huge amount of power to explore quoting Andy Cowell.

loner wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 17:08

Holm86 wrote: ↑

23 Jun 2018, 01:31

Didn't they say there would be a clarification on the 2021 regulations by end of June?
So maybe next week we will see some news

Daimler didn't pour all of this money into their F1 project to terminate it , Honda wouldn't join F1 if it wasn't hybrided and mgu-h'd .. no PU contracts goes after 2020 till now .. i honestly think the 4 manufacturers will protest to withdraw
if mgu-H will be removed.. its the way forward to achieve high efficiency and the thing is there is still huge amount of power to explore quoting Andy Cowell.

Whilst that is true, manufacturers have pulled out after pouring just as much in and achieving far far less - if anything at all. Whilst I agree with you, that statement isn't a reason to guarantee it.
F1 to manufactures is just a sponsorship/advertising/pr exercise to put in bluntly.

If i understood right, the MGU-H is no longer a discussion for all 4 manufacturers.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 22:37

If i understood right, the MGU-H is no longer a discussion for all 4 manufacturers.

it is .. but it is not what they realy want.

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 14:36

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

You then have 2 electric motors instead of 1. Adds weight.

wuzak wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 02:59

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 14:36

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

You then have 2 electric motors instead of 1. Adds weight.

Potentially, but that alone would not be a reason to not do it. The installation could become simpler. A Merc-type installation would see the loss of a long connecting shaft and housing. The compressor could be moved anywhere. Independent control of the compressor and turbo could allow some new ICE developments for better power and reclaim. Porsche in LMP saw fit to develop a turbo-only MGUH. Regulations which specify engine component masses should also be considered here. The weight of different powertrain configurations can be absorbed or distorted by spec engine weights.

The FIA will present the final 2021 regulations to the manufacturers this week.

Hopefully they will be publicly released soon after.

roon wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 03:15

wuzak wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 02:59

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 14:36

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

You then have 2 electric motors instead of 1. Adds weight.

Potentially, but that alone would not be a reason to not do it. The installation could become simpler. A Merc-type installation would see the loss of a long connecting shaft and housing. The compressor could be moved anywhere. Independent control of the compressor and turbo could allow some new ICE developments for better power and reclaim. Porsche in LMP saw fit to develop a turbo-only MGUH. Regulations which specify engine component masses should also be considered here. The weight of different powertrain configurations can be absorbed or distorted by spec engine weights.

But like a series hybrid, there would be a 70-75% loss of efficiency when powering the supercharger directly of the generator. I like a Porsche LMP style GU-H though, added next to the normal turbocharger, as a FIA standard unit.

Would enable to let manufacturers benefit from current lean burn ICE technology.

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 14:36

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

Such a set-up gives a lot of interesting opportunities, but chasing them would inevitable lead to high development costs.
And on the top of the wish list was PU simplification.

noname wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 11:53

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2018, 14:36

Could the rules have explorred the idea of having a completely separate compressor and turbine? Have the compressor driven by an electric motor motor full time and have a larger turbine recovery unit capable of regenerating more power than what is currently possible. Not sure if this path is less complex compared to the MGU-H approach currently but I suspect it might be.

Such a set-up gives a lot of interesting opportunities, but chasing them would inevitable lead to high development costs.
And on the top of the wish list was PU simplification.

The funding will flow elsewhere. A perfectly technologically frozen spec series would see all hardware out of the teams hands, to the governing body. Sole focus would be driver preparation, as in the preparation of athletes for sports like football, basketball, baseball, track and field, etc. Which begs the question of: why involve vehicles at all? All this achieved while not reducing the cost of entry much, if at all.

So what are the most likely outcome of the new 2021 regulations?

Keeping the 90° V6 single turbo platform (maybe even allow hot-vee configurations, which I find unlikely though)
Removing MGU-H
Larger MGU-K possibly around 200kw
Fuel flow regulations raised to 120kg/h
Peak fuel flow limit raised from 10.500 rpm to 13.000 rpm
Theoretical rev limit raised from 15.000 rpm to 18.000 rpm
ES Capacity raised from 4MJ to 5MJ

Thoughts?

Holm86 wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 13:19

So what are the most likely outcome of the new 2021 regulations?

Keeping the 90° V6 single turbo platform (maybe even allow hot-vee configurations, which I find unlikely though)
Removing MGU-H
Larger MGU-K possibly around 200kw
Fuel flow regulations raised to 120kg/h
Peak fuel flow limit raised from 10.500 rpm to 13.000 rpm
Theoretical rev limit raised from 15.000 rpm to 18.000 rpm
ES Capacity raised from 4MJ to 5MJ

Thoughts?

I have probably not thought it through throughly, but I like the idea of the driver having sole control of the Kers.
Having already said that, I am also against the driver having a mixing desk on the steering wheel.

What about having a time or quantity limited increased fuel flow to use 'during racing'?
Not in such a way it can distort the qualifying or allow one team to drive off into the distance, but similar to the 'powerboost' in FE (I HATE that )

My concern is if teams can race with less fuel they will start with less fuel. If they have to use it to take or maintain the lead it would be more entertaining. Lead car on economy run, car from 15th carve through on last lap etc.

roon wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2018, 12:24

The funding will flow elsewhere. (...)

Of course it will. They will spend as much as they can, it is all about where the money will flow. They have new aero bits every race, yet nobody is complaining costs behind.

However after years of lamenting current engine regulations, extremely high engine costs, cost of developing another expensive one, how much influence engine has (too much), etc., etc. they would look silly if they would agree on another complex system. I doubt they want it.

We should know soon. Brawn spoke on the French grid walk, and said within a week I believe.