Horsepower of the engines.

[Petroltorque]

Clearly MHPE have found an exploit in th rules. This engineer is adamant that th above formula is correct. It would not be the first time that a Manufacturer has found a loophole in th rules.

[Petroltorque]

I have attached the reply I received from the involved individual. It's from another well known site. Up till then I believed max output was ICE plus ERS but that would not have explained Mercedes advantage.
Hi, Petroltorque
 
You are not right. 50% is TOTAL, not just ICE.
F1 Mercedes today has (roghly) 830-840 HP.
Ferrari is 30-40 HP less.
Renault 50-70 less.
Honda, I don't know.
 
Story of just ICE having 50% efficiency is science fiction. And that is deliberately placed to mad up opposition and make a smoke.
That ICE efficiency NOT exist.
And difference on ICE alone is in region of
M-B ~ 610-615
F~ 600-605
R~590
 
ERS-Kinetic is fixed at 120 KW
 
Real difference comes from ERS-Heat. There goes also HOW you use this energy, and how you storage it.
Mercedes did something and they are efficient in that.
Shortly, problem is in s/w deployment and Merc did good job on it.
ERS-Heat can make max. 60 HP. After that they brake ICE and diminish power output.
 
But, problem is - all of that HAS NO APPLICATION in road car AT ALL.
 
So, who looks for real racing looking for PU without ERS-Heat.
At the moment Mercedes didn't allow rule changes as they will lose direct advantage.
Shame.
 
If you asking me - all those Hybrid PU is stupidity and PR b/sheat.   
 
And, yes, I am involved in this engines.
 
I think above is enough to make it more obvious for all of us

[henry]

There seems to be a lot of multi counting going on here. In my mind there are four horsepower figures that are of interest.

The first is what I think as referred to as self sustain power. To get this we have to assume the Power Unit is a black box with 1 input, the fuel power, and one output, the crankshaft power. If we take Mr Cowell's figures. The input power is 1242 kW., 1660 HP .The efficiency is 50% . So the power from the fuel transformed in the black box coming out from the crank is 830 HP.

This is not the maximum power that can be deployed continuously in the race. To get that we need to add another input to the black box, Energy Store power. To find a value for that we need to open up the black box.

In the PU black box the power is extracted from the fuel by the pistons directly to the crank and by the exhaust turbine. The exhaust turbine drives both the compressor and the MGU-H which then drives the MGU-K which drives the crank. The power going to the crank from the exhaust is therefore the power extracted by the turbine minus the power needed to drive the compressor. Elsewhere in these forums Gruntguru estimated this at around 47kw. This is around 3.8% of the fuel power. If we assume Mercedes are doing a bit better than that we can perhaps use 5%. That's 83 HP. Let's call it 80. ( this implies 45% efficiency from the Pistons, 745HP)

The regulations allow the MGU-K to be 160 HP Max. So the ES input to the black box can be 80HP. The regs allow for some inefficiency so we can simply add this to the 830. Giving 910HP.

Finally we can look at qualifying mode. The ES power input to the PU black box not only goes to drive the MGU-K but also the compressor, the wastegate is opened and the Pistons send a little more power to the crank because of lower back pressure in the exhaust. If we assume a 1%age point gain to 46% that's an extra 15 HP making the total 760 + 160 from the ES for 920 HP. Or 925, since all these figures are pretty arbitrary the exact numbers don't really matter.

So I suggest 4 HP figures based on Mercedes claims

ICE ( piston) 745
Self Sustain 830
SS + ES 910
ICE - WG + ES 925

If you don't like 50% SS,

45% ( 41 + 4) gives 680, 745, 840, 850

40 % ( 37 + 3) gives 610, 660, 770, 780

[henry]

I have attached the reply I received from the involved individual. It's from another well known site. Up till then I believed max output was ICE plus ERS but that would not have explained Mercedes advantage.
Hi, Petroltorque
 
You are not right. 50% is TOTAL, not just ICE.
F1 Mercedes today has (roghly) 830-840 HP.
Ferrari is 30-40 HP less.
Renault 50-70 less.
Honda, I don't know.
 
Story of just ICE having 50% efficiency is science fiction. And that is deliberately placed to mad up opposition and make a smoke.
That ICE efficiency NOT exist.
And difference on ICE alone is in region of
M-B ~ 610-615
F~ 600-605
R~590
 
ERS-Kinetic is fixed at 120 KW
 
Real difference comes from ERS-Heat. There goes also HOW you use this energy, and how you storage it.
Mercedes did something and they are efficient in that.
Shortly, problem is in s/w deployment and Merc did good job on it.
ERS-Heat can make max. 60 HP. After that they brake ICE and diminish power output.

.......
 
I think above is enough to make it more obvious for all of us

Apologies but I think Your friend's figures are inconsistent.

If the max total is 830 the ICE contribution is around 670. This puts ICE efficiency just above 40 %.

The MGU-H figure of 60 is 3.6% efficiency giving an overall efficiency of circa 44%.

I fear the error comes from double counting, adding the 60 of the ERS-H to the 160 of the ERS-K and then subtracting that from the Max power to get the ICE number The ERS-H 60 is already accounted for in the 160 with the remaining 100 coming from the ES.

I am interested in the assertion that the ICE gets braked. I'm assuming this is when the ICE is requested low power and its efficiency is well below the peak efficiency making the round trip from MGU-K to ES attractive.

[Petroltorque]

From the figures given the MB output is 610 for the ICE alone which is then compounded by the ERS-H by a further 60bhp. That 60bhp represents the maximum amount of energy you can take off the turbo/compressor before adversely affecting ICE performance. That 60bhp is free in that it's not counted in the total output of the MGU-K. So total output is Self sustain ( ICE+ERS- 610+60) 670 + MGU-K 160 = 830bhp
Henry your analysis raises some very interesting points. As I understand it that 45% efficiency can't be achieved by the ICE alone but has been achieved by incorporating the power of the turbo/compressor/MGU-Heat (ERS-H) that would be 745bhp.
ie SS-745bhp
Full power mode is SS 745+ES 80 or 830bhp. that complies with an overall efficiency of around 50%.
A power output of 910bhp is and efficiency of around 55%. The issue I have is that if the motive power is derived from fuel only where has that extra 5% power come from?

[Cold Fussion]

Full power mode is SS 745+ES 80 or 830bhp. that complies with an overall efficiency of around 50%.
A power output of 910bhp is and efficiency of around 55%. The issue I have is that if the motive power is derived from fuel only where has that extra 5% power come from?

This is evidence of double counting. The MGU-H cannot add power to the wheels, only the MGU-K can, if Mercedes were doing this, they would have been DSQ long ago. The only way what you say makes any sense is that if in full power mode, the ICE can produce the claimed 60 hp more because of the reduced back pressure from the turbine being driven by the MGU-H.

Who even is this person with the random email? You obviously don't know him so why should we trust him? The contents of his email don't lead one to believe he has any insider knowledge. Furthermore, your interpretation of he contents of that one email appear to be incorrect.

[Petroltorque]

Full power mode is SS 745+ES 80 or 830bhp. that complies with an overall efficiency of around 50%.
A power output of 910bhp is and efficiency of around 55%. The issue I have is that if the motive power is derived from fuel only where has that extra 5% power come from?

This is evidence of double counting. The MGU-H cannot add power to the wheels, only the MGU-K can, if Mercedes were doing this, they would have been DSQ long ago. The only way what you say makes any sense is that if in full power mode, the ICE can produce the claimed 60 hp more because of the reduced back pressure from the turbine being driven by the MGU-H.

Who even is this person with the random email? You obviously don't know him so why should we trust him? The contents of his email don't lead one to believe he has any insider knowledge. Furthermore, your interpretation of he contents of that one email appear to be incorrect.

The figures you have quoted are Henry's not mine. As I understand it Merc are compounding the power at the crank by using Energy from the ERS-H. He did not say that energy is being delivered via the MGU-K.

[henry]

From the figures given the MB output is 610 for the ICE alone which is then compounded by the ERS-H by a further 60bhp. That 60bhp represents the maximum amount of energy you can take off the turbo/compressor before adversely affecting ICE performance. That 60bhp is free in that it's not counted in the total output of the MGU-K. So total output is Self sustain ( ICE+ERS- 610+60) 670 + MGU-K 160 = 830bhp
Henry your analysis raises some very interesting points. As I understand it that 45% efficiency can't be achieved by the ICE alone but has been achieved by incorporating the power of the turbo/compressor/MGU-Heat (ERS-H) that would be 745bhp.
ie SS-745bhp
Full power mode is SS 745+ES 80 or 830bhp. that complies with an overall efficiency of around 50%.
A power output of 910bhp is and efficiency of around 55%. The issue I have is that if the motive power is derived from fuel only where has that extra 5% power come from?

In your example you are assuming a power from the ICE of 610 HP. That is an efficiency of around 37 %. You then add the 60 of the MGU-H (3.6%) to give 670 ( 40.4%). The only way this power can get to the road is via the crankshaft. The ICE drives it directly but the MGU-H has to send its contribution via the MGU-K. So Self Sustain, I.e. The only energy input is fuel, is 670 HP. You cannot add anything from the ES.

If you do add energy from the ES, you can only add 100 HP because 60 is already being supplied by the ERS-H. So the max power is 770. We don't calculate an efficiency for this because the energy is being re-used. The 100hp is only available for a limited time per lap.

My example of 910 HP came from a SS efficiency of 50% (830) plus energy from the ES to supplement the energy to the MGU-K

So the mystery energy comes from the ES and cannot be used to derive an efficiency number of 55%.

[Petroltorque]

Ah Henry I see where you are coming from but th CRUX is that energy from the ERS-H is NOT limited by the 120Kw MGU-KINETIC it is in addition. So Merc are pushing an Extra 45Kw Lap on Lap on top of the MGU-KINETIC.

[ringo]

I see a lot of errors here.
To be clear:

THE MGUH/MGUK POWER SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ES/MGUK POWER to determine the efficiency of the power unit.
It just doesn't follow first law concept of thermal efficiency.

this is wrong: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK) + (ES->MGUK)

this is correct: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK)

the ES is only boasts improved fuel economy in terms of litre/km that's about it.

The true thermal efficiency is the self sustaining efficiency alone. Anything else is hogwash and smoke and mirrors. The thermal efficiency only accounts for power that is developed by the fuel instantly and continuously; therefore the energy store should never be included in the calculation.

Brake Thermal Efficiency must only be the ICE and the MGUH while it directly feeds the MGUK.

If a team has a lousy MGUH that means their thermal efficiency will suffer. so for example if you ICE has 650hp and MGUH can only muster 60hp to the MGUK for self sustaining mode, then total output is 710hp. End of story; there's no other way to look at the thermal efficiency.

if your ES is supplementing the the 60hp from the MGUH, then yes output can be 650 + 160hp = 810hp. but this cannot be used to determine thermal efficiency.
What proves this best is if you charge the battery fully from a wall socket then put it in the F1 car. If you deploy it on an outlap and it supplementsthe ICE power, it's dubious to claim that wall charged battery as power produced by the fuel.

ES charged from the brakes also cannot be used for thermal efficiency calculations. In a nut shell the ES is out of the equation.

[pgfpro]

I see a lot of errors here.
To be clear:

THE MGUH/MGUK POWER SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ES/MGUK POWER to determine the efficiency of the power unit.
It just doesn't follow first law concept of thermal efficiency.

this is wrong: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK) + (ES->MGUK)

this is correct: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK)

the ES is only boasts improved fuel economy in terms of litre/km that's about it.

The true thermal efficiency is the self sustaining efficiency alone. Anything else is hogwash and smoke and mirrors. The thermal efficiency only accounts for power that is developed by the fuel instantly and continuously; therefore the energy store should never be included in the calculation.

Brake Thermal Efficiency must only be the ICE and the MGUH while it directly feeds the MGUK.

If a team has a lousy MGUH that means their thermal efficiency will suffer. so for example if you ICE has 650hp and MGUH can only muster 60hp to the MGUK for self sustaining mode, then total output is 710hp. End of story; there's no other way to look at the thermal efficiency.

if your ES is supplementing the the 60hp from the MGUH, then yes output can be 650 + 160hp = 810hp. but this cannot be used to determine thermal efficiency.
What proves this best is if you charge the battery fully from a wall socket then put it in the F1 car. If you deploy it on an outlap and it supplementsthe ICE power, it's dubious to claim that wall charged battery as power produced by the fuel.

ES charged from the brakes also cannot be used for thermal efficiency calculations. In a nut shell the ES is out of the equation.

Very well said!!! I was going to make a lengthy post but you did it with less words and much better then I.lol
Up Vote for you!!!

[Chene_Mostert]

Ah Henry I see where you are coming from but th CRUX is that energy from the ERS-H is NOT limited by the 120Kw MGU-KINETIC it is in addition. So Merc are pushing an Extra 45Kw Lap on Lap on top of the MGU-KINETIC.

Absolutely correct.
These Pu components should not be viewed in isolation, it's like the name implies, a power unit, not ice with kers...

The overall efficiency of these units are: Mechanical power produced from fuel by ice plus waste energy recovered from exhaust by MGU-H, supplied to crank via MGU-k.

Self sustaining mode has nothing to do with opening the waste gate to reduce back pressure, in fact it remains closed, allowing MGU-H to recover as much energy from the exhaust and feeding it directly to K ( this energy is not limited by regulation) in addition to the 4Mj from es.

[hurril]

I see a lot of errors here.
To be clear:

THE MGUH/MGUK POWER SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ES/MGUK POWER to determine the efficiency of the power unit.
It just doesn't follow first law concept of thermal efficiency.

this is wrong: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK) + (ES->MGUK)

this is correct: total power to be considered for thermal efficiency = ICE + (MGUH->MGUK)

the ES is only boasts improved fuel economy in terms of litre/km that's about it.

The true thermal efficiency is the self sustaining efficiency alone. Anything else is hogwash and smoke and mirrors. The thermal efficiency only accounts for power that is developed by the fuel instantly and continuously; therefore the energy store should never be included in the calculation.

Brake Thermal Efficiency must only be the ICE and the MGUH while it directly feeds the MGUK.

If a team has a lousy MGUH that means their thermal efficiency will suffer. so for example if you ICE has 650hp and MGUH can only muster 60hp to the MGUK for self sustaining mode, then total output is 710hp. End of story; there's no other way to look at the thermal efficiency.

if your ES is supplementing the the 60hp from the MGUH, then yes output can be 650 + 160hp = 810hp. but this cannot be used to determine thermal efficiency.
What proves this best is if you charge the battery fully from a wall socket then put it in the F1 car. If you deploy it on an outlap and it supplementsthe ICE power, it's dubious to claim that wall charged battery as power produced by the fuel.

ES charged from the brakes also cannot be used for thermal efficiency calculations. In a nut shell the ES is out of the equation.

Surely that is incorrect as the MGU-k can only ever put out the 160hp so if it is already applying 60 of those, as directy offereed by the MGU-h, then there's only 100hp more to be produced. As in: 750hp.

[henry]

The MGU-H has two outputs. It can drive the MGU-K or it can charge the ES.

If the ICE is making 610 HP and the MGU-H is sending 60 HP to the ES, what is the efficiency?

[hurril]

The MGU-H has two outputs. It can drive the MGU-K or it can charge the ES.

If the ICE is making 610 HP and the MGU-H is sending 60 HP to the ES, what is the efficiency?

What a silly question. The efficiency lies in capturing some of the energy that would otherwise have gone to waste through the exhaust. It needn't go to the ES because it can be sent to the crank shaft via the MGU-k instead, thereby adding to the amount of mechanical work rendered per amount of fuel consumed, increasing the efficiency.