F1technical.net

CriXus wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 21:20

Guys, why are you keep trying? This guy is a troll.

Because he deserves a chance. It's not helping to call someone a troll. I think it is a bit of a language barrier as well. Stay cool, keep trying.

dans79 wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 21:12

• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-K and ES is limited.
• The total amount of power than goes form the MGU-K to the wheels is not limited, the rate of deployment is limited.
• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.
• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-H and MGU-K is unlimited.

An amount and a flow rate are two completely different things.

Perhaps we should all agree to use the correct engineering terms? This might avoid some confusion.

"Energy" is useful stuff you can have sitting around in a bucket or a battery or a flywheel etc. There are many units used to quantify energy. The SI unit is the Joule and the F1 rules use MJ, (MegaJoule = 1,000,000 Joules).

"Power" is the rate at which energy is moved from A to B or converted from one form to another. For example an ICE takes chemical energy in the form of unburned fuel and atmospheric oxygen and converts it to heat energy. Some of this heat energy (up to 50%) is converted to mechanical energy by expanding the hot air against a piston. The unit of Power used in the F1 rules is the KiloWatt (KW) and is equal to an energy flow of 1 KJ/s (1,000 Joules per Second)

• the maximum POWER that can go between the MGU-K and everything else is limited. (to 120 KW)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-K to the ES is limited. (to 2MJ per lap)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the ES to the MGU-K is limited. (to 4MJ per lap)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-H to the MGU-K is unlimited.
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-K to the MGU-H is unlimited.
• the maximum POWER that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.
• the maximum ENERGY that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 23:48

...

SS to take issue with this post while citing a press release in 5... 4... 3... 2...

yes we should give him a chance because he write's allot of stuff and is clearly thinking about it.

@gruntguru very nice and clear basics to learn the flow and generation of the powerunit.
@saviour stivala, don't worry you will get it. it's crazy stuff easily get lost in it, well i do !!


So about that damn powerunit. i do not think ferrari has the edge on mercedes, well i think shell got the edge on them all.
i think the pu of ferrari was not the best but shell did some heavy thinking and some crazy analytics. and now ferrari has the most optimized PU under this set of F1 rules.

you can tune the burner (PU) or tune the fuel inside of it, mixing fuel is easier adjustable then adjust the whole pu,

is it possible to see anywhere if ferrari adjusted the combustion side fuel wise. ?

apexcontrol wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 00:14

yes we should give him a chance because he write's allot of stuff and is clearly thinking about it.

@gruntguru very nice and clear basics to learn the flow and generation of the powerunit.
@saviour stivala, don't worry you will get it. it's crazy stuff easily get lost in it, well i do !!


So about that damn powerunit. i do not think ferrari has the edge on mercedes, well i think shell got the edge on them all.
i think the pu of ferrari was not the best but shell did some heavy thinking and some crazy analytics. and now ferrari has the most optimized PU under this set of F1 rules.

you can tune the burner (PU) or tune the fuel inside of it, mixing fuel is easier adjustable then adjust the whole pu,

is it possible to see anywhere if ferrari adjusted the combustion side fuel wise. ?

You might see marginal gains (or possibly losses) by just changing the fuel spec and not altering the tune and/or combustion side. In order to see any real gains you would need to tune the ICE around the fuel specification.

I think about it like your car, you can put 93 octane in it, but if its tuned for 89 you won't see much difference, if any. In the right hands, if you tune it for the 93 octane you will see some relatively substantial gains.

Mr.G wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 20:49

Besides all the ongoing discussion, I've been thninking where the ERS can be improved for more power/efficiency...

http://papermodelers.sk/download/imgpl. ... b9d1dd9d9b

I have a different reading of the sensor position.

The sensors measure ALL the energy. So at the ES it measures energy to and from the MGU-K and also all the energy to and from the MGU-H. It needs to do this to keep track of SOC. The sensor at the MGU-K also measures both flow to and from the ES plus any flows to and from the MGU-H.

This arrangement of the sensors brings forward the issue of how they (FIA), using the sensors, know which part of the total energy flows start and end at ES and MGU-K so that the 4MJ/lap and 2MJ/lap limits can be enforced.

I think they might synchronise readings. For example If in a measurement period x joules leave the ES and x - y joules arrive at the MGU-K the assumption would be that y joules went to the MGU-H and x - y joules to the MGU-K. The SOC would be decremented x joules and the “4MJ/lap” counter incremented by x - y. I haven’t fully worked through other scenarios so I’m not sure this holds for all possible flow combinations.

An issue I can see with this methodology is that the energy doesn’t flow instantaneously. There will be delays in the control units, DC-DC converters, cabling etc. I have in the past mused that this might be an area where a savvy team might manage SOC or MGU-K energy flows or both to gain an advantage.

henry wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 00:50

Mr.G wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 20:49

Besides all the ongoing discussion, I've been thninking where the ERS can be improved for more power/efficiency...

http://papermodelers.sk/download/imgpl. ... b9d1dd9d9b

An issue I can see with this methodology is that the energy doesn’t flow instantaneously. There will be delays in the control units, DC-DC converters, cabling etc. I have in the past mused that this might be an area where a savvy team might manage SOC or MGU-K energy flows or both to gain an advantage.

Right. And depending on when the MGUs are in motor or generator mode, it would be hard to tell which energy was generated and which was 'used' by the respective motor. For instance, Honda allegedly alternates their MGU_H between harvest and deploy at 40hz/20hz. Thus, it must be difficult to look at energy at the sensor and know for a fact that it started somewhere else. IMO the measurement of the flows must be similar to fluid volume measurement (like in the fuel flow sensor(s)). Energy in and energy out simultaneously at each sensor.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 23:48

dans79 wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 21:12

• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-K and ES is limited.
• The total amount of power than goes form the MGU-K to the wheels is not limited, the rate of deployment is limited.
• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.
• the total amount of power that can go between the MGU-H and MGU-K is unlimited.

An amount and a flow rate are two completely different things.

Perhaps we should all agree to use the correct engineering terms? This might avoid some confusion.

"Energy" is useful stuff you can have sitting around in a bucket or a battery or a flywheel etc. There are many units used to quantify energy. The SI unit is the Joule and the F1 rules use MJ, (MegaJoule = 1,000,000 Joules).

"Power" is the rate at which energy is moved from A to B or converted from one form to another. For example an ICE takes chemical energy in the form of unburned fuel and atmospheric oxygen and converts it to heat energy. Some of this heat energy (up to 50%) is converted to mechanical energy by expanding the hot air against a piston. The unit of Power used in the F1 rules is the KiloWatt (KW) and is equal to an energy flow of 1 KJ/s (1,000 Joules per Second)

• the maximum POWER that can go between the MGU-K and everything else is limited. (to 120 KW)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-K to the ES is limited. (to 2MJ per lap)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the ES to the MGU-K is limited. (to 4MJ per lap)
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-H to the MGU-K is unlimited.
• the maximum ENERGY that can go from the MGU-K to the MGU-H is unlimited.
• the maximum POWER that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.
• the maximum ENERGY that can go between the MGU-H and ES is unlimited.

I think it is important that we understand that Flow, in electrical terms, is power.

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 20:14

Chene_Mostert wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 19:32

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 19:13

Yes the diagram says unlimitted up to "K" but limitted from "K" OUT or IN.

No its limited between ES & K, unlimited between ES & H; H & K.

It's simple really just read it as it is, witout putting your spin on it.

Exactly as you said, but you left out that from "K" to crankshaft it is limitted.

The "amount" of energy from K to crank is unlimited, the "flow rate" of that energy is limited.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 21:31

CriXus wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 21:20

Guys, why are you keep trying? This guy is a troll.

Because he deserves a chance. It's not helping to call someone a troll. I think it is a bit of a language barrier as well. Stay cool, keep trying.

Appreciates the fair and just moderating.
Disagreeing on a discussion form is normal. Because of disagreeing calling others a troll in the heat of an argument is not a big thing, but repeating that someone is a troll because of disagreeing and also pushing/asking for a ban is something different, it smacks and smells like “you are a newbie here and you are trespassing into our privet land/property”.

roon wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 00:08

gruntguru wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2018, 23:48

...

SS to take issue with this post while citing a press release in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Sorry to have kept you waiting for about 10 hours, not everybody on here is in the same time zone. Gruntguru’s post was excellent with a lot to learn from and certainly much appreciated at least by those (like me) of not being at the high-end level of technical knowledge when it comes to proper technical terms. I am also sure that people at his level when it comes to proper technical terms when in dialogue with others of lesser technical level about a technical matter have an automatic (mature) compensate for other’s shortcomings re-proper technical terms. Anyhow his great explanation finally goes a long way to show that whatever the proper technical term/s might be for the MGU-K OUT TO CRANKASHAT and OUT TO ERS COMPONENTS are actually LIMITTED.

Found this article interesting https://www.caradvice.com.au/668862/fer ... ric-turbo/

Basically Ferrari patented an F1 engine without a crank between the compressor and the Turbine, using only electric to do the transfer of energy. I think this shows the potencial that exists into storing turbine extra energy and releasing it only when needed for maximum efficiency instead of having to waste the extra energy when exhaust flow is too high.

Also F1 relevant to road cars? I would say so

Thoughts?

Slightly offtopic - I can't remember if transfer of energy K ->H -> ES was ever discussed?
What if on same tracks this could be beneficial?
After all, we expect MGU-H generation to be somehow limited :S
Unless ferrari made some breakthrough in this area - like regenerating x times more energy from heat...

Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 09:45

Found this article interesting https://www.caradvice.com.au/668862/fer ... ric-turbo/

Basically Ferrari patented an F1 engine without a crank between the compressor and the Turbine, using only electric to do the transfer of energy. I think this shows the potencial that exists into storing turbine extra energy and releasing it only when needed for maximum efficiency instead of having to waste the extra energy when exhaust flow is too high.

Also F1 relevant to road cars? I would say so

Thoughts?

Is this legal in F1?

This is great innovation if it's legal, and might be reason for double wiring from battery. By decoupling compressor from turbine turbine efficiency ratio can be greatly increased by letting turbine to spin at best efficiency rpm range all the time. This is a great innovation.

naukkis wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 11:05

Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2018, 09:45

Found this article interesting https://www.caradvice.com.au/668862/fer ... ric-turbo/

Basically Ferrari patented an F1 engine without a crank between the compressor and the Turbine, using only electric to do the transfer of energy. I think this shows the potencial that exists into storing turbine extra energy and releasing it only when needed for maximum efficiency instead of having to waste the extra energy when exhaust flow is too high.

Also F1 relevant to road cars? I would say so

Thoughts?

Is this legal in F1?

This is great innovation if it's legal, and might be reason for double wiring from battery. By decoupling compressor from turbine turbine efficiency ratio can be greatly increased by letting turbine to spin at best efficiency rpm range all the time. This is a great innovation.

No.