F1technical.net

and for a given MAP increased altitude will give ....
increased crankshaft power and exhaust thrust power (this thrust power is 2-3% at F1 max speeds)
increased turbine power
(compressor power likely increases but some relief of this comes as the lower absolute humidity displaces less oxygen)

so regarding the 'C' engine question ....
(why) is the 'C' more affected by altitude than the 'B' ?

this may be bounded by the issue of whether to design for the 19 low altitude F1 races or for all 21 races or for 20 ex-Mexico
(and the H and H electrics designer will want to know what the max H rpm is to be)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2018, 10:45

and for a given MAP increased altitude will give ....
increased crankshaft power and exhaust thrust power (this thrust power is 2-3% at F1 max speeds)
increased turbine power
(compressor power likely increases but some relief of this comes as the lower absolute humidity displaces less oxygen)

so regarding the 'C' engine question ....
(why) is the 'C' more affected by altitude than the 'B' ?

this may be bounded by the issue of whether to design for the 19 low altitude F1 races or for all 21 races or for 20 ex-Mexico
(and the H and H electrics designer will want to know what the max H rpm is to be)

I think you are reading too much into it - I am willing to bet that they do not want to show their full hand yet, so as not to give Honda something to copy (that can be seen externally). Whether the hand they've got is enough for 2019 is another question..

Question on the FP1 MGU-K start of the McLaren at the end of the pit lane (Norris). I was always under the impression that the ES is 'empty' when the car leaves the pitlane (though I cannot seem to find that regulation). If this is true, then how doe they have enough energy to start the car at the end of the pitlane with the MGU-K? Are they using the MGU-H to charge the ES and then shutoff the car when they have sufficient SOC in the ES?

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2018, 15:52

Question on the FP1 MGU-K start of the McLaren at the end of the pit lane (Norris). I was always under the impression that the ES is 'empty' when the car leaves the pitlane (though I cannot seem to find that regulation). If this is true, then how doe they have enough energy to start the car at the end of the pitlane with the MGU-K? Are they using the MGU-H to charge the ES and then shutoff the car when they have sufficient SOC in the ES?

I think MGU-H in idle can charge the ES, just like a normal hybrid car can do. ES can't be empty, the emptier it gets, the more damaging that is for the cells. They have to be on the shelf with a bit of charge left in it.

Normally I reckon that the ES can't be charged externally, it's not allowed to do that while in the garage. Not sure which part of the regulation, somebody with a copy of the rulebook can rub that in my face probably (:

Jejking wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2018, 17:23

I think MGU-H in idle can charge the ES, just like a normal hybrid car can do. ES can't be empty, the emptier it gets, the more damaging that is for the cells. They have to be on the shelf with a bit of charge left in it.

Normally I reckon that the ES can't be charged externally, it's not allowed to do that while in the garage. Not sure which part of the regulation, somebody with a copy of the rulebook can rub that in my face probably (:

Yeah, I meant empty from a SOC point of view.

The only rules I see are on the Energy Flow Diagram, which state;
1) The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on track,
2) The amount of stored energy in any ES may not be increased whilst the car is stationary in the pit lane or garage during qualifying Session or during a race pit stop.

But now I think I can answer my own question. If the SOC range is effectively defined while "the car is on the track" -> the driver can start the car on the pitlane using the MGU-K and not use up any of the allowed SOC as its range (floor and ceiling) are not yet defined. As you mentioned the battery will already have some no-zero charge (estimated to be in double digit MJ range) as this would otherwise be detrimental to the battery. Since the car is not yet on track the SOC floor and ceiling will be defined when the car is actually on track so the starting energy is a non-issue.

Having said all that, it was FP1 and not the race, so who knows... there might not be any charging rules in place at this time.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2018, 15:52

Question on the FP1 MGU-K start of the McLaren at the end of the pit lane (Norris). I was always under the impression that the ES is 'empty' when the car leaves the pitlane (though I cannot seem to find that regulation). If this is true, then how doe they have enough energy to start the car at the end of the pitlane with the MGU-K? Are they using the MGU-H to charge the ES and then shutoff the car when they have sufficient SOC in the ES?

ES cannot be charged from the pits during any session. That doesn't mean charging the ES is forbidden at all times. I'm sure it's nice and topped off when they send the car out.

Surely SOC on pit exit will be whatever it was as the car entered the pits? So if the car comes into the pits at 1 MJ SOC it has plenty of charge available for a MGUK startup without falling below the minimum SOC.

The exact wording of the regulation is:

The amount of of stored energy in any ES may not be increased whilst the car is stationary in the pit lane or garage during the qualifying Session or during a race pit stop

The qualifying session is defined in section 33 of the Sporting Regulations.

At all other times, including free practice and Pre-race Parc Fermé *, they can make whatever changes to the SOC they desire.

* Sporting Regulations
34.2 g) Charging and / or discharging of the ERS energy storage devices.

Personally I see stationary as standing still. So all the time it is driving 80 km/h it can fully charge with mgu-k and mgu-h. Suppose that is 15 seconds it can pump some 2MJ in the ES.

r101 wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2018, 12:47

I think you are reading too much into it - I am willing to bet that they do not want to show their full hand yet, so as not to give Honda something to copy (that can be seen externally). Whether the hand they've got is enough for 2019 is another question..

The Honda and Renault are 2 different concepts and designs. There is nothing on the Renault that could even fit on the Honda and vice versa. In any case this new spec 3 Honda looks mighty impressive and I bet Red Bull are wishing now that they went with Honda for this year. Unfortunately this decision has lead to Daniel Ricciardo listening too much to Fernando and staying with Renault power for the next 2 years.

Maybe Daniel simply looked at facts and saw TR Honda going through 7 engine changes from the start of the season.
Maybe he saw TR finishing on the last 2 positions in the last race.
Who knows.

MMMMMMMM wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 09:47

Maybe Daniel simply looked at facts and saw TR Honda going through 7 engine changes from the start of the season.
Maybe he saw TR finishing on the last 2 positions in the last race.
Who knows.

Most of those were from engine destroying crashes and not reliability. Last race was a brake issue and not engine related. The only real reliability issue was in Australia.

carisi2k wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 12:01

MMMMMMMM wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 09:47

Maybe Daniel simply looked at facts and saw TR Honda going through 7 engine changes from the start of the season.
Maybe he saw TR finishing on the last 2 positions in the last race.
Who knows.

Most of those were from engine destroying crashes and not reliability. Last race was a brake issue and not engine related. The only real reliability issue was in Australia.

last race in Sochi Honda installed two newly upgraded power units in free parctice both of which they found were not ready to race, if these two engines were ready to race, they would have raced them.

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 12:22

carisi2k wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 12:01

MMMMMMMM wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2018, 09:47

Maybe Daniel simply looked at facts and saw TR Honda going through 7 engine changes from the start of the season.
Maybe he saw TR finishing on the last 2 positions in the last race.
Who knows.

Most of those were from engine destroying crashes and not reliability. Last race was a brake issue and not engine related. The only real reliability issue was in Australia.

last race in Sochi Honda installed two newly upgraded power units in free parctice both of which they found were not ready to race, if these two engines were ready to race, they would have raced them.

Why were they specifically not ready to race?