F1technical.net

Guys, do you think that for better packaging exhaust pipes' lengths can be made unequal to some extent?
With some compensation vis valve timing/ignition/injection?

ringo wrote:Just rambling here...

I predicted 120 kW can come from the generator, based on available energy from the turbos for a 640hp engine.
see here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=120
There is an unlimited amount of energy that can come from it to the energy control and to the storage.

However, the difference between the lowest energy state and the highest cannot be more than 4MJ.

Hypothetically the stores can house 8MJ of energy max, but It cannot expend more than 4MJ of that 8MJ.

So 4MJ may be used to power other things like electronincs, hydraulics; anything that uses power that is not on the engine. Which isn't really much if you think about it. I don't know if this energy is worth its weight in wires and connectors.

Whatever the case if KERS and TERS are charging, let's say at 2MJ each to give the max of 4MJ.
120kW TERS will charge it's 2MJ share in 33.33s. If it's charging and KERS is not for some reason, it will take 1:04 minutes.
The question is, How powerfull is KERS and how long does it take to give 2MJ?

Not sure I follow what you are saying.

2MJ is the maximum energy the MGUK can harvest per lap.
4MJ is the maximum energy that can be used from the Energy Store (ES) to the MGUK per lap.

To get the 4MJ requires 2 laps of harvesting...so one lap will be without 2MJ of energy from the MGUK - I don't see this as a likely strategy. The gain from using 4MJ on one lap is more than offset from not using 2MJ from the previous lap.

Energy flow from the MGUH to and from the ES is unrestricted, as is the energy transfer from the MGUH to the MGUK. Since transferring energy in and out of batteries is less efficient than transferring directly from generator to motor I would surmise that the bulk of the energy generated from the MGUH will be directly fed to the MGUK, with only an allowance for the spooling of the MGUH being sent to the ES and/or during braking when the MGUK is harvesting.

If you rely on the ES to deliver energy to the MGUK exclusively then you are restricted to 4MJ per lap. If you can harvest 2MJ from the brakes (MGUK) that leaves you with a maximum 2MJ from the MGUH. If you run the power directly from the MGUH to the MGUK you can use more than 4MJ per lap.

Since the MGUK is restricted to 120kW output, the 2MJ allowance (energy harvested by MGUK) will last longer than 17s as the full power will rarely come from the ES alone.

I suppose that in the unlikely event that the MGUH can generate more than 120kW of power the extra would go towards topping up the 4MJ.

ringo wrote:But for tracks like Monza or Canada the Generator can take over the charging mostly.

I would be surprised if they struggled to generate the 2MJ from braking in Canada. Canada is renowned for being hard on brakes, from a few very hard stops. Monza, on the other hand, has one major stop.

At Monza they will be at full throttle for 70% of the lap - around 55-60s. If the MGUH can develop 120kW at full throttle power it will provide over 6MJ per lap. I am sure that they will want to use that energy when they are on the throttle, and not storing it for later.

The energy harvested from the MGUK would, probably, fill in the rest of the lap where braking wasn't involved.

ringo wrote:

matt21 wrote:
The rules mandate a maximum of two air intakes located between the front of the cockpit and 500mm before the rear axle and more than 200mm above the reference plane.

So I would say that the airbox as known today could be given up.

The position of the intercoolers is not mandated and you can use air-to-water-coolers. So why not placing it in the box.

Air to water may be used but i don't think a team will opt to. An F1 car already has such minimal volume and is packaged so well that the advantages seen with air to water coolers on bigger vehicles may not be seen on an F1 car, which basically has no internal room for your water heat exchanger. Keep in mind that with air to water, you will still need an aditional heat exchanger which will be in the form of a radiator in the side pods i guess.
You may have you charge air to water cooler somewhere else, but the space is limited.

It's interesting, but i suppose the raw power gains from a less torturous charge air rout may have to be weighed against the additional hardware and weight and volume.

Though, i'm not sure how much shorter the route will be with the airbox right on top the engine. The cooler may go almost right where the radiator is, defeating the purpose.

A liquid to air radiator will take up less space in the air stream than an air to air one (ie it would be aerodynamically superior). It is just a matter of whether that outweighs the size and weight of the heat exchanger mounted in the engine bay somewhere.

wuzak wrote:
Not sure I follow what you are saying.

2MJ is the maximum energy the MGUK can harvest per lap.
4MJ is the maximum energy that can be used from the Energy Store (ES) to the MGUK per lap.

To get the 4MJ requires 2 laps of harvesting...so one lap will be without 2MJ of energy from the MGUK - I don't see this as a likely strategy. The gain from using 4MJ on one lap is more than offset from not using 2MJ from the previous lap.

You are forgetting that the generator can charge the battery as well. So it won't take 2laps to charge the 4MJ. The generator is not limited to charge. The MGUK is limited to 2MJ charging. But the rest can come from the generator or MGUH, whatever u call it. If needs be.

Energy flow from the MGUH to and from the ES is unrestricted, as is the energy transfer from the MGUH to the MGUK. Since transferring energy in and out of batteries is less efficient than transferring directly from generator to motor I would surmise that the bulk of the energy generated from the MGUH will be directly fed to the MGUK, with only an allowance for the spooling of the MGUH being sent to the ES and/or during braking when the MGUK is harvesting.

MGUH sending Energy to the MGUK is not an accurate statement, as the MGUK is not a storage device. It cannot store energy, it just consumes power. 2MJ is not relevant to the relationship between the MGUK and the MGUH , the 120kW is.
So when it comes to efficiency you will have to consider if is more efficient to contribute to compressing air for the combustion engine, or to use that power to send from generator to motor which is limited to a 120kW output.
Feeding this power directly to the MGUK must be looked at carefully, because it's probably more efficient to take from "free" battery energy while you can.

The MGUK is connected to the engine mechanically, so if the MGUH is feeding it is basically a less efficient form of turbo compounding since the power flow is from engine to turbine to mguh to mguk to drivetrain, 5 steps with some reduction in compressor performance.

Power from batteries negates that power drop from the compressor. Since the engergy is already stored and is not being taken off the engine.

The idea that the energy is unlimited is interesting, but it only suggests that the driver can keep his hand on the KERS button for as long as he wants to supply that 120kW, but i feel it may not be ideal for all loads.

If you rely on the ES to deliver energy to the MGUK exclusively then you are restricted to 4MJ per lap. If you can harvest 2MJ from the brakes (MGUK) that leaves you with a maximum 2MJ from the MGUH. If you run the power directly from the MGUH to the MGUK you can use more than 4MJ per lap.

Yes you can, but as said before, you may have to look on overall engine performance.

Since the MGUK is restricted to 120kW output, the 2MJ allowance (energy harvested by MGUK) will last longer than 17s as the full power will rarely come from the ES alone.

you mean when it's being released? yeah i feel the 2MJ will be irrelevant as the MGUH will just keep pumping power to the MGUK unlimitedly. Energy no longer becomes a factor, cause there is no storage taking place.
Hypothetically, the batteries can provide energy to MGUK when the compressor is not up to speed maybe 0.5MJ and then the MGUH chips in providing power to the MGUK and the energy argument goes out the window. The battery could stay 70% charged while the MGUH powers the MGUK constantly; driver with his finger glued down to the KERS button. The batteries only being there to chip in when engine and turbine speeds drop bellow the optimal efficiency range.

I suppose that in the unlikely event that the MGUH can generate more than 120kW of power the extra would go towards topping up the 4MJ.

From my calculations i think it can only equal 120kW, but i guess we'll see when we get more data. If it can provide more power than this, then i think we have a problem. f1 has just turned to a video game with the KERS button being the "supe up" ur "warp drive" boost button.

wuzak wrote: A liquid to air radiator will take up less space in the air stream than an air to air one (ie it would be aerodynamically superior). It is just a matter of whether that outweighs the size and weight of the heat exchanger mounted in the engine baysomewhere.

What engine bay?

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote:
Not sure I follow what you are saying.

2MJ is the maximum energy the MGUK can harvest per lap.
4MJ is the maximum energy that can be used from the Energy Store (ES) to the MGUK per lap.

To get the 4MJ requires 2 laps of harvesting...so one lap will be without 2MJ of energy from the MGUK - I don't see this as a likely strategy. The gain from using 4MJ on one lap is more than offset from not using 2MJ from the previous lap.

You are forgetting that the generator can charge the battery as well. So it won't take 2laps to charge the 4MJ. The generator is not limited to charge. The MGUK is limited to 2MJ charging. But the rest can come from the generator or MGUH, whatever u call it. If needs be.

No, I am not forgetting that.

But you are getting the same result - the power from the MGUH is going to the MGUK, just in your scenario it is being routed via the ES. And because it is being stored and extracted you will be losing some part due to efficiency losses.

There is some thought that storing part or all of the energy from the MGUH for use later in a lap may prove to be more beneficial than using it straight away. That remains to be seen.

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote:Energy flow from the MGUH to and from the ES is unrestricted, as is the energy transfer from the MGUH to the MGUK. Since transferring energy in and out of batteries is less efficient than transferring directly from generator to motor I would surmise that the bulk of the energy generated from the MGUH will be directly fed to the MGUK, with only an allowance for the spooling of the MGUH being sent to the ES and/or during braking when the MGUK is harvesting.

MGUH sending Energy to the MGUK is not an accurate statement, as the MGUK is not a storage device. It cannot store energy, it just consumes power. 2MJ is not relevant to the relationship between the MGUK and the MGUH , the 120kW is.
So when it comes to efficiency you will have to consider if is more efficient to contribute to compressing air for the combustion engine, or to use that power to send from generator to motor which is limited to a 120kW output.
Feeding this power directly to the MGUK must be looked at carefully, because it's probably more efficient to take from "free" battery energy while you can.

I never said that the MGUK was a storage device. Power and energy are related. So if the MGUH is generating 120kW for 5s and that is going to the MGUK directly then 600kJ has been sent from the MGUH to the MGUK.

The power generated by the MGUH is the power that the turbine can convert from the exhaust over and above the power needed to drive the compressor. This facility will be used to control the compressor speed, and therefore mass flow and boost.

It makes sense to me to send the excess power directly from the MGUH to the MGUK when the engine is at max power/wide open throttle. The ES can then be used to top up the system to 120kW (assuming the MGUH isn't producing that) and at lower speeds when the turbo is not producing excess power. Then, of course, there is the case where energy from the ES will be required to spool up the turbo to maintain boost.

ringo wrote:The MGUK is connected to the engine mechanically, so if the MGUH is feeding it is basically a less efficient form of turbo compounding since the power flow is from engine to turbine to mguh to mguk to drivetrain, 5 steps with some reduction in compressor performance.

No, it is more efficient.

If the energy is sent from the MGUH to the battery (ES) there is a loss of energy there and when the energy is extracted to power the MGUK there is another loss.

The steps for the battery system, using your logic would be:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine -> MGUH -> Es -> MGUK -> drivetrain. ie 6 steps, or one more than for teh MGUH directly powering the MGUK.

Compressor performance would not be changed, since in either instance the MGUH operation would be the same. If there is 50kW available above what the compressor requires the MGUH will take 50kW, not 60 or 40.

ringo wrote:Power from batteries negates that power drop from the compressor. Since the engergy is already stored and is not being taken off the engine.

The energy has to be "taken off the engine" at some point, otherwise the MGUH will not be needed.

There will be no power drop from the compressor. The MGUH only captures eexcess power.

ringo wrote:The idea that the energy is unlimited is interesting, but it only suggests that the driver can keep his hand on the KERS button for as long as he wants to supply that 120kW, but i feel it may not be ideal for all loads.

There will not be a KERS button. Power from the KERS will be fully integrated into the powertrain, and will be controlled via the accelerator pedal and selectable modes.

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote:If you rely on the ES to deliver energy to the MGUK exclusively then you are restricted to 4MJ per lap. If you can harvest 2MJ from the brakes (MGUK) that leaves you with a maximum 2MJ from the MGUH. If you run the power directly from the MGUH to the MGUK you can use more than 4MJ per lap.

Yes you can, but as said before, you may have to look on overall engine performance.

The engine performance will be the same whether you direct the energy recovered from the exhaust to the ES or the MGUK.

The overall power unit performance will be affected by the strategy used in controlling energy flows.

One thing is for certain, if you power the MGUK exclusively from the ES you are restricted to 4MJ per lap. IF you can extract more than 4MJ per lap from kinetic (braking) and heat (exhaust) sources you can't use it all with that strategy. But you can if you use the MGUH to directly power the MGUK.

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote:Since the MGUK is restricted to 120kW output, the 2MJ allowance (energy harvested by MGUK) will last longer than 17s as the full power will rarely come from the ES alone.

you mean when it's being released? yeah i feel the 2MJ will be irrelevant as the MGUH will just keep pumping power to the MGUK unlimitedly. Energy no longer becomes a factor, cause there is no storage taking place.

2MJ is relevant, because that is how much you can harvest from the brakes. But I think you are understanding my view - the MGUH will predominately power the MGUK directly.

ringo wrote:Hypothetically, the batteries can provide energy to MGUK when the compressor is not up to speed maybe 0.5MJ and then the MGUH chips in providing power to the MGUK and the energy argument goes out the window. The battery could stay 70% charged while the MGUH powers the MGUK constantly; driver with his finger glued down to the KERS button. The batteries only being there to chip in when engine and turbine speeds drop bellow the optimal efficiency range.

The ES will be used to power the MGUK when the MGUH's power is nil or negligible. Primarily at low engine speeds, I would think. The ES will also be used to spool the turbo when it is below optimum speed, and therefore eliminating turbo lag.

Interestingly the flow between MGUK and MGUH is unlimited as well as in the other direction. So during the braking the energy could be used to directly spool the turbo. Not sure if that would be an advantage.

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote:I suppose that in the unlikely event that the MGUH can generate more than 120kW of power the extra would go towards topping up the 4MJ.

From my calculations i think it can only equal 120kW, but i guess we'll see when we get more data. If it can provide more power than this, then i think we have a problem. f1 has just turned to a video game with the KERS button being the "supe up" ur "warp drive" boost button.

I am not sure if there will be 120kW excess power from the turbine.

Again, there will be no KERS button/boost button. All to be controlled by the driver's foot and a selectable map.

ringo wrote:

wuzak wrote: A liquid to air radiator will take up less space in the air stream than an air to air one (ie it would be aerodynamically superior). It is just a matter of whether that outweighs the size and weight of the heat exchanger mounted in the engine baysomewhere.

What engine bay?

Engine compartment/where the engine sits.

wuzak wrote:Again, there will be no KERS button/boost button. All to be controlled by the driver's foot and a selectable map.

I have been telling this for ages. It seems very hard to grasp the concept of dual torque. People need to figure this as a kind of master slave control. The electric support power is added to the ICU power in a proportional relation whenever the throttle pedal is pushed. The standardized ECU will have to determine a kind of battery storage status variable. And then there must be an algorithm that tells the SECU how much electric power it has to mesh with the ICU power at any given pedal position.

WhiteBlue wrote:I have been telling this for ages. It seems very hard to grasp the concept of dual torque. People need to figure this as a kind of master slave control. The electric support power is added to the ICU power in a proportional relation whenever the throttle pedal is pushed. The standardized ECU will have to determine a kind of battery storage status variable. And then there must be an algorithm that tells the SECU how much electric power it has to mesh with the ICU power at any given pedal position.

If this complex system does not work exactly right I can see there being big problems for the driver.

wuzak wrote:
No, I am not forgetting that.

But you are getting the same result - the power from the MGUH is going to the MGUK, just in your scenario it is being routed via the ES. And because it is being stored and extracted you will be losing some part due to efficiency losses.

There is some thought that storing part or all of the energy from the MGUH for use later in a lap may prove to be more beneficial than using it straight away. That remains to be seen.

Well you will be losing energy yes, but you cannot lose power from it.And that's the beauty of a storage device time can compensate for efficiency. So on the following lap that energy can be seen as free energy since it's not being drawn off.

I never said that the MGUK was a storage device. Power and energy are related. So if the MGUH is generating 120kW for 5s and that is going to the MGUK directly then 600kJ has been sent from the MGUH to the MGUK.

Ahhh! but the MGUH is not going to be generating for 5s, that's like saying the engine stops after 5s.
It will be generating constantly (if it's engaged), so the idea of energy is out the window since energy provisions is a constant flow. FLow of energy is power. Granted it wont be 120kW all the time, but even if it's a lower power value, it will be sent constantly to the MGUK nonetheless, hence the idea that energy value between the two is no longer important. If you see what i'm saying.

The power generated by the MGUH is the power that the turbine can convert from the exhaust over and above the power needed to drive the compressor. This facility will be used to control the compressor speed, and therefore mass flow and boost.

Yes, but at the same time the MGUH cannot discriminate compressor load and MGUK load, the clutch or whatever is controlling it will have to determine what takes priority. For example i would only have the MGUH engaged at points where compressed air flow rate is in excess to fuel flow rate. But i'm sure you agree with this as well.

It makes sense to me to send the excess power directly from the MGUH to the MGUK when the engine is at max power/wide open throttle. The ES can then be used to top up the system to 120kW (assuming the MGUH isn't producing that) and at lower speeds when the turbo is not producing excess power. Then, of course, there is the case where energy from the ES will be required to spool up the turbo to maintain boost.

I agree, or you can use that 120kW to blow you rear wing too! but that is a side arguement!

ringo wrote:The MGUK is connected to the engine mechanically, so if the MGUH is feeding it is basically a less efficient form of turbo compounding since the power flow is from engine to turbine to mguh to mguk to drivetrain, 5 steps with some reduction in compressor performance.

No, it is more efficient.

If the energy is sent from the MGUH to the battery (ES) there is a loss of energy there and when the energy is extracted to power the MGUK there is another loss.

The steps for the battery system, using your logic would be:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine -> MGUH -> Es -> MGUK -> drivetrain. ie 6 steps, or one more than for teh MGUH directly powering the MGUK.

Well this is it:

lap 1:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine 86%-> MGUH 85%-> MGUK 85%-> drivetrain.
' ........................................... \-->---------Es 90%

Energy is stored now agree? on to lap 2. Es is a branch, outside of the power flow path.

Lap 2:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine 86%-> MGUH 85%--> MGUK 85%-> drivetrain.
Es-------------------------------------------------->------/

Es is now in parallel "free energy" with reference to lap 2 in isolation being supplied.

Lets use some numbers. This is just arguement's sake.

lap 1:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine 86%- 120kW-> MGUH 85%- 102kW-> MGUK 85%- 86.7kW> drivetrain.
....................................................... \->---- (power and charge time determines energy)----Es 90%

Lap 2:

Engine (exhaust) -> Turbine 86%- 120kW--> MGUH 85%--102kW--> MGUK 85%--86.7kW--(86.7+ 54.4) --120kW-->drivetrain.
Es-----------------------------------------54.4kW for 32.4s--->----------------->------ --/

Feel free to point out any discrepancies. But you get what i meant when i mentioned efficiency ealier?
There's no power draw off the turbine to charge the battery now on lap 2, and also the Es is now supplementing the MGUK's inefficiency and the short fall in the MGUH power output. The batteries inefficiency will only affect it's charge times. In the above the Es being 90% efficient will only be able to supply 54.4 kW for 32.4s instead of 36s. Doesn't affect the overall efficiency of power delivery.

Compressor performance would not be changed, since in either instance the MGUH operation would be the same. If there is 50kW available above what the compressor requires the MGUH will take 50kW, not 60 or 40.

I agree, but it depends on the load.

There will be no power drop from the compressor. The MGUH only captures eexcess power.

That's the key word, there will be times when there is a deficit, ie when the compressor is not at rated speed. If MGUK loaded at that time, the turbine will not accelerate as quickly up to rated speed. Also concerns for back pressure?

There will not be a KERS button. Power from the KERS will be fully integrated into the powertrain, and will be controlled via the accelerator pedal and selectable modes.

Ok

ringo wrote:Yes you can, but as said before, you may have to look on overall engine performance.

The engine performance will be the same whether you direct the energy recovered from the exhaust to the ES or the MGUK.

The overall power unit performance will be affected by the strategy used in controlling energy flows.

Depends on the load condition and engine speed. Especially in low speed, high loading.

One thing is for certain, if you power the MGUK exclusively from the ES you are restricted to 4MJ per lap. IF you can extract more than 4MJ per lap from kinetic (braking) and heat (exhaust) sources you can't use it all with that strategy. But you can if you use the MGUH to directly power the MGUK.

Agree

The ES will be used to power the MGUK when the MGUH's power is nil or negligible. Primarily at low engine speeds, I would think. The ES will also be used to spool the turbo when it is below optimum speed, and therefore eliminating turbo lag.

Agree

Interestingly the flow between MGUK and MGUH is unlimited as well as in the other direction. So during the braking the energy could be used to directly spool the turbo. Not sure if that would be an advantage.

Once the you are off the brake, there's nothing left, nothing stored. Maybe for exhaust blowing i could see an advantage?

autogyro wrote:

I have been telling this for ages. It seems very hard to grasp the concept of dual torque. People need to figure this as a kind of master slave control. The electric support power is added to the ICU power in a proportional relation whenever the throttle pedal is pushed. The standardized ECU will have to determine a kind of battery storage status variable. And then there must be an algorithm that tells the SECU how much electric power it has to mesh with the ICU power at any given pedal position.

If this complex system does not work exactly right I can see there being big problems for the driver.

The car will have a mind of it's own. Some kind of traction monitoring has to take place. So i don't know what the F1 means by lack of traction control. They probably can run algorithms that don't rely on wheel spin feed back; solely battery state of charge, air flow, engine speed and what have you, but it's a blurry line between engine management and traction management. I guess it will just delivery excess power to MGUK blindly?

This is why i assumed a KERS button will be used, or some kind of analogue trigger or twist grip .

It's very complex and i don't know how the driver is going to be aware of what power he has available, he will have to respond to the car, and ease his right foot or press more. No longer the car responding to the driver. The engine will behave weak some laps, strong at others, and at different times and on different tyres. Interesting stuff.

@ringo
today you seem confident of around 120kw output quite often from the MGUH
your study on P145 of this thread cited about 84 hp max from the MGUH (about half the above value)

Yes, the reason for that is that i really don't know the engine power output.
I think one was based on a 640hp engine?

edit: yes you are correct! looking on it now, it's 84hp.

Here is something that you can use to calculate the power available at the turbocharger shaft that can be used by the MGUH

http://www.turbodriven.com/performancet ... sin=92044&