F1technical.net

Tommy Cookers wrote:10-15 % is much more than the recent corrected figure from Ringo

It equates to 60-90hp (based on 600hp ICE).

Tommy Cookers wrote:these calculations don't appear to me to address the loss of crankshaft power that becomes significant with higher recovery

How does that work?

As the RPM rises the requirement for the compressor become less (same mass flow, less boost), while the power the turbine makes will be roughly equal (same mass flow), falling a few percent. Thus the excess power (turbine power less compressor power) should, at minimum, remain equal or increase.

Energy recovery will not come at the expense of crankshaft power.

Tommy Cookers wrote:in F1 it won't be worth chasing all possible recovery
(adding 20 hp to recovery but losing 10 hp crankshaft power is no good, although in a stationary engine it might be ok)

If you get 20hp from recovery and lose 10hp from the crankshaft then you are ahead 10hp, and the efficiency is better - ie you use less fuel to get the same hp, or more hp from the same amount of fuel.

wuzak wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:10-15 % is much more than the recent corrected figure from Ringo

Tommy Cookers wrote:these calculations don't appear to me to address the loss of crankshaft power that becomes significant with higher recovery

How does that work?

As the RPM rises the requirement for the compressor become less (same mass flow, less boost), while the power the turbine makes will be roughly equal (same mass flow), falling a few percent. Thus the excess power (turbine power less compressor power) should, at minimum, remain equal or increase.

Energy recovery will not come at the expense of crankshaft power.

the Koyess/Cranfield paper shows much less than 10-15% recovery

in the case you suggest, surely the thermal efficiency falls as the boost (and charge) are lowered with rpm for constant massflow
I think the abovementioned paper is consistent with this, certainly not inconsistent

any load on the turbine beyond that used in supercharging is an increment of exhaust pressure that costs crankshaft power
that increment is trivial at low recovery rates (mostly powered by exhaust pulsation)
but becomes non-trivial at high rates (the increased rate being powered by raising mean exhaust pressure)
the 2014 rules have taken us close to the non-trivial point ??

an extra 20 hp load by the turbine on the exhaust will give 14 hp recovered power (less loss in crankshaft power)

will mercedes and ferrari give a test engine to their clients?!so these teams(mclaren for the most)can build a car into the engine

Tommy Cookers wrote:any load on the turbine beyond that used in supercharging is an increment of exhaust pressure that costs crankshaft power
that increment is trivial at low recovery rates (mostly powered by exhaust pulsation)
but becomes non-trivial at high rates (the increased rate being powered by raising mean exhaust pressure)
the 2014 rules have taken us close to the non-trivial point ??

I think you are grossly over estimating the back pressure effect on the engine power. The turbine harvests some power that comes from pressure but the majority of the energy is thermal and has no effect on the ICE if you use that thermal potential. I hope that Ringo will come along and make a comment. He has a pretty good understanding of the thermodynamics involved.

gary123 wrote:will mercedes and ferrari give a test engine to their clients?!so these teams(mclaren for the most)can build a car into the engine

What would be the point of giving out engines? The teams cannot run them at all before the season is over. I reckon they will get virtual models in 3D for their design departments or have already received them.

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 21113.html

What´s that? The author of this article, Mr. Rencken seriously believes the KERS accumulator would be a serious danger to air traffic because it could explode inside the hold of the plane, because some accus burned inside a jumbo recently, and so they could be prevented from cargoing. He even states it could be a danger for the 2014 engines!! Should this be taken seriously or is it another journalist doing some Ecclestone manouvre, now exploiting the "air safety"?? I think there are enough safety measures to prevent such scenarios!

The article shows that the author does not understand the technology. The turbo engine and the two MGUs are not dependent of LiPo batteries. They could use other energy storage if push comes to shove. The system could be run with smaller energy storage. They could use supercaps or a flywheel. Keeping the old V8s is also no solution. They are designed with KERS and those would fall under the same transport ban if it comes - which I doubt. F1 could use unloaded batteries for transport purposes and leave the used batteries behind before they fly back.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:any load on the turbine beyond that used in supercharging is an increment of exhaust pressure that costs crankshaft power
that increment is trivial at low recovery rates (mostly powered by exhaust pulsation)
but becomes non-trivial at high rates (the increased rate being powered by raising mean exhaust pressure)
the 2014 rules have taken us close to the non-trivial point ??

I think you are grossly over estimating the back pressure effect on the engine power. The turbine harvests some power that comes from pressure but the majority of the energy is thermal and has no effect on the ICE if you use that thermal potential. I hope that Ringo will come along and make a comment. He has a pretty good understanding of the thermodynamics involved.

Would the rule preclude using just blowdown through the turbine and bypassing the turbine with the remainder of the exhaust? This would harvest most of the energy with little crankshaft loss.

I don't think you would want to do that because of the net gain in crank power with turbo compounding. You would want to extract as much heat energy as possible since the flow between the two MGUs is "unlimited" to 161hp.

WhiteBlue wrote:The article shows that the author does not understand the technology. The turbo engine and the two MGUs are not dependent of LiPo batteries. (1)They could use other energy storage if push comes to shove. The system could be run with smaller energy storage. (2)They could use supercaps or a flywheel. Keeping the old V8s is also no solution. They are designed with KERS and those would fall under the same transport ban if it comes - which I doubt. F1 could use unloaded batteries for transport purposes and (3) leave the used batteries behind before they fly back.

1. Can you a bit more concrete?
2. Yes, they could use even a hydraulic accumulator, but even Williams gave up on their way into development flywheel system.
3. Sounds very ecological

If they have full storage and nowhere to dump excess electric energy but need to prevent the turbo from overrevving, couldn't they use the good old waste gate? Or put more load on the MGUH with immediate electric power utilization through MGUK combined and balanced with less power from the engine?

Anyway, I am still far from sure 2014 will see the new engines and energy recovery systems as planned and as we try to imagine.

WhiteBlue wrote:The article shows that the author does not understand the technology. The turbo engine and the two MGUs are not dependent of LiPo batteries. They could use other energy storage if push comes to shove. The system could be run with smaller energy storage. They could use supercaps or a flywheel. Keeping the old V8s is also no solution. They are designed with KERS and those would fall under the same transport ban if it comes - which I doubt. F1 could use unloaded batteries for transport purposes and leave the used batteries behind before they fly back.

Bosch at one stage offered modular flywheel units for motorsport:

http://www.autoracing1.com/article.asp?id=831

Surely they could again?

And if they are a bit heavier, they coud possibly locate them in the car to compensate for ballast.

The FIA want to encourage development in electric energy and selectrical storage.
Flywheel storage was a sensible development direction, it was banned.
I believe this ban was perhaps the major reason for Patrick Head at Williams parting company with F1 technology.

Was it banned? I thought it just turned out too heavy and bulky to be worth it inside an F1 car when storage was so limited.

autogyro wrote:The FIA want to encourage development in electric energy and selectrical storage.
Flywheel storage was a sensible development direction, it was banned.
I believe this ban was perhaps the major reason for Patrick Head at Williams parting company with F1 technology.

I don't think it is banned now. That's why the regulations specify "energy store" and not "battery".

People who think that this problem will stop the new turbo engines are dreaming IMO.