F1technical.net

Ok, I missed that bit about the weight limit for the ES. So our target has to be 25 kg of mass for the ES. This is even worse with regard to power density than assumed. You want to charge 2MJ with 120 kW ideally and your battery charge rate for the best cells is 1.1 kW/kg. Your ultra capacitors are giving you 7.8 kW/kg. Lets see how much mass we need to charge with 120 kW.

1. Batteries by power density:
120 kW/ 1.1 kW = 109 kg (massively over weight)-> you cannot use this material exclusively

2. Ultra capacitors by power density:
120 kW / 7.8 kW = 15.4 kg (9.6 kg weight reserve)

It follows that from a power density point of view we cannot use batteries because we would run out of available mass long before we get the required power. And now we check for the energy density. You need to fit the full 4MJ ES capacity into 25 kg mass budget. We are already committed to use 15.4 kg of ultra capacitors. Ultra capacitors will give us 31Wh/kg or 0.1116 MJ/kg. Batteries will give us 88 Wh/kg or 0.317 MJ/kg.

3. Ultra capacitors by energy density:
15.4 kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 1.72 MJ (2.28 MJ still missing)

4. Batteries by energy density:
2.28 /0.317 MJ/kg = 7.19 kg

This tells us we need 22.59 kg total ES mass to satisfy both the power density and the energy density requirements in the mass constraints of the regulations. It also means you cannot use either batteries or ultra capacitors exclusively because neither of the materials will deliver the required power and energy density from one material only. Only a combination from both materials will do the job. You probably want to install the full 9.6 kg of batteries because your energy density will degrade relatively faster in the battery cells than the power density in the ultra capacitor cells.

I can now see why Toyota in LMP1 uses ultra capacitors only. They do not degrade which is important if you want to do thousands of charge and discharge operations with the same energy pack over 5000 km distance. In F1 you can throw away your batteries after 400 km. It makes a difference. Toyota can probably do a full WEC season with their energy storage where F1 teams will use at least 30 to 35 battery packs. From an environmental point of view LMP has the better regulations I think.

The other issue discussed is the reliability of the Red Bull KERS system. I believe the reliability does not suffer from the mixed storage design that Re Bull runs reportedly. I have very sound reasons to believe that Red Bull use higher overload factors in their KERS MGU than other teams in order to get away with lower weight. You never use the rated capacity of these units because they are designed to be working continuously at that power level. 2013 F1 does not use the KERS machine anywhere near 100% of the time. It is probably used 20 seconds out of the 95 seconds of an average lap. This represents a thermal utilization of 21%. It follows that Red Bull may be overloading their MGU by as much as a factor of 5. Other teams have usually more tolerance in their cooling capacities. Perhaps they use overload factors of 3-4 instead of 5 and accept a bit of higher weight. This would be consistent with the KERS failures we have seen from Red Bull. They predominantly happen when the cars get very hot, like the last race in Hungary where Vettel's KERS was temporarily overheating.

WhiteBlue wrote:Ok, I missed that bit about the weight limit for the ES. So our target has to be 25 kg of mass for the ES. This is even worse with regard to power density than assumed. You want to charge 2MJ with 120 kW ideally and your battery charge rate for the best cells is 1.1 kW/kg. Your ultra capacitors are giving you 7.8 kW/kg. Lets see how much mass we need to charge with 120 kW.

1. Batteries by power density:
120 kW/ 1.1 kW = 109 kg (massively over weight)-> you cannot use this material exclusively

2. Ultra capacitors by power density:
120 kW / 7.8 kW = 15.4 kg (9.6 kg weight reserve)

It follows that from a power density point of view we cannot use batteries because we would run out of available mass long before we get the required power.

I'm not sure that is how it works, but I'll follow your thesis.

WhiteBlue wrote:And now we check for the energy density. You need to fit the full 4MJ ES capacity into 25 kg mass budget. We are already committed to use 15.4 kg of ultra capacitors. Ultra capacitors will give us 31Wh/kg or 0.1116 MJ/kg. Batteries will give us 88 Wh/kg or 0.317 MJ/kg.

3. Ultra capacitors by energy density:
15.4 kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 1.72 MJ (2.28 MJ still missing)

I don't think you need to have 4MJ capacity.

For example, you cross the start finish line with 4MJ. You use 600kJ on the run down to the first corner, which is the biggest braking zone on the track and can give you 800kJ of your 2MJ braking recovery allowance. But you are only allowed to store 600kJ, so you throw away 200kJ and can't make 2MJ on that lap.

But, if you have 2MJ capacity and store 1MJ then you can use your 600kJ and gain back 800kJ and be ahead, with room to store extra.

So why not just have 25kg of supercapacitors.

(using your numbers)
25kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 2.79MJ.

Don't ever actually store more than 2MJ - as you use it as you go. Recover energy in braking zone, use it to assist the ICE to accelerate on the next straight.

WhiteBlue wrote:This tells us we need 22.59 kg total ES mass to satisfy both the power density and the energy density requirements in the mass constraints of the regulations. It also means you cannot use either batteries or ultra capacitors exclusively because neither of the materials will deliver the required power and energy density from one material only. Only a combination from both materials will do the job. You probably want to install the full 9.6 kg of batteries because your energy density will degrade relatively faster in the battery cells than the power density in the ultra capacitor cells.

I'm sure teams will opt for one or the other. Having both is a complicating factor, as you have to assign where the power is going to be stored.

WhiteBlue wrote:I can now see why Toyota in LMP1 uses ultra capacitors only. They do not degrade which is important if you want to do thousands of charge and discharge operations with the same energy pack over 5000 km distance. In F1 you can throw away your batteries after 400 km. It makes a difference. Toyota can probably do a full WEC season with their energy storage where F1 teams will use at least 30 to 35 battery packs. From an environmental point of view LMP has the better regulations I think.

Toyota were beaten by Audi in the 2013 Le Mans race. Audi used flywheels - which could easily do the whole F1 season.

Toyota were also 4s off pole!

WhiteBlue wrote:I can now see why Toyota in LMP1 uses ultra capacitors only. They do not degrade which is important if you want to do thousands of charge and discharge operations with the same energy pack over 5000 km distance. In F1 you can throw away your batteries after 400 km. It makes a difference. Toyota can probably do a full WEC season with their energy storage where F1 teams will use at least 30 to 35 battery packs. From an environmental point of view LMP has the better regulations I think.

Audi used flywheels. Flywheels don't degrade as much as capacitors, let alone batteries.

F1's regulations for 2014 do not specify batteries. They can use capacitors, flywheels or batteries if they like.

WhiteBlue wrote:The other issue discussed is the reliability of the Red Bull KERS system. I believe the reliability does not suffer from the mixed storage design that Re Bull runs reportedly. I have very sound reasons to believe that Red Bull use higher overload factors in their KERS MGU than other teams in order to get away with lower weight. You never use the rated capacity of these units because they are designed to be working continuously at that power level. 2013 F1 does not use the KERS machine anywhere near 100% of the time. It is probably used 20 seconds out of the 95 seconds of an average lap. This represents a thermal utilization of 21%. It follows that Red Bull may be overloading their MGU by as much as a factor of 5. Other teams have usually more tolerance in their cooling capacities. Perhaps they use overload factors of 3-4 instead of 5 and accept a bit of higher weight. This would be consistent with the KERS failures we have seen from Red Bull. They predominantly happen when the cars get very hot, like the last race in Hungary where Vettel's KERS was temporarily overheating.

Reportedly use a combination of capacitors and batteries? Could you point me to a report.

Now, if RBR are using 20s of KERS per lap then they can only be using 20kW, on average, for the motor. Hardly overloading, don't ya think, since they are allowed to use 60kW.

You also might want to look at an onboard lap of an RBR with the KERS graphic. Don't think they are using it anywhere near as much as you speculate.

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:3. Ultra capacitors by energy density:
15.4 kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 1.72 MJ (2.28 MJ still missing)

I don't think you need to have 4MJ capacity.

For example, you cross the start finish line with 4MJ. You use 600kJ on the run down to the first corner, which is the biggest braking zone on the track and can give you 800kJ of your 2MJ braking recovery allowance. But you are only allowed to store 600kJ, so you throw away 200kJ and can't make 2MJ on that lap.

But, if you have 2MJ capacity and store 1MJ then you can use your 600kJ and gain back 800kJ and be ahead, with room to store extra.
So why not just have 25kg of supercapacitors.
(using your numbers) 25kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 2.79MJ.
Don't ever actually store more than 2MJ - as you use it as you go. Recover energy in braking zone, use it to assist the ICE to accelerate on the next straight.

It appears to me that you are not aware of the consequences of your choice. You need 4MJ of ES to be able to qualify competitively. In qualifying you can drive the out lap without power assistance from the ES and use the full 4MJ of the ES for your qualifying lap unless you have compromised the storage capacity as you just proposed. You will be significantly slower in qualifying because your one lap energy budget is 1.21 MJ short of the optimum. There will be competitors who will have full power from using all the energy a four MJ system can store.

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:This tells us we need 22.59 kg total ES mass to satisfy both the power density and the energy density requirements in the mass constraints of the regulations. It also means you cannot use either batteries or ultra capacitors exclusively because neither of the materials will deliver the required power and energy density from one material only. Only a combination from both materials will do the job. You probably want to install the full 9.6 kg of batteries because your energy density will degrade relatively faster in the battery cells than the power density in the ultra capacitor cells.

I'm sure teams will opt for one or the other. Having both is a complicating factor, as you have to assign where the power is going to be stored.

That is the lesser evil compared to a reduced power density or a reduced energy density. I have already covered both cases in my original post. Opting for just battery cells and no supercapacitor would be worse than going for a supercap ES only. The power density of the cells would allow you to recover less than 25% of the 120 kW that you are allowed to harvest under braking. It would mean your ES would only be 22% recharged during the race. Consequently your ES power contribution would only be 22% of what your next competitor would have who runs a full power mixed ES system. On top you would probably also run into trouble regarding the necessary discharge rate in qualifying. I have not checked on this but you would need something north of 70 kW and that is not doable with the battery cells as well. So your system design would make you a looser in qualifying twice and once in the race.

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I can now see why Toyota in LMP1 uses ultra capacitors only. They do not degrade which is important if you want to do thousands of charge and discharge operations with the same energy pack over 5000 km distance. In F1 you can throw away your batteries after 400 km. It makes a difference. Toyota can probably do a full WEC season with their energy storage where F1 teams will use at least 30 to 35 battery packs. From an environmental point of view LMP has the better regulations I think.

Toyota were beaten by Audi in the 2013 Le Mans race. Audi used flywheels - which could easily do the whole F1 season.
Toyota were also 4s off pole!

I do not know how much you have seen of the race and what commentators you followed. I followed the race on Eurosport with German commentators. They had guests all the time from Audi, Toyota, Porsche, Michelin and from just about everybody who is somebody in LMP racing. I also followed the analysis after Le Mans. It became clear from the experts comment that the Toyota energy recovery system was by far superior to the Audi system. Audi's performance advantage was completely based on their superior top end power generation and their aerodynamic sophistication. Toyota had massively more power to weight ratio in their ES system than Audi had and Audi knew this before January 2013. They had asked the ACO to use a gas accumulator system for ES which was not allowed for some reason by the ACO to cure the problem. There were reports that Audi will come with a new system next year when the rules change and it is unlikely to be the Williams flywheel in its present incarnation. I think the flywheel is too far behind in energy density to be competitive with supercaps.

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I can now see why Toyota in LMP1 uses ultra capacitors only. They do not degrade which is important if you want to do thousands of charge and discharge operations with the same energy pack over 5000 km distance. In F1 you can throw away your batteries after 400 km. It makes a difference. Toyota can probably do a full WEC season with their energy storage where F1 teams will use at least 30 to 35 battery packs. From an environmental point of view LMP has the better regulations I think.

Audi used flywheels. Flywheels don't degrade as much as capacitors, let alone batteries.
F1's regulations for 2014 do not specify batteries. They can use capacitors, flywheels or batteries if they like.

Flywheels are not competitive as I have already pointed out above. Supercaps do not significantly degrade at all.
F1 does not specify the energy density or the power density or the physical principle of your ES, but they have defined the capacities and max/min weight of the ES in such a way that it tweaks the rules completely in favour of of a mixed system unless of course someone will come out with an ultracap that raises the bar in energy density to somewhere north of 60 Wh/kg.

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:The other issue discussed is the reliability of the Red Bull KERS system. I believe the reliability does not suffer from the mixed storage design that Re Bull runs reportedly. I have very sound reasons to believe that Red Bull use higher overload factors in their KERS MGU than other teams in order to get away with lower weight. You never use the rated capacity of these units because they are designed to be working continuously at that power level. 2013 F1 does not use the KERS machine anywhere near 100% of the time. It is probably used 20 seconds out of the 95 seconds of an average lap. This represents a thermal utilization of 21%. It follows that Red Bull may be overloading their MGU by as much as a factor of 5. Other teams have usually more tolerance in their cooling capacities. Perhaps they use overload factors of 3-4 instead of 5 and accept a bit of higher weight. This would be consistent with the KERS failures we have seen from Red Bull. They predominantly happen when the cars get very hot, like the last race in Hungary where Vettel's KERS was temporarily overheating.

Reportedly use a combination of capacitors and batteries? Could you point me to a report.

The reports are somewhere in the Red Bull car threads. I have no time at the moment to dig them out. I rather look at your other figures.

wuzak wrote:Now, if RBR are using 20s of KERS per lap then they can only be using 20kW, on average, for the motor. Hardly overloading, don't ya think, since they are allowed to use 60kW.
You also might want to look at an onboard lap of an RBR with the KERS graphic. Don't think they are using it anywhere near as much as you speculate.

I have not been saying that Red Bull is only using 20 kW. The thermal load is calculated by using the time factor build by comparing the use time of all operation with 60 kW with the average lap time. You have roughly 12 s of braking at full power and 8 seconds of KERS push button time. That 20 s is compared to the 95 s of the total average lap time. It gives you the load factor for all KERS machines not only for Red Bull because braking and KERS time is the same for all. The difference is in the over load factor that you decide to use based on that thermal load. My point was that Newey typically cuts it to the bone in cooling capacities and I expect him to be no different in this case. He will rather try to save a few kg of weight and gain performance than allowing a bigger safety margin in thermal layout.

AMuS wrote, that the mercedes 2014 engine will probably have 100 bhp more than the power units of renault and ferrari.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 64699.html

spmat wrote:AMuS wrote, that the mercedes 2014 engine will probably have 100 bhp more than the power units of renault and ferrari.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 64699.html

These reports aren't based on any evidence unless someone has a spectacular coup and got hold of the dyno data. We're seeing a stream of PR (excite the sponsors) and misinformation (confuse the opposition) while the teams keep their cards hidden.

The article states 850hp potential in qualifying trim. So that's 690hp from the ICE. Either they found some ridiculously high efficiencies, they are using rocket fuel, or a combination of both. And only if the information is credible.

AMuS wrote:Die Mercedes-Verantwortlichen haben sich mit ersten Leistungsdaten besorgt an die FIA gewendet. Ihr Anliegen: 2014 müssen breitere Hinterreifen her um die gesteigerte Power auf die Straße zu bekommen. Die maximale Systemleistung soll im Qualifying-Trim bis zu 850 PS betragen. Das maximale Drehmoment steigt von 320 Nm auf 600 Nm - da drehen die Reifen auch im 4. und 5. Gang noch durch, wenn der Pilot nicht sensibel mit dem Gasfuß umgeht.

Renault und Ferrari waren dagegen der Meinung, dass breitere Reifen nicht nötig sind, um die höheren Belastung in den Griff zu bekommen. Daraufhin wurden auch die beiden Mercedes-Konkurrenten aufgefordert, ihre Leistungsdaten gegenüber Pirelli offenzulegen. Nach Analyse der prognostizierten Werte und nach Rücksprache mit den Reifenspezialisten teilt die FIA offenbar die Bedenken von Mercedes. Nach letzten Planungen soll 2014 mit 2 Zentimeter breiteren Gummis auf der Antriebsachse gefahren werden.

Besonders die Werte von Mercedes geben Anlass zur Sorge. Im Fahrerlager erzählt man sich hinter vorgehaltener Hand, dass der Silberpfeil-Motor 100 PS mehr leisten soll als die Aggregate von Renault und Ferrari.

I think those are specific points that speak a clear language. Merc has argued at the FiA that compounded power including ERS power (Ger. Systemleistung) in qualifying will reach 850 bhp and have asked for wider rear tyres on that basis. Renault and Ferrari have argued that wider tyres are not necessary. After having compared power predictions by all manufacturers the FiA apparently have decided to follow the Mercedes proposal. There is some probability that the reason is increased power IMO. I would not dismiss this out of hand. The next piece in the puzzle will be the tyre specification. If it come out with 20 mm wider rear tyres it is another indication that more power is indeed expected by the FiA.

On the other hand 850 bhp may not be reached at the end of the season. It is something that is considered under tyre safety considerations. But there is the distinct chance that 650 bhp from the ICE will be exceeded by the end of next year. Even Renault are indirectly saying that by quoting total efficiencies for the engine and turbo recovery between 40 and 45%.

dren wrote:The article states 850hp potential in qualifying trim. So that's 690hp from the ICE. Either they found some ridiculously high efficiencies, they are using rocket fuel, or a combination of both. And only if the information is credible.

Ridiculously high efficiencies like the Renault upside estimate of 45%?

WhiteBlue wrote:It appears to me that you are not aware of the consequences of your choice. You need 4MJ of ES to be able to qualify competitively. In qualifying you can drive the out lap without power assistance from the ES and use the full 4MJ of the ES for your qualifying lap unless you have compromised the storage capacity as you just proposed. You will be significantly slower in qualifying because your one lap energy budget is 1.21 MJ short of the optimum. There will be competitors who will have full power from using all the energy a four MJ system can store.

The idea here, my dear boy, is to recover energy and use it.

If you can recover 2MJ in a race lap you can certainly recover 2MJ on a qualifying lap.

So, you only actually need to start the lap with 2MJ stored.

Plus, once qualifying starts you are expressly forbidden to charge the system.

5.2.2 Energy flows, power and ES state of charge limits are defined in the energy flow diagram shown in Appendix 3 of these regulations.
When the car is on the track a lap will be measured on each successive crossing of the timing line, however, when entering the pits the lap will end, and the next one will begin, at the start of the pit lane (as defined in the F1 Sporting Regulations).
ES state of charge cannot increase whilst car is in the pit lane or garage during the qualifying session.
Measurements will be taken at the input to and the output from the ES.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.

So, your first flying lap will be with 4MJ in Q1. Thereafter you can only use what you can recover.

If you use the full 4MJ on that first lap, and recover 2MJ that means you will only have 2MJ for the next qualifying lap. After which you will only have 2MJ for qualifying, unless you put 2 or 3 pretty serious laps without using the MGUK to power the car in order to bumpt that 2MJ up to 4MJ.

If you start with 2MJ, use 2MJ and you can recover 2MJ you finish with 2MJ. Then on your last qualifying effort you can start with 2MJ, recover 2 MJ and use 4MJ.

WhiteBlue wrote:That is the lesser evil compared to a reduced power density or a reduced energy density. I have already covered both cases in my original post. Opting for just battery cells and no supercapacitor would be worse than going for a supercap ES only.

I honestly would only be speculating. As you are.

You would need some clever electronics to be able to dump some into a battery and some into a supercapacitor.

I am really not sure how the power density thing works. Are you?

For example, this year's cars can harvest 60kW in the KERS.

Using your numbers - 60kW/(1.1kW/kg) = 54.5kg. Do you really think that they are carrying around 54.5kg of batteries this year and wearing it, considering that the minimum weight was increased to account of the whole KER system by aroun 20kg? Adrian Newey elected to not run KERS in 2009 because h ethought it too heavy - I'm sure he would have thought the same if he had to carry 55kg worth of batteries!

WhiteBlue wrote:I do not know how much you have seen of the race and what commentators you followed. I followed the race on Eurosport with German commentators. They had guests all the time from Audi, Toyota, Porsche, Michelin and from just about everybody who is somebody in LMP racing. I also followed the analysis after Le Mans. It became clear from the experts comment that the Toyota energy recovery system was by far superior to the Audi system. Audi's performance advantage was completely based on their superior top end power generation and their aerodynamic sophistication. Toyota had massively more power to weight ratio in their ES system than Audi had and Audi knew this before January 2013. They had asked the ACO to use a gas accumulator system for ES which was not allowed for some reason by the ACO to cure the problem. There were reports that Audi will come with a new system next year when the rules change and it is unlikely to be the Williams flywheel in its present incarnation. I think the flywheel is too far behind in energy density to be competitive with supercaps.

It's good you include the words "I think".

Fair enough that other factors may have been at play in Audi's superiority at Le Mans.

WhiteBlue wrote:

wuzak wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:3. Ultra capacitors by energy density:
15.4 kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 1.72 MJ (2.28 MJ still missing)

I don't think you need to have 4MJ capacity.

For example, you cross the start finish line with 4MJ. You use 600kJ on the run down to the first corner, which is the biggest braking zone on the track and can give you 800kJ of your 2MJ braking recovery allowance. But you are only allowed to store 600kJ, so you throw away 200kJ and can't make 2MJ on that lap.

But, if you have 2MJ capacity and store 1MJ then you can use your 600kJ and gain back 800kJ and be ahead, with room to store extra.
So why not just have 25kg of supercapacitors.
(using your numbers) 25kg * 0.1116 MJ/kg = 2.79MJ.
Don't ever actually store more than 2MJ - as you use it as you go. Recover energy in braking zone, use it to assist the ICE to accelerate on the next straight.

It appears to me that you are not aware of the consequences of your choice. You need 4MJ of ES to be able to qualify competitively. In qualifying you can drive the out lap without power assistance from the ES and use the full 4MJ of the ES for your qualifying lap unless you have compromised the storage capacity as you just proposed. You will be significantly slower in qualifying because your one lap energy budget is 1.21 MJ short of the optimum. There will be competitors who will have full power from using all the energy a four MJ system can store.

wuzak wrote:Flywheels are not competitive as I have already pointed out above. Supercaps do not significantly degrade at all.

So you think.

Capacitors do have limited life spans. The life span reduces with high temperatures. It may be more than enough to do a whole season of F1, but then again it might not. Who knows? These things could get seriously hot.

Flywheels are limited by their mechanical components. Which means they have much longer life. Maybe not important in F1 terms.

Bosch made a modular flywheel system. Add capacity - add another module. And flywheels can have energy densities approaching that of batteries.

WhiteBlue wrote:F1 does not specify the energy density or the power density or the physical principle of your ES, but they have defined the capacities and max/min weight of the ES in such a way that it tweaks the rules completely in favour of of a mixed system unless of course someone will come out with an ultracap that raises the bar in energy density to somewhere north of 60 Wh/kg.

You are still aiming for 4MJ. How quaint.

WhiteBlue wrote:I have not been saying that Red Bull is only using 20 kW. The thermal load is calculated by using the time factor build by comparing the use time of all operation with 60 kW with the average lap time. You have roughly 12 s of braking at full power and 8 seconds of KERS push button time. That 20 s is compared to the 95 s of the total average lap time. It gives you the load factor for all KERS machines not only for Red Bull because braking and KERS time is the same for all. The difference is in the over load factor that you decide to use based on that thermal load. My point was that Newey typically cuts it to the bone in cooling capacities and I expect him to be no different in this case. He will rather try to save a few kg of weight and gain performance than allowing a bigger safety margin in thermal layout.

Seriously, what?

Newey would compromise a system so that more often than not it is dead weight?

If it is the same for all KERS equiped cars, then why did you mention the 20s time and 21% "utilisation" factor?

Maybe Newey skimps on cooling a bit, but I doubt very much it is by a factor of 5, as you claim.

@ Wuzak, I'll give up for the moment. I do not have the time to go through all the problems in your computations now. I'll probably get back to it tonight when I have more time. For now I'll just say that IMO you are wrong with most of your points. I think you should have a basic read up on what energy density and power density means in hybrid design. You do not seem to have the proper understanding how they limit charging and capacity of the ES. I suggest you make a design calculation of your own and try to come up with figures of a system that you think is optimal.

Ok, so weight and packaging restrictions on the ES. 20kg-25kg, has to be in the survival cell.

You'll want to also look at the volume you have to place the capacitors, if you use them. Some have excellent qualities but they will end up being rather large.

Will the max 4MJ even be used on a qualifying lap when taking the ES powercurve into account? And as stated by wuzak, you don't need 4MJ total at the start of the lap to use 4MJ for the entire lap. If you regenerate around 1 or so MJ a lap, then you may only want around 3MJ capacity.

dren wrote:Will the max 4MJ even be used on a qualifying lap when taking the ES powercurve into account? And as stated by wuzak, you don't need 4MJ total at the start of the lap to use 4MJ for the entire lap. If you regenerate around 1 or so MJ a lap, then you may only want around 3MJ capacity.

The general case is racing so let us first look at that case. You can use as much electric energy as you want up to 2MJ per lap if you can generate that much by brake regen. You need the regen for the next lap, so there is no additional energy available from regen.

The qualifying case is similar only that you are allowed to drain two additional MJ that your Es is allowed to store on top of your race lap budget. But you need to do this at least three times if not five times in one qualifying hour and you have no times to change batteries between Q1, Q2 and Q3 sessions. You also have no time to reload in the box.

It means you will have to do your out lap with fully charged ES and no use of the ES power. In your hot lap you will utilize all the 4MJ capacity and do two MJ worth of regeneration for your next lap which is the in lap. On the in lap you also switch off the use of ES power and try to regen the other 2MJ that you need to top up your ES to fully charged state.

So there is no opportunity to competitively do this with less than 4 MJ of ES storage! Even in the last run of Q3 you cannot deviate from that strategy because you cannot switch or load cells in parc ferme. You would be starting the race with less power than your competitor.

For this concept to work the SECU needs to have selector switch which will tell the energy management whether you are on an in/out lap, a qualifying lap, a race lap, in safety car mode or in electric only mode (2015 introduction). I'm pretty confident that they have thought about that and will install such a switch.

When I think about it I can imagine that you will push qualifying mode also in your last lap. You positively want to use those 2 more MJ that you are carrying around to beat your competitor to the finish line.

You don't need ES for an in-lap.

If you plan to use your full alloted 4MJ, you only need enough energy to add to the regen you will receive and use that lap.

You'll be able to gain 2MJ a lap in straight generation mode, you can drag the MGUK until the ES receives 2MJ. So it will take a max of 2 laps to fill the ES if you are using the max 4MJ.

dren wrote:You don't need ES for an in-lap.

If you plan to use your full alloted 4MJ, you only need enough energy to add to the regen you will receive and use that lap.

You'll be able to gain 2MJ a lap in straight generation mode, you can drag the MGUK until the ES receives 2MJ. So it will take a max of 2 laps to fill the ES if you are using the max 4MJ.

I have not said that you need the ES for the in lap. I proposed to run out lap and in lap without using ES power. The difference being that you do not regen on the out lap.

If you have a smaller ES capacity and have to always do two in laps you will also have an operational disadvantage to your competitor who does only one.

Right, but your power to weight might be better, or packaging, etc.

It is going to be interesting how many actual modes they have to run the cars in. I'm also curious about the MGUK power curve. Any thoughts on that?

richard_leeds wrote:

spmat wrote:AMuS wrote, that the mercedes 2014 engine will probably have 100 bhp more than the power units of renault and ferrari.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 64699.html

These reports aren't based on any evidence unless someone has a spectacular coup and got hold of the dyno data. We're seeing a stream of PR (excite the sponsors) and misinformation (confuse the opposition) while the teams keep their cards hidden.

The manufacturers had to give their data to Pirelli/Fia to find the right tyre size. So some people know how they compare, and peole talk...