F1technical.net

Appendix 2: POWER UNIT SYSTEMS, FUNCTIONS AND COMPONENTS is the place to look.

ES parts defined in Article 5.4.3 is included in Article 5.22: Replacing power unit parts
ES excluding parts defined in Article 5.4.3 is not included in Article 5.22: Replacing power unit parts

The ES components (both those defined by 5.4.3 and those that are not) are exluded from articles 5.4.1: Weight and 5.4.2: Centre of Gravity.

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.

5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

5.4.3 The total weight of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not exceed 25kg.


So, to clarify, the storage parts of the ES are part of the sealed power unit (one of the modules), but other items, such as wires (edit: wires not connecting to cells, but to the control units or MGUs), cooling circuits, etc, are not.

No part of the ES is counted towards the weight of the Power Unit or to the calculation of its centre of gravity.

tuj wrote:Again, according to Scarbs, the Red Bulls did not fully utilize the KERS system and recovered only around 44kW instead of the maximum allowed 60kW.

this makes sense if we believe Mr Horner when he seemed to say the RB KERS machine is on the output side of the gearbox ?
(ie not geared to the crankshaft, so not torque-multiplied' by the gearbox)

2014 will compel MGUKs to be geared to the crankshaft

Tommy Cookers wrote: ...
2014 will compel MGUKs to be geared to the crankshaft

Which is unfathomable as well as un-engineerish if you ask me, the shorter the way to the wheels the better obviously.

No big wonder Red Bull is making a mockery of the other teams.

I dunno, I think the RB's put the KERS in the gearbox because of packaging concerns for the aero, otherwise they would not have compromised the KERS unit so much (ie in terms of reliability, power). I don't think distance to the wheels was their primary consideration.

xpensive wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote: ...
2014 will compel MGUKs to be geared to the crankshaft

Which is unfathomable as well as un-engineerish if you ask me, the shorter the way to the wheels the better obviously.

No big wonder Red Bull is making a mockery of the other teams.

How would the MGUK keep up with the wheel speed if it was mounted directly at the wheels? To me it does make sense to run the MGUK through the gearbox via the crankshaft.

Tommy Cookers wrote:

tuj wrote:Again, according to Scarbs, the Red Bulls did not fully utilize the KERS system and recovered only around 44kW instead of the maximum allowed 60kW.

this makes sense if we believe Mr Horner when he seemed to say the RB KERS machine is on the output side of the gearbox ?
(ie not geared to the crankshaft, so not torque-multiplied' by the gearbox)

2014 will compel MGUKs to be geared to the crankshaft

The current KERS is geared to the engine.

The RBR, reportedly, has battery cells in the gearbox housing.

The new rules require the ES to be within the crash structure.

surely you have already pointed out this many times but in 2014 pneumatic valves will be allowed?
even in this case given the low rotational limit will anyone use spring?

motobaleno wrote:surely you have already pointed out this many times but in 2014 pneumatic valves will be allowed?
even in this case given the low rotational limit will anyone use spring?

Yes it has (couldn't find the page#), and yes they are allowed. Pneumatic valves I figure will be retained even though springs could be fitted. Pneumatic valves were first used on the Renault at revs much lower than the 15k limit.

Renault first used pneumatic valves on their turbo engine. Springs would rev to about 15k, but required tremendous attention to get them rev'ing that high.

http://scarbsf1.com/valves.html

the late Prof Blair's work showed that mechanical springs were ok in at an 18000 over-rev of the Ducati Moto GP
with finger followers (but not with direct tappet actuation)
2014 cylinders are roughly that size

Tommy Cookers wrote:the late Prof Blair's work showed that mechanical springs were ok in at an 18000 over-rev of the Ducati Moto GP
with finger followers (but not with direct tappet actuation)
2014 cylinders are roughly that size

I wonder if forced induction has any type of effect.

Tommy Cookers wrote:the late Prof Blair's work showed that mechanical springs were ok in at an 18000 over-rev of the Ducati Moto GP
with finger followers (but not with direct tappet actuation)
2014 cylinders are roughly that size

ducati does not use springs. it uses desmodromic distribution.

Though there do exist springs within the Ducati desmo valvetrain. Though if they were as stressed as a regular valve return spring i doubt desmo would be as competitive with the pneumatic systems the other moto gp teams have been using.

As I understand it, one other advantage of pneumatic valve springs over coils is that they don't have to worry about harmonic resonance issues at certain RPMs. Either way, going back to coils just feels like it would be a step backwards.

One thing I've noticed is that the teams used to top off the nitrogen for the valves at pit stops. I am not sure if the system simply is better sealed now, or if they don't have time for N2 now that there is no refueling, but it seems rare to see anyone top off the system in a race. Considering all the manufacturers have experience using pneumatics, I would think that would be the route everyone takes.