F1technical.net

vinuneuro wrote:

PlatinumZealot wrote: http://i66.tinypic.com/2rohufa.png

Something is not correct in this. In fully open throttle sections, engine speed varies a lot including decreasing.

Errrrr gearshifts? I'll put this one down to a momentary brainfart on your part.

trinidefender wrote:

vinuneuro wrote:

PlatinumZealot wrote: http://i66.tinypic.com/2rohufa.png

Something is not correct in this. In fully open throttle sections, engine speed varies a lot including decreasing.

Errrrr gearshifts? I'll put this one down to a momentary brainfart on your part.

How embarrassing. Yes, lack of sleep.

vinuneuro wrote:

PlatinumZealot wrote: http://i66.tinypic.com/2rohufa.png

Something is not correct in this. In fully open throttle sections, engine speed varies a lot including decreasing.

"Flat shift" programming in the computer. You can see this in the onboard videos too. The driver does not lift of the throttle when changing gears.

Rudex wrote:Look at picture.
first is the top power is 120kw only in short moments.
117kw is the more time deployed.
and the MUGh power is around 80kw the power supposed here.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2v0z8t4.png

Wait a minute. First off all it depends on where you take "zero" to be. So either of us could be wrong. We have to first confirm where zero is for those graphs.

If zero is the black line bordering the bottom.. Then it would mean theMGUH is always generating electricity which is reasonable. And the MGUK is always providing thrust which is reasonable... So maybe my originalscaling is wrong then.

So maybe that the lower plateau of tthe graph is the "baseline"power that goes from MGUH to MGUK. I am getting 26kW as the baseline power.

PlatinumZealot wrote: If zero is the black line bordering the bottom.. Then it would mean theMGUH is always generating electricity which is reasonable. And the MGUK is always providing thrust which is reasonable... So maybe my originalscaling is wrong then.

How are any of those things reasonable after the information that has been released recently by Hasagawa, Wazari and Muramassa? They clearly stated it often is more effective to use the K in generator mode while part-throttle (and obviously it's used as a generator in braking zones too). Also it was said that the H is regularly used in motor-mode to attain optimal boost.

ME4ME wrote:

PlatinumZealot wrote: If zero is the black line bordering the bottom.. Then it would mean theMGUH is always generating electricity which is reasonable. And the MGUK is always providing thrust which is reasonable... So maybe my originalscaling is wrong then.

How are any of those things reasonable after the information that has been released recently by Hasagawa, Wazari and Muramassa? They clearly stated it often is more effective to use the K in generator mode while part-throttle (and obviously it's used as a generator in braking zones too). Also it was said that the H is regularly used in motor-mode to attain optimal boost.

I know that. See my previous posts.
Just need to confirm where is zero on those graphs. Also need to confirm how is the "motor" mode of the mguh represented in those graphs if at all.

It is, when the MGU-H line is at the bottom it's harvesting when it's at the top it's in motor mode.

there be a positive and negative swiing to reflect the switch from generator mode to motor mode.. That is why it is important where zero is. We can apply a proper propoer scale too. Just need to find zero...

PlatinumZealot wrote:there be a positive and negative swiing to reflect the switch from generator mode to motor mode.. That is why it is important where zero is. We can apply a proper propoer scale too. Just need to find zero...

That's not too difficult....
Take the Quali-Telemtry chart. Between T1-T2 and T2-T3 the MGU-H is in motor mode (compressor driven electrically), compared to eg. T6-T8, where MGU-H is generating.

Then take the Race-Telemetry chart. There is no motor mode, and with zero throttle, MGU-H is at zero.
As already stated 2 pages ago, motor mode seems to be about half of the power of the generating mode.

Btw, the zero is even written there...and I think it is valid for both MGU-H and -K. The scale may vary between them, though.

Looking at the telemetry it seems like a short burst of energy is all it takes to drive the turbo to full boost. Austria is a short track and only really has 3 turns where mid corner throttle inputs matter, so this may not be a representative track with regards to using the ES to drive the turbo.

can we assume then that the turbine size was selected to supply only half the boost required at full chat (minimal back pressure) and when full boost is needed that extra boost is topped up via the electric supercharger mode ?

Does this make sense to anyone?

My interpretation is that the lines above and below the MGU zero line are 100KW and the PU total lines are of 250KW increments.

godlameroso wrote:Looking at the telemetry it seems like a short burst of energy is all it takes to drive the turbo to full boost. Austria is a short track and only really has 3 turns where mid corner throttle inputs matter, so this may not be a representative track with regards to using the ES to drive the turbo.

the ES is only driving the turbo while waiting for the exhaust gasses to come through which isn't going to take long.

Frank_ wrote:can we assume then that the turbine size was selected to supply only half the boost required at full chat (minimal back pressure) and when full boost is needed that extra boost is topped up via the electric supercharger mode ?

I think this is unlikely.

Consensus is around 3.5bar boost, by running only half of this you would lose the vast majority of your mid range torque / low down power. The minimal back pressure is also going to seriously harm your MGU-H regeneration meaning you would be unable to sustain full power for very long. You will also be running much richer than your opposition probably leading to a lower overall efficiency.

Frank_ wrote:can we assume then that the turbine size was selected to supply only half the boost required at full chat (minimal back pressure) and when full boost is needed that extra boost is topped up via the electric supercharger mode ?

Why would they use an oversized turbine with higher inertia, and give up harvesting potential when they have a wastegate with very fine control that can bypass the turbine and create the same effect? The trend seems to be using compressors that are slightly too big for their turbines, this creates more harvesting potential at a small increase in back pressure. The telemetry shows that energy is deployed only to kick start the turbine, and having the ICE generate most of the boost pressure. That pressure is controlled by both harvesting and wastegate operation and further by the intake blow off valve. The MGU-H deploys in motor mode in the space between off and on throttle.

mrluke wrote:Consensus is around 3.5bar boost

Wazari confirmed the 2016 Honda PU operated at 4.0 bar, and we mainly agreed that the Mercedes was running 4.5.

Frank_ wrote:can we assume then that the turbine size was selected to supply only half the boost required at full chat (minimal back pressure) and when full boost is needed that extra boost is topped up via the electric supercharger mode ?

More than "unlikely", I would say definitely not. At max ICE output the turbine power will be greater than the compressor needs - the remainder being harvested by the MGUH.