F1technical.net

If they intentionally are burning fuel to store electrical energy, it makes this formula if possible even more of a mockery.

xpensive wrote:If they intentionally are burning fuel to store electrical energy, it makes this formula if possible even more of a mockery.

I'm happy If they do it. This is racing, burning fuel for the sake of performance is OK, isn't it?
If they don't do it, they may carry a bit less fuel at the start and gain from that (has been done aready in the past years AFAIK, trading performance for fuel weight). Or they are short with fuel anyway and cannot do it.

It's always a tradeoff, they don't (and never did) burn fuel for the sake of burning it, but always to a performance end.

I can see the want/need to run a different ecu map for a lap to increase the ES charge, but not lap after lap. You are less efficient by not using the ICE power directly. Maybe this is a setting for only a high output map. The additional fuel weight is the downside. We are already seeing the PUs turned down to conserve fuel. I would think the teams would load the MGUH more than the MGUK to charge the ES at times other than braking.

I'd bet the PU maps are track specific.

What is the Mercedes PU revving to? The guys on the NBC Sports broadcast kept saying it was using the max 15k. I didn't think that was the case.

I think the energy units are turned down for life cycle reasons at this stage of the game.
As for fuel saving, I suppose this is just because everything is new and the teams are feeling out how the cars really consume over a race distance. soon enough they will know which tracks don't require it and which do.

Another reason for saving fuel is to use the rest of the rev band when required. I believe come the power tracks and high speed with a mix of slow corners we will see the engines rev high at some parts of the track. This is for flexibility and also for that little bit more power that is available up to 12000-13000rpm.

Finally, Hamilton's fuel savings in Malaysia is quite interesting, but I think this was down to his late braking style. He probably was storing more electrical energy than Rosberg. The fact that his tyres weren't giving any grip issues also improved fuel consumption in a lot of ways.

1. higher corner exit speeds, therefore less MGUH driving the compressor up to speed.
2. Higher top seeds at the end of the straights because of better corner exit. ie more brake energy to harvest.
3. Less wheel spin.

What I'm most curious about is to see the energy flux back and forth between the MGU-H and the battery as this is unlimited,
I believe that's where Mercedes advantage is, the only area not regulated, while the MGU-K has been around for years and is strictly limited to 2 MJ of charging. To make full use of the ERS-systems, your MGU-H needs to harvest the remaining 2 MJ.

ringo wrote:I think the energy units are turned down for life cycle reasons at this stage of the game.
As for fuel saving, I suppose this is just because everything is new and the teams are feeling out how the cars really consume over a race distance. soon enough they will know which tracks don't require it and which do.

Another reason for saving fuel is to use the rest of the rev band when required. I believe come the power tracks and high speed with a mix of slow corners we will see the engines rev high at some parts of the track. This is for flexibility and also for that little bit more power that is available up to 12000-13000rpm.

Finally, Hamilton's fuel savings in Malaysia is quite interesting, but I think this was down to his late braking style. He probably was storing more electrical energy than Rosberg. The fact that his tyres weren't giving any grip issues also improved fuel consumption in a lot of ways.

1. higher corner exit speeds, therefore less MGUH driving the compressor up to speed.
2. Higher top seeds at the end of the straights because of better corner exit. ie more brake energy to harvest.
3. Less wheel spin.

late braking would have the opposite of all of those things you list.

1. Lower corner exit due to late turn in
2. lower top speed see item 1
3. debatable probably doesn't have time to smoothly transition throttle due to late brake.

Also the battery pack is probably rate limited and better harvesting over a longer distance.

Later braking doesn't necessarily mean late turn in.

ringo wrote:Later braking doesn't necessarily mean late turn in.

Do you have a counter-example to demonstrate why that's true?

Are the sensors that we hear are the cause for cars being in 'limp home' mode, engine or team specific? Ie were Mclaren's problems in Q3 and Perez's pre-race, a result of the Merc engine failing or a component of the respective teams?

xpensive wrote:What I'm most curious about is to see the energy flux back and forth between the MGU-H and the battery as this is unlimited,
I believe that's where Mercedes advantage is, the only area not regulated, while the MGU-K has been around for years and is strictly limited to 2 MJ of charging. To make full use of the ERS-systems, your MGU-H needs to harvest the remaining 2 MJ.

The energy flow between the MGU-H and the MGU-K is also unlimited. Using the MGU-H to store energy to the battery then to be used for the MGU-K limits the amount of energy that can be used in a lap - the MGUH could, possibly, be generating more than 2MJ per lap. I certaonly would envision that is the case for Monza and Spa.

It could be, simply, that their turbine is fractionally more efficient and that in combination with the MGU-H gives them the edge.

Could be, but I would be surprised if the hardware between the two competitors is very much different, more like MHPE
has had a great deal of help from mother Daimler in managing all this power constantly flowing back and forth?

The MGU-H is obviously the key here as the MGU-K has been a known entity for all since when, 2009?

Lycoming wrote:

ringo wrote:Later braking doesn't necessarily mean late turn in.

Do you have a counter-example to demonstrate why that's true?

you could argue that late braking needs an earlier turn-in because the tyres are closer to saturation so the lateral response to steer input would be reduced. An earlier turn in could compensate for that.

ringo wrote:I think the energy units are turned down for life cycle reasons at this stage of the game.
As for fuel saving, I suppose this is just because everything is new and the teams are feeling out how the cars really consume over a race distance. soon enough they will know which tracks don't require it and which do.

with the 100kg/h fuel flux limit higher rev equals to more air with the same fuel, so you have more internal friction and no extra power.

.poz wrote:

ringo wrote:I think the energy units are turned down for life cycle reasons at this stage of the game.
As for fuel saving, I suppose this is just because everything is new and the teams are feeling out how the cars really consume over a race distance. soon enough they will know which tracks don't require it and which do.

with the 100kg/h fuel flux limit higher rev equals to more air with the same fuel, so you have more internal friction and no extra power.

Its right that you have larger friction at higher RPM. But you dont have more air with the same amount of fuel.

Lycoming wrote:

ringo wrote:Later braking doesn't necessarily mean late turn in.

Do you have a counter-example to demonstrate why that's true?

If Hamilton is able to generate more acceleration during braking then he could brake later without affecting turn in.