F1technical.net

The ICE electronic control hardware is official McLaren.

You cannot use this hardware in a free way. You have to use the first layer of software that mclaren gives the teams.

So you can relate torque setpoint of the engine to many parameters, but not all you want, because it's simply not there for you to play with. Consequently, it's not easy to do TC or ABS on the ICE.

However, not all ERS components are standard, and one could theoretically exploit that. You can say you cut power momentary to the MGUK because batteries were about to be fried, and FIA would have to believe you. You can relate that torque reduction to wheelspin, wheel load, steering position, lateral acceleration and gyro speed and acceleration, which will in all make a decent TC, plus minus 120Kw.

So TC and ABS are to be expected as soon as teams solve their initial software glitches, but in a very limited way. The way they plan to control it is to plot a graph with MGUK torque vs time and see if they see something funny. It's quite easy to see, so no team would be able to use it extensively, but extremely subjective. I think they should simply allow two modes of MGUK: normal and limp home (in which the torque is derived from either one of two maps with not tc related parameters such as wheel spin). If torque in any hundredth of a second doesn't match the map, exclusion.

This power unit could be so much better if they removed the requirement for the turbine and compressor to be on a common shaft. It would give huge benefits in packaging and allow much better control of boost and power regeneration from the exhaust. I feel this simple rule change would greatly help the compromises in the whole turbocharger/mgu-h, while making it easier to get right because the turbine could always focus on recoverinng max energy while the compressor could be completely electronically controlled.

Pierce89 wrote:This power unit could be so much better if they removed the requirement for the turbine and compressor to be on a common shaft. It would give huge benefits in packaging and allow much better control of boost and power regeneration from the exhaust. I feel this simple rule change would greatly help the compromises in the whole turbocharger/mgu-h, while making it easier to get right because the turbine could always focus on recoverinng max energy while the compressor could be completely electronically controlled.

May be. But you have to consider that with such configuration you have to convert mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy. Every conversion imply a loss.

What about a clutch to disengage the compressor from the common shaft under breaking ?

.poz wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:This power unit could be so much better if they removed the requirement for the turbine and compressor to be on a common shaft. It would give huge benefits in packaging and allow much better control of boost and power regeneration from the exhaust. I feel this simple rule change would greatly help the compromises in the whole turbocharger/mgu-h, while making it easier to get right because the turbine could always focus on recoverinng max energy while the compressor could be completely electronically controlled.

May be. But you have to consider that with such configuration you have to convert mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy. Every conversion imply a loss.

What about a clutch to disengage the compressor from the common shaft under breaking ?

The losses you speak of are very small and are negligible compared to the gains that could be made. With the electrical efficiencies available, there is no reason for shaft driven compressor when you can gain so much by making the connection only electrical. You could also better optimize the turbine for mmaximum energy recovery without affecting the compressor.

ppj13 wrote:The ICE electronic control hardware is official McLaren.

You cannot use this hardware in a free way. You have to use the first layer of software that mclaren gives the teams.

Did you know of Ferrari unique method of downshifts on decel without throttle blips?
How is it done?
Is it done inside the TAG electronics supplied by McLaren?
If it is, then this disproves your statement above "You cannot use this hardware in a free way".

9.8 Gear changing :
9.8.1 Automatic gear changes are considered a driver aid and are therefore not permitted.
For the purposes of gear changing, the clutch and power unit torque need not be under the control of the driver.

Of course it is done in TAG electronics. And as stipulated in the regulations, for gear shifting there is no need for driver demand to increase engine speed momentarily.

And apart that, whether it is done with ICE or MGU-K is a completely different question.
The engine map, i.e. how ICE and MGU-K are programmed to deliver a combined torque according to torque demand, can be chosen arbitrarily.

irsq4 wrote:

Abarth wrote:I think this rule will not come in handy if you want to have a rpm dependent loss of torque at constant pedal position:

5.5.5 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

Does that means this: http://postimg.org/image/mqmcnnf7v/

I don't think so, but cannot make much out of it.

It rather means that at a constant throttle position (=torque demand) and rising rpm the engine torque cannot reduce more than the given value.
If it would be allowed, a sort of force limiting behaviour in case of sudden wheel spin occurs, facilitating the drivers task to control wheel spin.

this seems to be in all but name to be a constant power map
ie when wheelspin occurs, without any driver action the torque will fall in proportion to the rpm rise
which is what they did in the NA times

the 2014 ICE tends to this characteristic naturally, in part because the air delivery will not rise quickly with wheelspin
the mapping would likely be needed by the mgu-k when in a torque-controlled range
presumably the one map is for the whole PU ?
ie not the mgu-k independently

Tommy Cookers wrote:this seems to be in all but name to be a constant power map
ie when wheelspin occurs, without any driver action the torque will fall in proportion to the rpm rise
which is what they did in the NA times

the 2014 ICE tends to this characteristic naturally, in part because the air delivery will not rise quickly with wheelspin
the mapping would likely be needed by the mgu-k when in a torque-controlled range
presumably the one map is for the whole PU ? ie not the mgu-k independently

That is my take on it.

Pierce89 wrote:

.poz wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:This power unit could be so much better if they removed the requirement for the turbine and compressor to be on a common shaft. It would give huge benefits in packaging and allow much better control of boost and power regeneration from the exhaust. I feel this simple rule change would greatly help the compromises in the whole turbocharger/mgu-h, while making it easier to get right because the turbine could always focus on recoverinng max energy while the compressor could be completely electronically controlled.

May be. But you have to consider that with such configuration you have to convert mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy. Every conversion imply a loss.

What about a clutch to disengage the compressor from the common shaft under breaking ?

The losses you speak of are very small and are negligible compared to the gains that could be made. With the electrical efficiencies available, there is no reason for shaft driven compressor when you can gain so much by making the connection only electrical. You could also better optimize the turbine for mmaximum energy recovery without affecting the compressor.

Nothing gets more efficient that a solid shaft when it comes to transmitting energy. mechanical means are usually more efficient than electrical in general.

ringo wrote:Nothing gets more efficient that a solid shaft when it comes to transmitting energy. mechanical means are usually more efficient than electrical in general.

Not true at all. The frictional losses in Mechanical transmissions are huge compared to the losses in electrical transmissions in general. This is one of the reasons I'd love to see a formula with electric motors driving the wheels (but still an ICE to generate power for them).

beelsebob wrote:

ringo wrote:Nothing gets more efficient that a solid shaft when it comes to transmitting energy. mechanical means are usually more efficient than electrical in general.

Not true at all. The frictional losses in Mechanical transmissions are huge compared to the losses in electrical transmissions in general. This is one of the reasons I'd love to see a formula with electric motors driving the wheels (but still an ICE to generate power for them).

There was talk about the connection between the turbine and compressor. There you can't beat a solid shaft (which approaches 100% efficiency).

rscsr wrote:

beelsebob wrote:

ringo wrote:Nothing gets more efficient that a solid shaft when it comes to transmitting energy. mechanical means are usually more efficient than electrical in general.

Not true at all. The frictional losses in Mechanical transmissions are huge compared to the losses in electrical transmissions in general. This is one of the reasons I'd love to see a formula with electric motors driving the wheels (but still an ICE to generate power for them).

There was talk about the connection between the turbine and compressor. There you can't beat a solid shaft (which approaches 100% efficiency).

yes with a solid shaft all you have is bearing friction, with an electric you have at least similar bearing friction and the
electric losses

once you add a gearing is is a different story

langwadt wrote:

rscsr wrote: Not true at all. The frictional losses in Mechanical transmissions are huge compared to the losses in electrical transmissions in general. This is one of the reasons I'd love to see a formula with electric motors driving the wheels (but still an ICE to generate power for them).

There was talk about the connection between the turbine and compressor. There you can't beat a solid shaft (which approaches 100% efficiency).

My comment wasn't about efficiency. I said the other benefits would outweigh the small loss in efficiency because of being able to recover more energy and control the compressor better. That would more than compensate the small inefficiency.

Just now in the team principle confrence rob white suggested mercedes were being conservative with their estimates and that to be competitive this year you had to be at 40 % efficiency now. That pretty interesting to me.