F1technical.net

Also less braking power period.

1G at 200 kph needs twice the braking power of 1G at 100 kph.

wuzak wrote:Cold Fusion, the second last point is incorrect.

There is no power or energy limitation for transfer between MGUH and ES.

Perhaps, you meant the MGUK -> ES has 120kW limit?

The MGU-H is limited to 120 kW in both motor and generator mode isn't it?

Cold Fussion wrote:

wuzak wrote:Cold Fusion, the second last point is incorrect.

There is no power or energy limitation for transfer between MGUH and ES.

Perhaps, you meant the MGUK -> ES has 120kW limit?

The MGU-H is limited to 120 kW in both motor and generator mode isn't it?

No, there is no limit.

Check the diagram you posted.

It is true that only 120kW can be transferred from the MGUH to the MGUK, as that is the limit of the MGUK. If you could get the MGUH generating over 120kW, the remainder would have to go into the ES.

gruntguru wrote:Also less braking power period.

1G at 200 kph needs twice the braking power of 1G at 100 kph.

Quite true.

Cold Fussion wrote:

• The ES has a 4 MJ/lap storage capacity.
• From the MGU-K to the ES there is a 2 MJ/lap limit.
• From the ES to the MGU-K there is a 4 MJ/lap limit.
• From the MGU-H to the MGU-K there is a 120 kW limit.

thanks CF for this reminder of the basics

it seems clear that they are implementing per lap something like this (over-simplified) ......

2 MJ gu-k recovered under braking and stored (16.67 sec at 120 kW = 2 MJ)
2 MJ gu-h recovered and stored
this total of 4 MJ spent on mu-k action (equivalent with losses to about 30 sec at 120 kW or 34 sec at 105 kW)
plus the rest of the WOT time there's maybe 105 kW worth of mu-k power fed directly from gu-h action

so from these combined sources they already have 120 kW worth of mu-k power whenever it can be efficiently used
mu-k action is notionally fulltime-combined with all crankshaft powers but, crucially, there are also driver-selectable effects


going back to interpretations of the nominally 'lift-and-coast' phase ....
the obvious interpretation implies recovery by gu-k action in the mechanical braking phase alone would not reach the 2 MJ permitted ?
for this reason initially some had expected that gu-k recovery power would not be limited to 120 kW
nominally, there's not 16.67 sec of braking time at many circuits ?

wuzak wrote:No, there is no limit.

Check the diagram you posted.

It is true that only 120kW can be transferred from the MGUH to the MGUK, as that is the limit of the MGUK. If you could get the MGUH generating over 120kW, the remainder would have to go into the ES.

i've just had a look at the technical regs, and i can't find any limit in there either. it's a shame there isn't enough energy in the exhaust to hit the limit on the MGU-K

Sauber 2015 steering wheel controls 1Mb pdf from Sauber web site.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before. If this is really what is used, then we have some interesting insights on what engine control is available at the track. Controls MFRS 1 & 2 are notable. However, I find it hard to believe that the customer team will have access to all those engine parameters.

I think the wheel looks similar for last year's wheel.

I think a lot of the engine settings are just map/strategy selectors and I'd expect customers to get some of those too; but maybe not all the latest/cleverest ...

With "lift and coast", would engine braking allow energy collection from the MGU-H at the same time? Not sure the quantity of power you would get, but it is unlimited, unlike MGU-K energy recovery.

Or even simply scavenge directly from the ICE/turbine through the MGUH to charge the battery. It's not like you are trying to power the rear wheels, and you will burn a small amount of fuel anyway...

The link below, is a paper on an aspect of control engineering, for a F1 current engine. Professor Limebeer, is, according to credible sources, acting as consultant for Ferrari. I hope you enjoy it.

This paper comes from the IEEE Journal, which points to the critical need to assess these engines, as a complete system. It becomes much more complex when you add in the linear control systems of the ICE/fuel/ignition/turbo/ES etc.

Limebeer paper. 3.4MB pdf


ps I am nothing to do with another poster using the screen name Vortex347!

Vortex37 wrote:The link below, is a paper on an aspect of control engineering, for a F1 current engine. Professor Limebeer,

He also did a video presentation..

http://uk.mathworks.com/videos/optimal- ... 96763.html

Rob

Vortex37 wrote:The link below, is a paper on an aspect of control engineering, for a F1 current engine. Professor Limebeer, is, according to credible sources, acting as consultant for Ferrari. I hope you enjoy it.

This paper comes from the IEEE Journal, which points to the critical need to assess these engines, as a complete system. It becomes much more complex when you add in the linear control systems of the ICE/fuel/ignition/turbo/ES etc.

Limebeer paper. 3.4MB pdf


ps I am nothing to do with another poster using the screen name Vortex347!

The most remarkable point what in my opinion everyone should consider is the fact that with these new rules only 2/3rd of the fuel is needed compared with earlier rules to drive (almost) the same laptimes, with is a huge achievement. The sound might be a bit disappointing and the rules might be too complicated, but this is really the top of engineering. What if all road transportation is going to use only 2/3rd of the fuel it uses nowadays? That is why these rules are so interesting, especially for the power unit manufacturers.

2/3 is a falsification
and 2015 fuel is unlike any road fuel and specially made for superior mass-specific energy and efficiency regardless

the FIA is making false comparisons
between 1914 and 2013 GP (with one exception) the FIA has not had any fuel quantity limit or any meaningful one
and so has relentlessly rewarded engines that maximise power regardless of fuel efficiency

the innovation of exhaust recovery was demonstrated by 16000 aircraft (piston) engines in the 1950s (using standard fuel)
recovery typically raised efficiency about 10-15% at sea level
current F1 is about the same (kinetic recovery is inapplicable in real world motoring and its benefit in F1 should be disregarded)

in our road cars we drive at low powers (largely by degrading efficiency) and exhaust recovery is negligible at low mep
yes, we can benefit from engine downsizing, but manufacturers do this already without needing a recovery turbine etc

the real point of the rules now is to glamourise and bulk-up the hybrid idea, and have future urban and city driving in electric mode

TC I agree with most of that except to say:

1. Kinetic energy recovery is a significant factor in the high city cycle efficiency of hybrid transmission vehicles.

2. The current F1 cars have undoubtedly moved the envelope in the areas of:
- combustion efficiency (ITE)
- electronic powertrain management

The Honda RA168e is probably a better baseline for comparing todays cars. BTE has improved by about 35% which is remarkable.

Might not the energy recovery systems used in F1 be suitable for engines used as range extenders in EVs? Ie, like that of the Chevy Volt?

A range extender engine should operate at a fixed point, which should be at maximum efficiency.