Horsepower of the engines.

[OO7]

This has been superseded, latest statements put the engines at over 50% T.E and more powerful than the V10s.

Hi mrluke.

The figures I used were based on the 2015 PU. Where did you read or hear about current T.E being over 50%?

[Petroltorque]

I think Cowell had said thermal efficiency was approaching 50% for 2016. I think sites claiming over 50% are simply embellishing the facts.

[OO7]

I still don't see where you are getting this -100 bhp?

The minus 100 is just a step to calculating piston-engine hp.

Step 1. 45% TE gives 831 hp self sustaining.
Step 2. if 100 of those 831 come from the MGUH via the MGUK then:
Step 3. The crankshaft (piston engine) output is 831 - 100 = 731.

If the ES is not used max output is 731 + 100 = 831
If the ES is used max output is 731 + 160 = 891

I'm confused by this. 45% TE is 558kW which is equal to 748bhp?

[Petroltorque]

It takes a while to understand, but the thermal Efficiency equate to the amount of energy one can obtain from 100 kg of fuel. So that is the ICE plus MGU-HEAT compounding supplementing the MGU-KINETIC. This is the sustain mode.
Full power mode will include the battery store but since that energy still comes from fuel it cannot be included in th overall efficiency.

Addendum
Blaze you are correct. The post above your is not right. 50% efficiency is 830bhp.

[OO7]

It takes a while to understand, but the thermal Efficiency equate to the amount of energy one can obtain from 100 kg of fuel. So that is the ICE plus MGU-HEAT compounding supplementing the MGU-KINETIC. This is the sustain mode.
Full power mode will include the battery store but since that energy still comes from fuel it cannot be included in th overall efficiency.

Addendum
Blaze you are correct. The post above your is not right. 50% efficiency is 830bhp.

Yes, that's how I see it Petroltorque. Whether it comes from the ICE alone or is being supplemented by the MGU-H in compounded mode doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't included energy from the ES.

[godlameroso]

Technically since cars are not allowed to be charged in the pit lane but only out on track, we could say the battery is dependent on fuel to generate charge, as in fuel is the prime mover of all the systems that allow the battery to charge. So if you're stretching the truth, then yes you could say you have over 50% efficiency...in bursts.

[PlatinumZealot]

I'm willing to bet the best power units are generating 150+ kW from the mgu-h in self sustaining mode. Increasing cylinder pressure doesn't always translate to more power at the crank, but it does mean more energy for the turbine to recover. Which then does translate to more power because you'll gain in deployment. It makes sense to harvest as much as possible from the mguh there is no limit to it. Any power in excess of 120kW goes right to the ES, which lets you deploy longer, which means more time in free load mode.

Not even half that. Maybe 100hp. 150kW is madness.

[J.A.W.]

The 30hp estimate for Free-loading the turbo in qualifying was a good one:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/03/e ... delivered/

Honda has an aggressive engine mode for qualifying, which was one of the key defining features of the Mercedes last season in the final stages of Qualifying 3. It’s an area where Ferrari has been working hard. These maps can provide up to 30hp more than standard qualifying mode for short periods, but Honda is a little way off being able to maximise it. “The mapping on these engines is amazing,” he says. “You can play with the knock and get dramatic effects.”

"You can play with the knock..."

A form of defacto HCCI, over-boost, or combination thereof?

Note that when comparing the 'power' of current compound mills with the old N/A V8 formula, the punchy,
- if short-shifting - turbo cars are of course trading off higher efficiency/BMEP low-rpm TQ - for high rpm HP,
lighter weight/bigger wings & custom gear ratio selections..

[PlatinumZealot]

Technically since cars are not allowed to be charged in the pit lane but only out on track, we could say the battery is dependent on fuel to generate charge, as in fuel is the prime mover of all the systems that allow the battery to charge. So if you're stretching the truth, then yes you could say you have over 50% efficiency...in bursts.

Nope.
Don't take it there and confuse people not familiar with thermodynamics. This is incorrect.
You can't just toss in a battery in the system and claim that you are using the same energy from the fuel at that snapshot in time. It has to be steady state. With a battery you accumulate energy and release it at another time so it doesn't count.
With such looseness applied, I could charge my batteries in the pits from a power outlet, drive to the end of the pitlane on electric power alone and claim that my thermal efficiency is infinite! Because I didn't use any energy from fuel! More output than input! Wrong! This is not correct.

If you were to include energy from the battery you have to make it a part of the input energy and with that you are no longer talking about thermal efficiency but some other general efficiency because a battery is not a form of thermal energy transfer.

[hurril]

Technically since cars are not allowed to be charged in the pit lane but only out on track, we could say the battery is dependent on fuel to generate charge, as in fuel is the prime mover of all the systems that allow the battery to charge. So if you're stretching the truth, then yes you could say you have over 50% efficiency...in bursts.

Nope.
Don't take it there and confuse people not familiar with thermodynamics. This is incorrect.
You can't just toss in a battery in the system and claim that you are using the same energy from the fuel at that snapshot in time. It has to be steady state. With a battery you accumulate energy and release it at another time so it doesn't count.
With such looseness applied, I could charge my batteries in the pits from a power outlet, drive to the end of the pitlane on electric power alone and claim that my thermal efficiency is infinite! Because I didn't use any energy from fuel! More output than input! Wrong! This is not correct.

If you were to include energy from the battery you have to make it a part of the input energy and with that you are no longer talking about thermal efficiency but some other general efficiency because a battery is not a form of thermal energy transfer.

You have a good point but I don't think you're entirely fair. The car system as a whole does in fact become more efficient as a track vehicle with a battery to accumulate brake energy. Energy that does in fact come from fuel and that would otherwise be wasted. So the thermal efficiency of the system as a whole, improves.

I still agree with you though, both in sentiment and by points.

[gruntguru]

To put it a little more simply, TE is (as PZ said) the ratio of useful energy coming out of the system to fuel energy input to the system - under steady state conditions.

"Steady state" means the energy contained within the system must not change (no change in storage levels).

"Thermal Efficiency" is a term used to describe heat engines - not a "car system as a whole".

[Tommy Cookers]

..... the mgu-h in self sustaining mode. Increasing cylinder pressure doesn't always translate to more power at the crank, but it does mean more energy for the turbine to recover.......

didn't gg show that increasing cylinder pressure wouldn't increase recovery unless the turbine and compressor are over 80% efficient ?

the rules intentionally keep these items simple to constrain their efficiency and so restrict us to a lightly compounded and plausible engine
also we seem to have dropped the plan to reduce the fuel limit over the years

[OO7]

..... the mgu-h in self sustaining mode. Increasing cylinder pressure doesn't always translate to more power at the crank, but it does mean more energy for the turbine to recover.......

didn't gg show that increasing cylinder pressure wouldn't increase recovery unless the turbine and compressor are over 80% efficient ?

the rules intentionally keep these items simple to constrain their efficiency and so restrict us to a lightly compounded and plausible engine
also we seem to have dropped the plan to reduce the fuel limit over the years

I think that was a demonstration on how poorly f1 was and is marketing itself. Rather that highlighting the efficiency advancement by promoting a 'more power with the same amount of fuel' theme, they'd rather showcase how much less fuel the cars are using. They've got it backwards for a sport that prides itself on speed.

[mrluke]

This has been superseded, latest statements put the engines at over 50% T.E and more powerful than the V10s.

Hi mrluke.

The figures I used were based on the 2015 PU. Where did you read or hear about current T.E being over 50%?

Back on page 11 of this thread.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/02/h ... gine-base/

Interesting quote:

The headline, Cowell says, is that the V6 hybrid turbo is now the most powerful F1 engine ever – even greater than the 2005 V10s that revved to 20,000rpm.
Meanwhile the technology has advanced the efficiency of engines to 50 per cent, meaning that 50 per cent of the potential power than can be derived from a unit of petrol is being converted.

I think that exceeds most of the forums expectations. I know many members struggle to believe more than 40% is even possible.

Clearly not the most powerful engine ever but the reference to the 2005 V10 is more believable.

[OO7]

Thanks. I remember reading that article now.