Even with 200 kW peak the extra capacity afforded by reducing the specific power requirement would be tiny.henry wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:30 pmFrom memory there was an image posted a while ago of an ES labelled as 2.3kWh which is 8.4MJ. It isn’t clear whether this is physical capacity or working capacity.
If it is physical capacity usable capacity might be around 5MJ. This leaves only 1MJ or so to provide for efficiency losses.
If it is working capacity the physical capacity might be in the 12-14 range you suggested earlier. This would allow 4 or 5 MJ for efficiency losses over the course of a race. At 98% round trip efficiency that would allow for 3 to 4 MJ per lap charge/deploy.
I think your estimate of ES power is a little high. Mercedes say the peak is 200kW and I think the average is likely to be nearer the 120kW it supplies to the MGU-K.
The other factor to consider is that the capacity degrades rapidly, particularly in high power cells operating at high duty cycles. So there must be some capacity overhead to account for this.
As a side note I still think we are unde-estimating the compressor power. With Miller cycle, the PR requirement is significantly higher compared to a normal cycle so the MGUH optimum power would also be higher, particularly when considering that it also has to overcome the turbo inertia. An interesting read on this:
https://library.e.abb.com/public/bb370e ... nes....pdf