F1technical.net

With the abolishment of the MGU-H, F1 will lose it’s function as anti-lag device. So the new powerunit will switch to a more contemporary anti-lag. Let’s discuss how they work and how they perform in other racing classes.

F2 has a single big turbo on that 3.5L engine. The flames are obvious to see from the exhaust. I don’t hear any complaints from drivers about lag. How good is this their system and is it just late ignition timing, or are there more systems available.

If the H-unit will disappear, the K can also be used as an anti lag, bit like the McLaren P1 is using it. Burning fuel in the exhaust feels like a big step back to the green goals F1 set for itself.

Jolle wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:39

If the H-unit will disappear, the K can also be used as an anti lag, bit like the McLaren P1 is using it. Burning fuel in the exhaust feels like a big step back to the green goals F1 set for itself.

I presume you mean 'torque-fill' rather than direct anti-lag?

Jolle wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:39

If the H-unit will disappear, the K can also be used as an anti lag, bit like the McLaren P1 is using it. Burning fuel in the exhaust feels like a big step back to the green goals F1 set for itself.

Let's not immediately assume that rules formed in a beauracracy actually meet expressed targets...

The world has almost zero precedent set for that assumption to hold any value.

Jolle wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:39

If the H-unit will disappear, the K can also be used as an anti lag, bit like the McLaren P1 is using it. Burning fuel in the exhaust feels like a big step back to the green goals F1 set for itself.

They could turn it down during race, but have it full on during qually. Depends if the mapping rules allow it by than.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 16:52

Jolle wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:39

If the H-unit will disappear, the K can also be used as an anti lag, bit like the McLaren P1 is using it. Burning fuel in the exhaust feels like a big step back to the green goals F1 set for itself.

They could turn it down during race, but have it full on during qually. Depends if the mapping rules allow it by than.

I'd rather see a set engine map limit, and infinite gear choice personally. GPS programmed maps are a driver aid IMHO.

If each engine spec introduced in a season had a hard coded map, it could greatly simplify the engine support necessary, thus reducing costs. Gears are mostly a 3rd party part anyway. Why limit them to a single set for the season? The cost of software development surely outweighs the cost of an extra 50 gears a season?

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:09

With the abolishment of the MGU-H, F1 will lose it’s function as anti-lag device. So the new powerunit will switch to a more contemporary anti-lag. Let’s discuss how they work and how they perform in other racing classes.

F2 has a single big turbo on that 3.5L engine. The flames are obvious to see from the exhaust. I don’t hear any complaints from drivers about lag. How good is this their system and is it just late ignition timing, or are there more systems available.

No idea what is used in F2 or if it is good.

But the usual suspects are :

- Dump valve to lower the boost pressure of throttle and thus reduce the delta of pressure through the compressor
- Late ignition to maximize exhaust enthalpy to be retrieved by the turbine
- "Fresh air" : an improvement of these 2 basically. redirecting excess compressed air towards the exhaust runners, injecting and igniting fuel very late and letting everything burn in the exhaust runners to provide a lot of energy to the turbine. (apparently tested by Honda this year but proved unreliable)
- A valve ahead of the compressor inlet to make it run in near vacuum when off throttle thus reducing its work
- Pre-rotation device : an improvement over the previous one where at part opening, the "valve" provides a swirl moment to the intake flow, modifying its angle of attack on the compressor blade and thus gaining a few points of compressor efficiency at part load.

In Bold are the devices that have been run on some F1 engines since 2014.

Will they still be able to drive the turbo electrically? I assumed this in its self would overcome the lag ( possibly in conjunction with venting )?

Big Tea wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 18:44

Will they still be able to drive the turbo electrically? I assumed this in its self would overcome the lag ( possibly in conjunction with venting )?

Not possible in 2026. The MGU-H will be gone. The MGU-K will only power the crankshaft or rear wheels.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 18:49

Big Tea wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 18:44

Will they still be able to drive the turbo electrically? I assumed this in its self would overcome the lag ( possibly in conjunction with venting )?

Not possible in 2026. The MGU-H will be gone. The MGU-K will only power the crankshaft or rear wheels.

Right, thanks. I assumed that as it was a good thing it could be kept as long as it was disassociated.

Does anyone have more info about the F2 antilag or the systems used in LMP1?

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:09

With the abolishment of the MGU-H, F1 will lose it’s function as anti-lag device. So the new powerunit will switch to a more contemporary anti-lag. Let’s discuss how they work and how they perform in other racing classes.

F2 has a single big turbo on that 3.5L engine. The flames are obvious to see from the exhaust. I don’t hear any complaints from drivers about lag. How good is this their system and is it just late ignition timing, or are there more systems available.

All they have to do is unban variable geometry turbines and presto chango little appreciable lag.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 18:31

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:09

With the abolishment of the MGU-H, F1 will lose it’s function as anti-lag device. So the new powerunit will switch to a more contemporary anti-lag. Let’s discuss how they work and how they perform in other racing classes.

F2 has a single big turbo on that 3.5L engine. The flames are obvious to see from the exhaust. I don’t hear any complaints from drivers about lag. How good is this their system and is it just late ignition timing, or are there more systems available.

All they have to do is unban variable geometry turbines and presto chango little appreciable lag.

But without some type of anti lag system, possibly at the expense of boost not always being available in the amounts desired.

And in either case it would involve a lot of fuel and ignition mapping changes. Changing one complexity for another doesn't really meet their cost concerns.

Airshifter wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2022, 00:32

godlameroso wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 18:31

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022, 14:09

With the abolishment of the MGU-H, F1 will lose it’s function as anti-lag device. So the new powerunit will switch to a more contemporary anti-lag. Let’s discuss how they work and how they perform in other racing classes.

F2 has a single big turbo on that 3.5L engine. The flames are obvious to see from the exhaust. I don’t hear any complaints from drivers about lag. How good is this their system and is it just late ignition timing, or are there more systems available.

All they have to do is unban variable geometry turbines and presto chango little appreciable lag.

But without some type of anti lag system, possibly at the expense of boost not always being available in the amounts desired.

And in either case it would involve a lot of fuel and ignition mapping changes. Changing one complexity for another doesn't really meet their cost concerns.

On road cars, twin scroll turbos produce boost at 1200RPM compared to the 3000RPM of a single scroll.

As long as they use a twin scroll, there should not be appreciable lag whilst braking against throttle. I do, however, encourage the VNT tech, as development in that area could realistically influence the continued downsizing of turbo-petrol engines in road cars as we transition to full EV.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2022, 18:21

Airshifter wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2022, 00:32

godlameroso wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 18:31

All they have to do is unban variable geometry turbines and presto chango little appreciable lag.

But without some type of anti lag system, possibly at the expense of boost not always being available in the amounts desired.

And in either case it would involve a lot of fuel and ignition mapping changes. Changing one complexity for another doesn't really meet their cost concerns.

On road cars, twin scroll turbos produce boost at 1200RPM compared to the 3000RPM of a single scroll.

As long as they use a twin scroll, there should not be appreciable lag whilst braking against throttle. I do, however, encourage the VNT tech, as development in that area could realistically influence the continued downsizing of turbo-petrol engines in road cars as we transition to full EV.

But once again, adding complexity for the sake of overcoming a different complexity.

Getting rid of the MGU-H creates the need to recover what is lost, but if they go back to the equal level of complexity, what's the point? Quite a few anti lag setups are fairly simple to implement at this level.

I'm not opposed to either solution, but they have to decide what they are changing the regs for and what the end goal is. Variable geometry and twin scroll both have costs probably more than anti lag systems, but in the overall scheme of things none are all that much. WIth increased electrical energy available, there might not be a need for any of the above really.