Concept power units from 2030

[Hoffman900]

there is nothing that compels the situation to be as the RET advice claims

fundamentally motor torque is always proportionate to the conductor current
always the torq

I elaborated, do the same. That example was partially laid out by one of the electric motor manufacturers themselves, involved in FE.

Your argument is that motor size does not correlate to motor torque? while ignoring efficiencies, rpm, cooling, etc?

We should rename this thread: “Concept Power Units: Not seeing the forest for the trees”

[Tommy Cookers]

there is nothing that compels the situation to be as the RET advice claims

fundamentally motor torque is always proportionate to the conductor current
so it is always controlled by the F1 designer and rules not by RET
simply if said designer wanted he/she could command other torque/rpm behaviours

the implied immutable torque/rpm characteristic is merely what has been chosen in the settings of the so-called controller

BUMPED - my IS is giving me a hard time at present

my argument is as I said ....
that with the eg 2026 vastly more electrical energy and less mechanical energy we could even race without our gearboxes
(especially with the suggested further increased recovery from front axles)

to put it yet another way.....
the electrical system is in effect its own CVT
why do we need the gearbox (for the ICE) when the big player (the MGs) already have their free CVT ?

[mzso]

Everyone is sharing "concept" power units without defining power needs.

This is an engine topic, and that's rather irrelevant. You size it towards whatever needs you have.

[Hoffman900]

Everyone is sharing "concept" power units without defining power needs.

This is an engine topic, and that's rather irrelevant. You size it towards whatever needs you have.

I defined the needs. No one here has defined how much power any of these concepts need to work in a practical setting that represents anything resembling anything close to a F1 car.

PU’s aren’t specified or used in isolation and how its application / use dictates everything, regardless of the concept or technology.

The needs are x amount of power that propels a vehicle of a certain mass and drag through space, at various speeds, for a given length, and has to have the power density that makes for a well handling and aero efficient car, while simultaneously providing some semblance of a “show”.

[NL_Fer]

When they mention 2030 as new engine dat, I suspect they already know the 2026 will be a failure.

But I really doubt manufactures are willing to just ditch the 2026 design. They probably will admit the ICE is to weak and the MGU-K to strong and unable to harvest enough braking energy from the rear axle.

So how about to had another 2 cilinders of the 1.6 V6 and go 2.2 V8 Turbo, fuel flow back to 100kg/hr. Keep the same cylinder/combustion concept. Than reduce the MGU-K back to 150-200kw for a healthier harvest/deploy balance and lower weight.

It will probably be lighter and more drivable and make allot of people happy.

[NL_Fer]

I don't know what's being said but ....

FE last allowed gearboxes (ie more than 1 in-race mechanical relationship between motor and load) several years ago

IMO not that that's got anything to do with the benefits or otherwise of gearboxes with ICE or MG
(yes I'm the person who believes a gearbox is beneficial in some ways to the EV)

When FE allowed for custom gearboxes, teams diverted into very different choices from single gear to the standard 5-box. That year the team with the 2-gearbox won. Mainly because it was the lightest system, with only a mechanical cable operated shifter in the cockpit. They used 1st gear for standing starts only and used 2nd for anything else.

[gruntguru]

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest a turbo-compound motor, so I will! How about a turbo-compound engine?

Great idea. Oh wait, we've had turbo-compound engines for the last 12 seasons!

No, a turbo compound engine takes the power from the turbo and mechanically puts it back to the crank. The final piston aircraft engines were turbo-compound and very efficient.

A turbo-compound engine is a reciprocating engine that employs a turbine to recover energy from the exhaust gases. Instead of using that energy to drive a turbocharger as found in many high-power aircraft engines, the energy is instead sent to the output shaft to increase the total power delivered by the engine. The turbine is usually mechanically connected to the crankshaft, as on the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone, but electric and hydraulic power recovery systems have been investigated as well.

Anyway - even if you can find a definition that insists on the coupling being mechanical - that's just nit-picking. Its a bit like saying turbo-supercharging is not supercharging.

[saviour stivala]

Turbo compounding is more efficient than turbocharging, also the recovery process does not increase fuel consumption. Because the turbine is not a pressure turbine there is no back pressure. Also no wastegate is needed.

[wuzak]

No, a turbo compound engine takes the power from the turbo and mechanically puts it back to the crank. The final piston aircraft engines were turbo-compound and very efficient.

The current PUs can be run in a turbo compound mode.

In this mode the MGUH feeds all of its recovered power to the MGUK, the amount of energy that can be transferred this way is unlimited.

The MGUK doesn't take power from the battery in this mode.

So, it doesn't take power from the H+Battery? That's new info for me. I expected it would take the max allowed from Battery and add from the H...

It doesn't have to take power from the battery, but will most of the time, depending on battery state of charge.

[saviour stivala]

In what is called free-load-mode with waste-gate open and of which is at full fueling, both MGU-K and MGU-H are sharing battery power. This mode is called 'free-load-mode' because the ICE is relived of exhaust back pressure.

[Hoffman900]

I’ve shared this a number of times but I don’t think many have read it, but lays out the control paths for the current F1 PU's.


Co-authored with Ferrari:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/1/171

Today, Formula 1 race cars are equipped with complex hybrid electric powertrains that display significant cross-couplings between the internal combustion engine and the electrical energy recovery system. Given that a large number of these phenomena are strongly engine-speed dependent, not only the energy management but also the gearshift strategy significantly influence the achievable lap time for a given fuel and battery budget. Therefore, in this paper we propose a detailed low-level mathematical model of the Formula 1 powertrain suited for numerical optimization, and solve the time-optimal control problem in a computationally efficient way. First, we describe the powertrain dynamics by means of first principle modeling approaches and neural network techniques, with a strong focus on the low-level actuation of the internal combustion engine and its coupling with the energy recovery system. Next, we relax the integer decision variable related to the gearbox by applying outer convexification and solve the resulting optimization problem. Our results show that the energy consumption budgets not only influence the fuel mass flow and electric boosting operation, but also the gearshift strategy and the low-level engine operation, e.g., the intake manifold pressure evolution, the air-to-fuel ratio or the turbine waste-gate position.

to quote...

As a consequence, the turbine is oversized and in general produces more power than absorbed by the compressor, such that part of the energy contained in the hot exhaust gases can be recuperated by the MGU-H and fed to the battery or directly to the MGU-K.

power recuperated from the extra enthalpy contained in the hot exhaust gases is directly fed from the MGU-H to the MGU-K.

And Honda outlines some of this as well

https://global.honda/en/tech/motorsport ... =Formula-1

Extra Deploy is like Extra Harvest, but the energy flow is reversed. Because the amount of energy allowed to be sent from the ES to the MGU-K is limited to 4 MJ per lap, energy over this maximum is sent to the MGU-H where it accelerates the rotor for a moment only and then recovers the inertial energy from the rotor. The electrical energy generated as a result is sent directly to the MGU-K as a way of legally exceeding the 4 MJ of energy allowed to assist the MGU-K. Use of this Extra Deploy control technology is expected to achieve lap time gains of 0.2 to 0.3 seconds.

[Zynerji]

Rotary's can be efficient. At least if Liquid Piston's claims are not a complete lie. Plus they don't need to be revved to oblivion, they just need an appropriate amount of displacement.
If they really can do six combustion events on two rotations that's even more of a reason not to rev obscenely high. I imagine they could make do with one or two rotary pistons.

I think RadMax is dead now, but would be better than rotary or liquid piston... (24 combustion events per rotation). I wonder if EDM machining would help this concept as well.

https://vimeo.com/245398279

If it worked. I see no indication of a functioning engine. If it works, the great number of scraping plates is not encouraging for sealing, longevity or efficiency.

I invested heavily in Regi in 2005. They absolutely had working prototypes. They had a 3hp engine that was slightly larger than a D battery and it was almost silent without a muffler. They were targeting lawn equipment to not have any pushback from the auto Industry. I also recall these engines ran in early Predator drones.

With things like EDM machining and Nikasil plating, I expect some of those longevity concerns to be mitigated. And if they are this simple and cheap to make, who cares?

[Hoffman900]

I know someone in the industry who calls them solidworks engines. Usually a CAD model, and fancy website, and a bunch of seeking investors, with really no plan on actually making anything useful.

Not unlike a lot of tech startups. May or may not be a way to embezzle some money.

[mzso]

I think RadMax is dead now, but would be better than rotary or liquid piston... (24 combustion events per rotation). I wonder if EDM machining would help this concept as well.

https://vimeo.com/245398279

If it worked. I see no indication of a functioning engine. If it works, the great number of scraping plates is not encouraging for sealing, longevity or efficiency.

I invested heavily in Regi in 2005. They absolutely had working prototypes. They had a 3hp engine that was slightly larger than a D battery and it was almost silent without a muffler. They were targeting lawn equipment to not have any pushback from the auto Industry. I also recall these engines ran in early Predator drones.

With things like EDM machining and Nikasil plating, I expect some of those longevity concerns to be mitigated. And if they are this simple and cheap to make, who cares?

So where are links for videos of these prototypes?

Some of the issues might have been severe, since they went down the drain.
And an engine cheap enough to worth the cost of replacing/refurbishing every other year or so is firmly in the realm of fantasy, in my opinion. And combustion engines are never actually simple to make. No way they could have made it so cheap if they wanted to make money.

[Zynerji]

If it worked. I see no indication of a functioning engine. If it works, the great number of scraping plates is not encouraging for sealing, longevity or efficiency.

I invested heavily in Regi in 2005. They absolutely had working prototypes. They had a 3hp engine that was slightly larger than a D battery and it was almost silent without a muffler. They were targeting lawn equipment to not have any pushback from the auto Industry. I also recall these engines ran in early Predator drones.

With things like EDM machining and Nikasil plating, I expect some of those longevity concerns to be mitigated. And if they are this simple and cheap to make, who cares?

So where are links for videos of these prototypes?

Some of the issues might have been severe, since they went down the drain.
And an engine cheap enough to worth the cost of replacing/refurbishing every other year or so is firmly in the realm of fantasy, in my opinion. And combustion engines are never actually simple to make. No way they could have made it so cheap if they wanted to make money.

No idea where the old vid are, but they were real. I sold at a huge loss in 2009 and haven't really looked at them (or their website) since.

Actually, I seem to recall a recent-ish email about Regi testing these as compressors for Carrier air conditioners..