2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

I've mapped the energy available to MGUH. The same engine calculator i've been using.



I twiddled with some of the figures so this has a max MGUH of 51hp. 84hp was not infact the power going to MGUH, it was a total of MGUH and compressor power, having now looked at the page. The useful power was the difference with available and compressor, this is the MGUH power.
So sorry for that misdirection.

38kW peakis not much to write home about anyway. So sorry again guys 120kW was misleading. So infact we wont be seeng MGUK being fully powered by the turbine.
MGUK will always have the MGUH supporting it, but it will still need the rest of power from the batteries.

Come to think of it , 38kW/51 hp is reasonable power. IF there is an MGUH failure that's a big disadavantage at tracks that see full throttle most times.

[pgfpro]

Also, instead of directly waste gating the boost pressure when lifting off the throttle when braking, would it be possible to harness the energy through the MGU on the turbo? Then during acceleration, you would motor the turbo MGU.

isn't it established with race turbos that off-throttle the supercharger's output can be diverted to it's input side, so as to minimise the slowing of the turbo ?
the 2014 unit will have more inertia, including the extra turbine size and the MG unit, so will slow less
the best way in this situation is to let it run freely, bleed-down generating and then motoring to spool up is worse than pointless
battery or other storage capacity is better used for increased recovery from braking
(exhaust recovery is best used instantaneously, not needing storage)
there's quite a lot of stored energy in the turbo/MG at 100,000 rpm

IMO I brought this up in my other post above because I just don't see that the turbo's turbine will produce anymore then
50 HP max that the MGUH can use at any given time. I know I will get some heat from this but after several hours calculating using my spreadsheets and other turbo company radial turbo calculators the energy is just not there, even with extreme generous compressor/turbine efficiency numbers enter into the equation's. I think this is why you see the engineers talking about different aero setups because we will see less HP over all then today's cars.

Don't get me wrong I love the new rules but I just think its going to take some time to get back to where we are today when it comes to matching HP output.

(Quote myself from page 161)^^^^

Ok I feel much better now. I was going over and over trying to see how they were going to get anywhere near 120kw from the turbine MGUH.

[ringo]

Hmm looks like it's quite advantageous. Where as the fuel limit will limit the power from the engine. the MGUH compounded power will keep the power curve rising.
But i realize the figures, 51hp will be even less when we consider efficiencies, but it's still additional power that will make a difference.

[wuzak]

Ringo, your numbers confuse me somewhat.

I think you are looking at too many factors.

Ignore the turbine efficiency and the MGUH generator efficiency - they are the same whether you use the power directly or store it via the ES. Ditto for the MGUK motor efficiency.

Now the whole 2014 F1 story is about energy. Essentially the 2014 car will have a set amount of energy at the start of the race - so much in fuel (about 80kg - maybe specified by the FIA) + whatever energy the FIA allows teams to store in the ES.

Now, to the question at hand.

Suppose the MGUH generates 25kW on average over an 80s lap. That includes the periods when it is generating its maximum, periods when it generates nothing and periods where the MGUH is used as a motor to spool the turbo.

That gives you a total of 2000kJ - 2MJ.

If you use that power directly to the MGUK it gives you an average of 25kW for 80s.

That means that the MGUK can only use 95kW from the ES. So assuming 2MJ of energy stored through braking and available (after efficiency losses) to the MGUK that allows the MGUK to have maximum power for 2000kJ/95kW = 21s.

Now, if you take that energy and store it in the ES you lose some on the way in and some on the way out. Assume an efficiency of 90% (not sure what it actually is) for power flow in or out of the ES.

The 2000kJ from the MGUH becomes 1800kJ in storage, and 1620kJ available when taken out to give to the MGUK. Over an 80s lap that equates to an average of 20.25kW. That means the ES will need to provide 99.75kW to the MGUK to get it to the maximum. That means 20s at full power for the MGUK.

If we look at average power, with direct usage you have 4000kJ/80s lap = 50kW, with storage you have 3620kJ/80s lap = 45kW.

5kW or 1s doesn't sound like much, but over a race distance it adds up. ie it will be an extra 50s+ at full power over a race distance.

Now I didn't apply the efficiency for battery storage for the 2MJ MGUK harvesting allowance. I am not sure where the FIA will measure that, before or after the efficiency loss.


As to the load on the MGUH, that will be controlled by the controller that sits between the MGUK and the ES and MGUH. The controller directs the energy to where it is needed. The MGUK will not directly load the MGUH.

The clutch in the MGUH circuit is not to control the load on the turbine between the MGUH and compressor. It is there to disconnect the MGUH for periods where the turbine has sufficient power to drive the compressor but negligent or nil excess power. It is a similar case for the MGUK. When it is not harvesting or powering it will be disconnected to remove drag from the system.

[WhiteBlue]

If this complex system does not work exactly right I can see there being big problems for the driver.

The car will have a mind of it's own. Some kind of traction monitoring has to take place. So i don't know what the F1 means by lack of traction control. They probably can run algorithms that don't rely on wheel spin feed back; solely battery state of charge, air flow, engine speed and what have you, but it's a blurry line between engine management and traction management. I guess it will just delivery excess power to MGUK blindly?
This is why i assumed a KERS button will be used, or some kind of analogue trigger or twist grip .
It's very complex and i don't know how the driver is going to be aware of what power he has available, he will have to respond to the car, and ease his right foot or press more. No longer the car responding to the driver. The engine will behave weak some laps, strong at others, and at different times and on different tyres. Interesting stuff.

The question of dual torque is totally unrelated to traction control in my view. Why should there be any need or tolerance in the rules for traction control if we have two sources of torque? The driver has to control the torque unassisted regardless of the source where it comes from. And it is not unusual for an F1 driver to experience different power delivery depending on the setting of his steering wheel buttons. The drivers will get used very quickly to the slight variations in torque delivery that the cars provide them with depending on the load status of the energy storage system. The F1 drivers of the 80ties with the variable boost turbos and with massive turbo lag had much greater problems to deal with. This will be a peanut problem after some laps.

A totally different question is the question of the initial reliability that you can expect from such a complex system. We will have to get used to more DNFs in my view. But that in itself is a factor that might spice up some races and championships.

[FW17]

Wonder if we will be seeing these as in the 908
Longitudinal swirls, a continuation of the intake trumpet. At the tangency between the round plenum and the trumpet, the trumpet continues to rotate around the plenum in a helical fashion, through approximately 270 degrees, instead of dead ending perpendicularly into it. This allows for a much longer intake trumpet without the need to raise the height of the plenum to accommodate taller intake trumpets (thus keeping the trailing edge of the engine cover that much lower).

[Holm86]

Thats a diesel engine. Runs much lower RPM's. Isnt short intake runners preferable on high RPM engines??

[rjsa]

The car will have a mind of it's own. Some kind of traction monitoring has to take place. So i don't know what the F1 means by lack of traction control. They probably can run algorithms that don't rely on wheel spin feed back; solely battery state of charge, air flow, engine speed and what have you, but it's a blurry line between engine management and traction management. I guess it will just delivery excess power to MGUK blindly?

This is why i assumed a KERS button will be used, or some kind of analogue trigger or twist grip .

It's very complex and i don't know how the driver is going to be aware of what power he has available, he will have to respond to the car, and ease his right foot or press more. No longer the car responding to the driver. The engine will behave weak some laps, strong at others, and at different times and on different tyres. Interesting stuff.

It's my understanding that there will still be a SECU running the show, right?

If so, teams are not allowed do introduce algorithms to the control system. Just graphs factoring a bunch of input parameters (RPM, pedal position, temperatures, air density and O2 concentration and the whatnot) to a couple of controlled devices, like fuel injection amount and timing, spark timing, and so on.

This will allow teams to make N numbers of combinations on how the engine will behave, and the MGUK linked to it, creating responses varying between gentle and balls to the walls. But in any circumstances they will be able to factor wheel acceleration, body forward acceleration, boody speed and gear engaged into the equation.

And that's what limits traction control. And that's why the SECU is there.

Take this simple practical example: in a given track, at the exit of a given turn, engine mapping is shaped in a way that the driver floors it and the rear wheels are at optimal performance accelerating up the straight. Works great up to lap 3, but right ahead said car in said turn during lap 4 someone blows a gasket and leaves water and oil on the tarmac. The driver floors it, and while a car with traction control would sense the wheels accelerating way ahead of the car and start chocking the engine, our car can't see this - so it will keep reading it's script along the RPM curve like nothing different is going on, while the tyres have already lost traction.

EDIT: A great reading on the subject of controls is the thread that was running a few months ago where it was described the innerworking of active suspensions and it's development by a Lotus related dude. He mentions the use of predefined mappings trying to antecipate track situations and how it failed.

EDIT2: Here it is, I guess it wasn't even tried:

Do you have any knowledge of lap 'memorizing' every being used in F1?
Can you expand on some of the implementation issues?

No, but it would not surprise me.

The objective (in our case) would have been to identify the lowest ride that could be run around the circuit without running out of suspension travel, or grounding. To be successful:

We had to have a reliable measure of front & rear ride height (we didn't),
We had to be able to store & update time histories of target suspension position (to make it easy, we needed the capacity to store two target positions every millisecond).
We needed a reliable "start of lap" signal (not completely reliable at the time).
We needed a reliable way of estimating distance travelled in real time (forward & backward optimization not permitted).
The routine had to converge on a solution in one lap (qualifying).
Ride heights had to be updated to account for tyre pressure/temperature changes.
Ride heights were only really important though corners, and the trajectory through each corner had to be repeatable (arguably).

I can't think of any more at present, but that should be enough, I think.

[WhiteBlue]

Agree, any algorith will be provided by the SECU programming. Teams will have elements like maps, profils and switches to adapt the SECU to their needs, nothing else.

[ringo]

But in any circumstances they will be able to factor wheel acceleration, body forward acceleration, boody speed and gear engaged into the equation.

And that's what limits traction control. And that's why the SECU is there.

Take this simple practical example: in a given track, at the exit of a given turn, engine mapping is shaped in a way that the driver floors it and the rear wheels are at optimal performance accelerating up the straight. Works great up to lap 3, but right ahead said car in said turn during lap 4 someone blows a gasket and leaves water and oil on the tarmac. The driver floors it, and while a car with traction control would sense the wheels accelerating way ahead of the car and start chocking the engine, our car can't see this - so it will keep reading it's script along the RPM curve like nothing different is going on, while the tyres have already lost traction.

Sounds like closed looped system there, which is active. Anything linked to the body motion would be considered a kind of traction traction control if the power unit is going to respond to it.
You may have to be bounded by only the state of the engine and the state of the battery only for it to not be considered some kind of beat around the bush traction control. all feedback must be within the power unit for us to truly say there's no traction control.
I agree with your last paragraph, that's open loop, which is what will likely be the case of us not really having much difference with the power units. They all would operate very similarly. In fact i don't think there's any feature the Renault engine would have that the Mercedes wont be able to incorporate after a few races for example.
I can also imagine a very interesting fuel saving mode for the race leader, especially with the direct injection.

[Pierce89]

boody speed

My girl has some nice boody speed. Sorry guys I'm immature.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ringo
surely ? .......
there is no mechanism for fuel saving
so fuel saving is not allowed
'use it or lose it !' is the point of the rules (to avoid the perception that it's an economy run, not real racing)

[rjsa]

But in any circumstances they will be able to factor wheel acceleration, body forward acceleration, boody speed and gear engaged into the equation.

And that's what limits traction control. And that's why the SECU is there.

Take this simple practical example: in a given track, at the exit of a given turn, engine mapping is shaped in a way that the driver floors it and the rear wheels are at optimal performance accelerating up the straight. Works great up to lap 3, but right ahead said car in said turn during lap 4 someone blows a gasket and leaves water and oil on the tarmac. The driver floors it, and while a car with traction control would sense the wheels accelerating way ahead of the car and start chocking the engine, our car can't see this - so it will keep reading it's script along the RPM curve like nothing different is going on, while the tyres have already lost traction.

Sounds like closed looped system there, which is active. Anything linked to the body motion would be considered a kind of traction traction control if the power unit is going to respond to it.
You may have to be bounded by only the state of the engine and the state of the battery only for it to not be considered some kind of beat around the bush traction control. all feedback must be within the power unit for us to truly say there's no traction control.
I agree with your last paragraph, that's open loop, which is what will likely be the case of us not really having much difference with the power units. They all would operate very similarly. In fact i don't think there's any feature the Renault engine would have that the Mercedes wont be able to incorporate after a few races for example.
I can also imagine a very interesting fuel saving mode for the race leader, especially with the direct injection.

I guess I typed one word less than I should, I meant ,'Never, in any circusmtance...'.

But anyway, the SECU should be wired to avoid this even within the engine boundary. I have no clue about how the eletric gizmos will interact, but if you just don't factor crank acceleration into the algorithim, most if not all hopes of traction control are gone.

[ringo]

@ringo
surely ? .......
there is no mechanism for fuel saving
so fuel saving is not allowed
'use it or lose it !' is the point of the rules (to avoid the perception that it's an economy run, not real racing)

Hahah,
Any one caught with extra fuel after the race will have that weight in fuel in lead weight the following race bolted to the car!

[wuzak]

There will be fuel saving, just so they can get to the end of the race. My understanding is that there may be a fuel allowance for each race.

In any case, F1 teams will put as little fuel into the car as they think they can get away with, and manage the fuel usage to get to the end. As they do now.