2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

Why would you have an expensive and heavy MGU-H in the first place if you do not use it to control boost and generate electricity. Just to spool the turbo up? That would not fit to anything we know.

You'll have to forgive me, WB; I generally don't follow the specialized press that closely. I just read the regulations, do my best to interpret them, and use my cabeza to draw conclusions.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if some cars will show up without the MGU-H in the beginning, it is heavy at a high CoG, bulky and an obvious element of questionable reliability. The benefits are also a bit unclear to me.

[ringo]

Something to think about for the MGUH.
If a turbine has 300hp available to do work and the compressor needs only 50hp. The MGUH can draw a maximum of 120kW with full batteries.
Both of these are loads on the turbine.
Do you think that if the turbine was spinning freely at 100k rpm, adding 120kW will somehow prevent the compressor from getting it's 50hp?
It may delay it once the torque of the MGUH is on the shaft, but it's going to creep up back and meet the load demands as long as that demand doesn't exceed 300hp.

That's the thing with the MGUH, it's a load, it's not pressure relief. Turbines operate on pressure difference. Mass flow must be manipulated to control enthalpy. In order to limit boost it must take a lion share of the available power leaving the compressor to take the scraps.
It's possible depending on how much available power is there, but i still see the waste gate as more viable and less complicated. chances are the MGU wont be able to control boost how we would like.

[WhiteBlue]

Talk is cheap, but it does not answer my question. Why do you have an MGU-H if not for boost limitation and electric power generation?

And some is cheaper than others, right, buddy?

I won't get into the whole MGUH-boost-limitation vs wastegate bit, because it's been done to death here. But, if you think using the MGUH to apply back pressure under engine braking precludes it from generating electricity, that might explain why you still think torque is energy.

What is the point of throwing a sentence here and there into the discussion if you are not prepared to explain your position. It was you who made the remark that a waste gate and not the MGU-h would be best equipped to control boost. I think it is a legitimate question why we have an MGU-h in that case. You seem to avoid the question by going off topic and by making it an entirely different question to the one that was asked. You also say now that you don't want to go into the question because it is sufficiently discussed. Fine, but it poses the question what the purpose of the original comment was. Are we to disregard your comments if their message is not clear?

[ringo]

Why would you have an expensive and heavy MGU-H in the first place if you do not use it to control boost and generate electricity. Just to spool the turbo up? That would not fit to anything we know.

You'll have to forgive me, WB; I generally don't follow the specialized press that closely. I just read the regulations, do my best to interpret them, and use my cabeza to draw conclusions.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if some cars will show up without the MGU-H in the beginning, it is heavy at a high CoG, bulky and an obvious element of questionable reliability. The benefits are also a bit unclear to me.

Right, now that's an interesting point of view!!
Depend on overall speed and lightweight and aerodynamic brute force to get the car round the track before the fuel's finished. haha. Might be worth the little bit of fuel efficiency reduction.

[WhiteBlue]

Why would you have an expensive and heavy MGU-H in the first place if you do not use it to control boost and generate electricity. Just to spool the turbo up? That would not fit to anything we know.

You'll have to forgive me, WB; I generally don't follow the specialized press that closely. I just read the regulations, do my best to interpret them, and use my cabeza to draw conclusions.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if some cars will show up without the MGU-H in the beginning, it is heavy at a high CoG, bulky and an obvious element of questionable reliability. The benefits are also a bit unclear to me.

That sounds like an honest answer to me. I don't agree with the judgement but it is conclusive and logical. The difficulty I see is the minimum weight. It includes an allowance for the MGU and you cannot reduce this allowance if you have no MGU-H. You have to carry the weight in ballast.

[Tommy Cookers]

IIRC there is now a limit on pressurisation (to zero ?) of the coolant system (to impede the raising of coolant temps)

the drivers will generally be using 6 gears, so the rev range will need to be rather large
(only 8 overall ratios are useable in the whole season, with 1 exception)

this thread is now usefully touching on what will be done at 10501 rpm, 10502 rpm etc
(this I raised a year ago)

[WhiteBlue]

Something to think about for the MGUH.
If a turbine has 300hp available to do work and the compressor needs only 50hp. The MGUH can draw a maximum of 120kW with full batteries.
Both of these are loads on the turbine.
Do you think that if the turbine was spinning freely at 100k rpm, adding 120kW will somehow prevent the compressor from getting it's 50hp?
It may delay it once the torque of the MGUH is on the shaft, but it's going to creep up back and meet the load demands as long as that demand doesn't exceed 300hp.

That's the thing with the MGUH, it's a load, it's not pressure relief. Turbines operate on pressure difference. Mass flow must be manipulated to control enthalpy. In order to limit boost it must take a lion share of the available power leaving the compressor to take the scraps.
It's possible depending on how much available power is there, but i still see the waste gate as more viable and less complicated. chances are the MGU wont be able to control boost how we would like.

These figures are not consistent with your earlier computations, are they? Also 120 kW has never been discussed as a realistic load for the MGU-H. It is the peak power allowed for the kinetic machine. But we would not expect the heat regeneration to come close to that level, do we?

[xpensive]

Xcuse me for something basic, what is a realistic estimate of the power from the MGU-H a full song and how is that calculated?

[wuzak]

Something to think about for the MGUH.
If a turbine has 300hp available to do work and the compressor needs only 50hp. The MGUH can draw a maximum of 120kW with full batteries.
Both of these are loads on the turbine.
Do you think that if the turbine was spinning freely at 100k rpm, adding 120kW will somehow prevent the compressor from getting it's 50hp?
It may delay it once the torque of the MGUH is on the shaft, but it's going to creep up back and meet the load demands as long as that demand doesn't exceed 300hp.

That's the thing with the MGUH, it's a load, it's not pressure relief. Turbines operate on pressure difference. Mass flow must be manipulated to control enthalpy. In order to limit boost it must take a lion share of the available power leaving the compressor to take the scraps.
It's possible depending on how much available power is there, but i still see the waste gate as more viable and less complicated. chances are the MGU wont be able to control boost how we would like.

The problem is the size of the turbine. It is not matched with the compressor. It is designed to be used with the MGUH.

[wuzak]

Xcuse me for something basic, what is a realistic estimate of the power from the MGU-H a full song and how is that calculated?

I'm lost on that point X.

I'm sure it isn't going to be the full 120kW,

But think that an average of 20kW over a lap is probaby feasible - that happens to be 2MJ over a 100s lap, and about what Renault claimed on their engine blurb (>2MJ per lap recovered on the MGUH).

Peak power may be in the order of 40-50kW.

I'm just guessing here.

[WhiteBlue]

What we must realize is that the MGUH is no different than the compressor. All it does is compete for turbine power.
But what complicates things is that it shares a mechanical connection to the compressor, it is not a free power turbine like a helicopter engine, where different loads need not run at the same speed.
You will find that what you take off in power for the MGUH may not correspond to what you would like to take off in power for the compressor as these power draws give different outcomes at a certain shaft speed.

There is going to be a tricky balance if the MGUH is used to slow the turbine to control boost.
You can slow the turbine by loading it with the battery or the MGUK, or you can use the battery to drive the MGUH magnetic field in the opposite direction.

Load the turbine, with the MGUH behaving as a resistance. The power drawn must be sent through to the batteries. This easier for boost control because the power is unlimited, The batteries physical limitations for recharge rates will have to tie into your turbine boost control. Very tricky.. If the rate is higher than the power required the MG controller can meter the MGUH loading.

If it's going through the MGUK now, or to something to power a 12v dc load on the car, it must go through the MG control unit. Now this is unlimited, but the truth is it really isn't. The MGUK can give only 120kW to the drivetrain. The unlimited stuff goes back to the batteries. In the event you want control boost and your energy store is full. The MGUH must draw a specific amount of power, to create a specific amount of load on the turbine to give a specific turbine speed to limit boost. You have up to 120kW to do this. If the turbine needs more than 120kW to slow it down, your goose is cooked, you should have shed power off your batteries. Can you predict this? nope! lol

Now using the loading method is quite difficult and i don't think teams will go that route as it's very dependent on what the car is doing on track and the ES state. It's basically playing an all knowing being, a lot of headache to figure out just to control a stupid little compressor. This loading method is less stressful and is more natural but really requires God like awareness of the whole energy system and car to control turbine shaft speeds. Closed looped system with speed sensor tied into the various loads; battery, ancillaries and engine load, will be required.

http://i.imgur.com/ugZJQzp.png

The other method is attempting to reverse the turbine against exhaust flow.
What i mean like this is to drive the MGUH magnetic field in the opposite direction with the batteries with a certain power lesser than the shaft power. The net torque will be what determines your limited turbine shaft speed. This is most unnatural, as it's a counter action more than a load. However it's easier to do since the battery is isolated from the rest of the loads around the car. The engineer need only look at the unlimited battery to MGUH path as a boost control. Is it worth using battery power to limit boost? Why use your precious energy to control a turbine? Well if what is dumped through the wastegate, is less power than the battery energy required to brake a turbine, then i'd dump it.
If it's less power to use the battery, then i'd consider it but many other factors have to be looked at like temps. response time.

This discussion will go nowhere unless we have some figures what kind of power the turbine is capable of harvesting. If I remember right we never even had 120 kW total. One would assume that the regulators would not limit the MGU-K to 120 kW if the MGU-H could take that much power off the turbo shaft.

Btw, there should be no problem to send that kind of power between the MGUs via the intermediate DC link. IMO they will have a high voltage (1000V) line between the MGUs that would transport the power easily.

So back to the figures. Lets assume as a "worst case" the turbine can harvest a maximum of 140 kW and the compressor takes a minimum of 40 kW as long as it is fed with exhaust from the full fuel flow. In that case the best load for the MGU would be 100 kW well under the capacity of the DC link and the kinetic MGU to absorb. I consider that the basic situation. System design should always give itself some head room. You may have some more detailed figures from your computations. If the turbine is capable of only 60 kW the situation would look radically different.
What do you think?

[xpensive]

See below.

[xpensive]

...
So back to the figures. Lets assume as a "worst case" the turbine can harvest a maximum of 140 kW and the compressor takes a minimum of 40 kW as long as it is fed with exhaust from the full fuel flow.
...

Please xplain how you arrived at these numbers WB?

[xpensive]

Xcuse me for something basic, what is a realistic estimate of the power from the MGU-H a full song and how is that calculated?

I'm lost on that point X.

I'm sure it isn't going to be the full 120kW,

But think that an average of 20kW over a lap is probaby feasible - that happens to be 2MJ over a 100s lap, and about what Renault claimed on their engine blurb (>2MJ per lap recovered on the MGUH).

Peak power may be in the order of 40-50kW.

I'm just guessing here.

For the sake of argument, 40-50 kW with what, 90% efficiency, leaves the MGU-H as a 4-5 kW heating element, that's like a dozen toasters, same thing with the MGU-K but 12 kW of heat, how will all this energy be conveyed from the MGU-H?

I still believe we'll see a few cars without it.

[WhiteBlue]

...
So back to the figures. Lets assume as a "worst case" the turbine can harvest a maximum of 140 kW and the compressor takes a minimum of 40 kW as long as it is fed with exhaust from the full fuel flow.
...

Please xplain how you arrived at these numbers WB?

Just plugged from the air as a "high" estimate. I expect the actual figures well below. The reason I mentioned such an upper limit was speculation by Ringo we could be dealing with 300 kW. That I would exclude by such an "high" estimate.