2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Holm86]

Yes I highlighted it, not new info. The joke is in the spelling of 'breaking'.

Didn't even spot that But thats not good news then

[thisisatest]

i have a few questions...

according to this schematic, the mgu-H can charge the energy storage at any rate. what is the likely highest rate? what is the "horsepower" of the exhaust to drive a generator? and is this rate greater than the rate at which you can typically charge a li-ion battery? in braking from high speed, what would be the maximum possible rate of energy transfer from the mgu-K? i would assume this rate is greater than what the li-ion can take in at one time, which brings me to a slightly off-topic question:
on the current rb9, its energy storage is thought to be a mix of li-ion and supercaps. is it possible that the supercaps are there to be able to recover a greater percentage of the braking energy?
and an easy (hopefully) question: do these MGUs make an alternator redundant?

thanks in advance.

[WhiteBlue]

The MGUh is likely to feed into the MGUk because it would be more energy efficient. The power is likely to be closer to 50 kW than 100 kW. Ultracaps will become even more useful next year because their power density and combined energy density. The power density is so high that the MGUk power will become a limiting factor in recovery and powering mode. Teams are allowed an ancillary alternator and it is likely they will use it in my view. Alternatively they would have to fit in another electric inverter for the low voltage net and they would loose all backup power option. Having an alternator and an inverter would give some backup. So I think they will opt for having one.

[Tommy Cookers]

The MGUh is likely to feed into the MGUk because it would be more energy efficient. The power is likely to be closer to 50 kW than 100 kW. ......

don't we know that MM's MGUH as shown at Monza is 90 kW ?
(also nearer to 50 kW than 100 kW means less of 2014s underpinning improvement in bte than many have claimed ?)

IIRC it was agreed that KE recovery energy (ie quantity) depended on the maximum generating power permitted to the MGUK
and that this is disappointingly limited to 120 kW by rule ?

[WhiteBlue]

TC, we are talking MGU-h here. So why are you posting kinetic data which is confusing the issue. And Monza kinetic data are totally irrelevant for 2014 IMHO.

[Tommy Cookers]

During the pre-gp grid walk the Italian tv technical commentator ing.Giancarlo Bruno, has shown the Magneti Marelli MGU-H for 2014 (presumably an early development version):

He said that it will produce 120hp revving at 120k rpm (rules allow up to 125k). No mention about the weight, but he was "playing" with it rather easily with a single hand, so I doubt we are talking about 10kg or more, probably something like 5-7 at max.

from page 279

[SectorOne]

How long were these engines running for? Til 2018? or 2020?
I´ve read somewhere about the length of these new regulations but can´t find it.

[aleks_ader]

How long were these engines running for? Til 2018? or 2020?
I´ve read somewhere about the length of these new regulations but can´t find it.

From 2013 + 5 years gradually descending development freezing so til 2018

[SectorOne]

Thanks!

[xpensive]

Sometimes the F1 journos have me in total confusion, below an xcerpt from the interview with Andrew Green of Force India;

"The cooling requirements for the engine are huge in the coming season. They are one-third higher than this year. We incorporate cooling anywhere we find a place for it. The team that finds the best way in this area, is a step ahead. It involves a compromise between cooling and aerodynamics."

The bigger cooling requirements are a major challenge and will be higher than what the teams have had to deal with in recent years. In fact the engine and ancillaries will require more cooling than the V10 engines used until 2005. The tiny sidepods as on the current cars will be impossible.

I thought the general idea with the new engines was higher efficiency, how could they possibly need more cooling?

[piast9]

I think that turbo needs more cooling because NA engine gets rid of big amount of heat (and energy) through the exhaust system while turbo harvests that energy which requires for example an intercooler.

[Holm86]

I think he is talking about power unit cooling in general. This includes the ERS. Remember that battery cooling requirements will be much higher. You will be able to use doubble the energi for 6 times as long. So the electrics will need some serious cooling. The ICE will probably need less cooling when you look at it isolated.

[wuzak]

I think he is talking about power unit cooling in general. This includes the ERS. Remember that battery cooling requirements will be much higher. You will be able to use doubble the energi for 6 times as long. So the electrics will need some serious cooling. The ICE will probably need less cooling when you look at it isolated.

Yes. The ICE will have ~80% of the power, so assuming the same efficiency it would require 80% of the cooling.

The battery requires cooling as do the power electronics - 1 x 120kW MGUK and 1 x 90kW MGUH, both of which will probably be doing a lot more work than the 2/4MJ ES allowance would suggest. And then there is the intercooler. Not sure if that counts as part of the 80%.

[rjsa]

Sometimes the F1 journos have me in total confusion, below an xcerpt from the interview with Andrew Green of Force India;

"The cooling requirements for the engine are huge in the coming season. They are one-third higher than this year. We incorporate cooling anywhere we find a place for it. The team that finds the best way in this area, is a step ahead. It involves a compromise between cooling and aerodynamics."

The bigger cooling requirements are a major challenge and will be higher than what the teams have had to deal with in recent years. In fact the engine and ancillaries will require more cooling than the V10 engines used until 2005. The tiny sidepods as on the current cars will be impossible.

I thought the general idea with the new engines was higher efficiency, how could they possibly need more cooling?

That's amusing right? Some talk about a 30% increase in efficiency while other 30% more heat rejection. Someone has their + & - signs mixed there.

[Tommy Cookers]

an SI engine dumps more energy directly to the atmosphere as exhaust than it dumps via cooling or converts into mechanical power
it rejects as waste heat 70% of the energy in its fuel, so it's only 30% efficient
it's a prime candidate for recovery from the exhaust (btw the car diesel is even worse for dumping heat via cooling)

comparing 2 engines of the same power, 1 N/A and 1 electrically turbo-compounded with storage
there's every reason why the turbo-compounded engine can be more efficient but needs more cooling
because it's dumping much less energy in the exhaust
by using some of the exhaust energy to drive the compounding cycle and the supercharging
but in so doing it must dump some of that exhaust-recovered energy via cooling (charge or related cooling and the electrics)
the total heat rejection is less (so efficiency is greater), it's just the part of the total rejected via cooling is more

of course the engine would be more efficient (and need less cooling) without the energy storage gimmick
without storage the electrical compounding would be quite efficient