2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[langwadt]

I can't find a minimum speed for kers/mgu mentioned in the 2013 or 2014 F1 technical regulation

Havent heard of it either. LMP has a miminum speed. Or they did previous years. Dont know about 2014.

yes LMP had/has? it but only if you put KERS on the front wheels, I assume having effectively 4WD out of slow
corners would be too big an advantage

[dren]

I can't find a minimum speed for kers/mgu mentioned in the 2013 or 2014 F1 technical regulation

Havent heard of it either. LMP has a miminum speed. Or they did previous years. Dont know about 2014.

I agree, I didn't find anything in the regulations for 2014 speed limiting the use of ERS.

The MGUK is torque limited to 200Nm, which hampers lower rpms. You cannot see the full 160hp until about 5750rpms. I have no idea where these things will launch rpm wise.

[langwadt]

I can't find a minimum speed for kers/mgu mentioned in the 2013 or 2014 F1 technical regulation

Havent heard of it either. LMP has a miminum speed. Or they did previous years. Dont know about 2014.

I agree, I didn't find anything in the regulations for 2014 speed limiting the use of ERS.

The MGUK is torque limited to 200Nm, which hampers lower rpms. You cannot see the full 160hp until about 5750rpms. I have no idea where these things will launch rpm wise.

I'd think 5750 is almost idle,

idle target must be less than 4000rpm, and it looks like the torque map is free below 4000rpm also it seems every gear must be able to reach 80km/h at 15krpm

[tuj]

Spinning a turbine wheel takes almost no power at all. Spinning the rear tires directly does. Remember, this is not a supercharger we're talking about; the parasitic losses are in thermal efficiency and exhaust back-pressure, not tied to the crank. I think, and maybe I'm wrong although I don't think *any* of us have ever designed an engine like the 2014 engines, that the MGU-H will be used to prevent any thought of turbo lag, as well as I believe eliminating the need for BOV and wastegates.

From Renault's website:

MGU-H
The MGU-H is connected to the turbocharger. Acting as a generator, it absorbs power from the turbine shaft to recover heat energy from the exhaust gases. The electrical energy can be either directed to the MGU-K or to the battery for storage for later use. The MGU-H is also used to control the speed of the turbocharger to match the air requirement of the engine (eg to slow it down in place of a wastegate or to accelerate it to compensate for turbo-lag.)

[ringo]

You are looking at it from the wrong point of view.
You spin a turbine wheel because you want to compress air to be combusted in an engine to accelerate that engine to accelerate the wheels.
The MGUK assist while off boost does the same same thing but does it directly with almost instant response time.

In fact i think you are using the wrong motor. U want to use a MGUH motor to spin a turbine, for no good reason but to go through the same chain of events i said above. Which requires rediculouse amounts of tuning and programing.

When you can use one motor that will apply torque directly to the wheels and allow the engine to accelerate much fast since the load of the wheels is shared and also because there is less back pressure on the exhuast manifold. It's a more efficient process.
Using MGUK off boost can replicate spooling the turbine when it takes load off the engine. Keep in mind we are talking fractions of a second here for these types of engines. MGUK will respond much faster than MGUH.

The only thing that will justify MGUH is if it's more energy efficient overall> but in a hot lap situation, i would prefer the MGUK applying torque on offboost rpms. The MGUH can do the spooling if it's more energy saving related. The MGUK also has a good case of reliability improvements as you wont but so much work through the MGUH.

[wuzak]

I think you miss the point Ringo.

The MGU-H will provide torque to drive the compressor at low engine speeds. There will be no gaping holes in the torque curve from turbo lag.

Filling a gap in the torque curve using the MGU-K will do little or nothing to overcome the turbo lag present (when not using the MGU-H). The lag will be more pronounced, due to the larger turbine wheel that will be used.

Also note that the energy transfer (in either direction) from the MGU-H is unrestricted to both the Energy Store and the MGU-K.

The MGU-K will definitely be used for acceleration. But it won't be to fill holes - it will be to add to the power of the ICE.

[ringo]

It will fill the gap.
That's what you may be overlooking.
The point of torque is how the engine responds to load.

Have you ever revved an engine with no load? Notice how fast it responds and accelerates?

The MGUK can have the same effect if it adds power to the wheels at low rmps. It frees up load from the engine and the engine then can accelerate to the rpm where the turbine will spool.

You would be spooling the turbine at low rpm in vain. The aim is to put power to the wheels ASAP. The MGUK does that at any rpm. The engine can even be be shut off below 5000rpm and the MGUK drive the wheels just the same. How's that for compensating for lag?
You get what i'm saying?
Why provide for a gap in the power curve when it doesn't need to be provided for?

Be creative and use the MGUK to either accelerate the car at low rpms, or go the other way; shut off the engine or a few cylinders and go electric drive in slow corners.

[wuzak]

It will fill the gap.
That's what you may be overlooking.
The point of torque is how the engine responds to load.

Have you ever revved an engine with no load? Notice how fast it responds and accelerates?

The MGUK can have the same effect if it adds power to the wheels at low rmps. It frees up load from the engine and the engine then can accelerate to the rpm where the turbine will spool.

You would be spooling the turbine at low rpm in vain. The aim is to put power to the wheels ASAP. The MGUK does that at any rpm. The engine can even be be shut off below 5000rpm and the MGUK drive the wheels just the same. How's that for compensating for lag?
You get what i'm saying?
Why provide for a gap in the power curve when it doesn't need to be provided for?

Be creative and use the MGUK to either accelerate the car at low rpms, or go the other way; shut off the engine or a few cylinders and go electric drive in slow corners.

The engine will not be able to rev up when the MGU-K is powering the car - since the MGU-K is linked to the crankshaft, and the crankshaft to the wheels.

The engine will, therefore, still be under load and the turbo would be experiencing horrendous turbo lag.

With the MGU-H spooling the turbo the engine will operate like a supercharged engine - with gobs of low down torque and power.

You will be able to get better output from the ICE than the MGU-K. But they will use both in combination. Waiting for the MGU-K to accelerate the car so that the turbo can spool will take too long and lose too much time.

And I go back to my previous point - the ES can only supply the MGU-K with 4MJ of energy (assuming that you have been able to capture and store that) per lap. The ES can supply an unlimited amount of energy to the turbo, and recover an unlimited amount.

[wuzak]

It will fill the gap.
You would be spooling the turbine at low rpm in vain. The aim is to put power to the wheels ASAP. The MGUK does that at any rpm. The engine can even be be shut off below 5000rpm and the MGUK drive the wheels just the same. How's that for compensating for lag?

It does nothing for lag. Since the engine isn't burning fuel it doesn't have enough power to accelerate the turbo. When the time come to turno on the engine there will be bucket loads of lag.

There won't be a lot of time spent at below 5000rpm.

[Chuckjr]

How much horsepower is the electric motor putting to the wheels vs how much power is the engine? Wouldn't that be critical in determining if it should be used for spooling the turbo or spinning the wheels? Im sorry if that's a dumb question.

[Tommy Cookers]

There won't be a lot of time spent at below 5000rpm.

agreed
there seems reason to be nowhere near 5000 rpm
there is no prize for fuel economy beyond the concurrent limits of 100 kg allowance and 100 kg/hr rate
at most races the rate will be the dominant factor, not the allowance
the fuel rate is the same regardless of driver demand
eg at 10500 it's the same whether the driver wants full power or not
and the same applies eg at 10000, 9000, 8000 rpm etc
so anytime he only wants partial power he has ample 'free' fuel ('free' because he cannot save it to produce power later)
to access this free fuel he just needs to keep the rpm substantially higher than the 5000rpm mentioned
this free fuel can and surely will be used to generate from the mgu-k (60 kW at about 5250rpm to 120 kW at about 10500 rpm)
so providing ample ERS power for use typically a second or a few seconds later
(yes, you can't save fuel for later use, but you can burn fuel to produce electricity and save that for later use)

the only incentive to use lower rpm is to forgo this 'free' fuel eg to load 98 kg or 96 kg etc
and one or two races would need the 100 kg anyway


boost control via managed mgu-h motor/generator action would also contribute to eliminating throttling at partial power
and manage the power/torque curve, essentially by 'flat-rating' the torque
this is of course not a differentially-boosted engine tending towards infinite torque at zero rpm
the is no mountain of torque that will make the gears unimportant

[langwadt]

It will fill the gap.
You would be spooling the turbine at low rpm in vain. The aim is to put power to the wheels ASAP. The MGUK does that at any rpm. The engine can even be be shut off below 5000rpm and the MGUK drive the wheels just the same. How's that for compensating for lag?

It does nothing for lag. Since the engine isn't burning fuel it doesn't have enough power to accelerate the turbo. When the time come to turno on the engine there will be bucket loads of lag.

There won't be a lot of time spent at below 5000rpm.

yeh when rules say idle at max 4000rpm, idle will probably be at 4000 rpm

you could say a turbo engine has positive feedback; the more power you make, the more power you can make
you can get that kick started with the MGU-H, there will still be some lag I think but you can mask that with the MGU-K

[hollus]

Philosophical note here, I am sure this must already have been mentioned in the former 335 pages...

Allocating fuel rate based on RPMs is asking for the drivers to select a lower gear than what would normally be optimal, so that the RPMs are higher, so that they can use more fuel to make up in acceleration for the less optimal mechanical arrangement (powerband, friction, etc) in the lower gear, and some times also to load the electrical storage in preparation for the acceleration off the next corner.

You'll drive like this not because it is the optimum way, not because the engine likes it, but because the rules give you more chemical energy if you do that. And the wide powerband will allow that. Hmmm, another gimmick...

On the other side it will make for another interesting challenge for the drivers, in tracks where 100Kg of fuel is plenty, they can and should do this, as they should in quali. Then, in tracks where 100Kg is marginal, they'll have to change to the (theoretically) optimum gear since they don't want to use extra fuel.

Next year's championship is going to the most adaptable driver in the most reliable car, methinks.

[langwadt]

Philosophical note here, I am sure this must already have been mentioned in the former 335 pages...

Allocating fuel rate based on RPMs is asking for the drivers to select a lower gear than what would normally be optimal, so that the RPMs are higher, so that they can use more fuel to make up in acceleration for the less optimal mechanical arrangement (powerband, friction, etc) in the lower gear, and some times also to load the electrical storage in preparation for the acceleration off the next corner.

You'll drive like this not because it is the optimum way, not because the engine likes it, but because the rules give you more chemical energy if you do that. And the wide powerband will allow that. Hmmm, another gimmick...

On the other side it will make for another interesting challenge for the drivers, in tracks where 100Kg of fuel is plenty, they can and should do this, as they should in quali. Then, in tracks where 100Kg is marginal, they'll have to change to the (theoretically) optimum gear since they don't want to use extra fuel.

Next year's championship is going to the most adaptable driver in the most reliable car, methinks.

running at high rpm isn't really so different from last year is it? last year it was mostly say 15k-18k because
that's where the engine made power, this year it will be 10k-15k because that's where the engine can make power

the fuel limit basically makes the turbo engine mimic an NA engine, perhaps they did it to encourage high rpms
so you don't get slow reving "diesel" sounding engines

[ringo]

It does nothing for lag. Since the engine isn't burning fuel it doesn't have enough power to accelerate the turbo. When the time come to turno on the engine there will be bucket loads of lag.

There won't be a lot of time spent at below 5000rpm.

we are talking fractions of a second here, and yes it will do something for lag. Add 160 hp instantly to any engine, you would have no care in the world about spooling below a certain point. That engine will be up to high revs in no time with that additional horsepower.
5000rpm was an arbitrary number, i don't know how these engines will operate. But my point still stands, MGUK can be used when the engine is off boost. The driver will get an instant response.
MGUH spinning a turbine wont. There will be a lag with compressing the air, routing it through the intercooler, then up to the throttles then into the cylinders before you get that power down.
There is no way that will be quicker than an electric signal going to a motor couple to a drivetrain.