2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

then look at this, posted in the 2014 Intercooling thread by mrluke
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/

[langwadt]

Interesting interview with Lowe. He is both talking engine and brakes.

Indeed fascinating insight from the front line of F1 engineering effort. What struck me was MB ability to feed the NGU-H generated electrical power directly into the MGU-K while the car is speeding down the straight. All that while this energy is bypassing the battery storage system, which means that it is not accounted for in the MJ allowances per lap.

I find it fascinating and am curious as to the magnitude of electrical power (kW) can MGU-H generate while engine runs at it's peak song.

umlimited energy from the MGU-H to the MGU-k is described in the regulation, it was the plan from the start that ICE+MGU-H be combined to give approx power as the 2013 engines

The MGU-K is limited to 120KW I expect the MGU-H can generate close to that

[321apex]

BTW, I just looked up the 2014 F1 rules and the direct flow of energy between MHU-H and MGU-K is allowed as "unlimited". So my previous post is clarified.

[321apex]

The MGU-K is limited to 120KW I expect the MGU-H can generate close to that

Are you sure? Seems waaaay high to me but all I have is silver bullet for now.

I haven't fired up my calculator on this subject, but was expecting teh MGU-H power to be in the order of 10-40 hp max. In my view, the actual electrical power coming out of MGU-H will depend on how low in rpm the peak power will be.

Lower RPM @ peak power will require higher boost pressure to "use up" the maximum allowed fuel flow and at that point available kW of electrical energy from MGU-H will be less, than if the peak power occurred at 15000 RPM or close to it. All of this of course on the condition of the fuel and knock limits to be in check with the help of a sophisticated knock control system, which I presume is part of a tool kit in today's racing.

If all that I described above can be accomplished at as close to ZERO rpm as possible, then that would allow for the most efficient running of the engine.

[chip engineer]

If all that I described above can be accomplished at as close to ZERO rpm as possible, then that would allow for the most efficient running of the engine.

Note that the rules reduce fuel flow below 10,500 rpm, so not much running at 'close to ZERO rpm'.

[wuzak]

The MGU-K is limited to 120KW I expect the MGU-H can generate close to that

Are you sure? Seems waaaay high to me but all I have is silver bullet for now.

I haven't fired up my calculator on this subject, but was expecting teh MGU-H power to be in the order of 10-40 hp max. In my view, the actual electrical power coming out of MGU-H will depend on how low in rpm the peak power will be.

Lower RPM @ peak power will require higher boost pressure to "use up" the maximum allowed fuel flow and at that point available kW of electrical energy from MGU-H will be less, than if the peak power occurred at 15000 RPM or close to it. All of this of course on the condition of the fuel and knock limits to be in check with the help of a sophisticated knock control system, which I presume is part of a tool kit in today's racing.

If all that I described above can be accomplished at as close to ZERO rpm as possible, then that would allow for the most efficient running of the engine.

Note that in standard turbocharger installations the exhaust energy captured by the turbine is much more than required by the compressor to produce the boost and provide the air mass flow. A wastegate is installed to prevent the turbo from spinning out of control.

The MGU-H will recover that excess energy, rather than just letting it out of the exhaust.

Note that in the image http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/ Tommy linked earlier the MGU-H contribution at peak combined power is ~110hp @ 12,000rpm, and seems to be about 120hp further up the rev range.

[vtr]

Got this from the Autosport forums...

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/34468/ ... on-cut-off

Maybe you guys know more about what they're talking about here.

Not an Italian speaker, but I think it essentially means that Ferrari has found a way to cut off the fuel injection of the engine when off-throttle, or when the throttle butterfly valve is not open, without any reliability issues (fuel has been for some time part of the engine cooling system, the article says). That means that they can avoid having to run in "fuel saving mode" to make it until the end of the race with 100kg of fuel.

They also claim that, by having a more extensive exhaust strategy they can control the turbo and the MGU-H better.

To sum up in the end, they say that Ferrari has come up with a innovative cut-off technique for the engine, but while the idea is valid, it is still not finalized, and the electronic programming will be difficult.

[321apex]

Note that the rules reduce fuel flow below 10,500 rpm, so not much running at 'close to ZERO rpm'.

I thank you for pointing this out.

The rules state as follows:
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
Calculating this fuel flow formula we get:
RPM Q
8000 77.5
8500 82
9000 86.5
9500 91
10000 95.5
10500 100
Then I would venture an opinion, that for all engine engineers, the target is to get as close to 10500 RPM as possible. Although there is no guarantee that at the beginning, this 10500 RPM technical sweet spot is achievable but if may end up being this way at some point. I don't know how the gear ratio freeze will also affect the decisions engineers make regarding engien RPM operational limit.

If this 10500 RPM was to become a technical norm and such possibility should not be excluded, then those engines would not sound good at all and Bernie's concerns about "inadequate" to V8 engine sound quality would be vindicated. Muffled NASCAR sound is not what we want in F1.

[SiLo]

Not an Italian speaker, but I think it essentially means that Ferrari has found a way to cut off the fuel injection of the engine when off-throttle, or when the throttle butterfly valve is not open, without any reliability issues (fuel has been for some time part of the engine cooling system, the article says). That means that they can avoid having to run in "fuel saving mode" to make it until the end of the race with 100kg of fuel.

They also claim that, by having a more extensive exhaust strategy they can control the turbo and the MGU-H better.

To sum up in the end, they say that Ferrari has come up with a innovative cut-off technique for the engine, but while the idea is valid, it is still not finalized, and the electronic programming will be difficult.

This sound promising for them if they can get it right, but then I would bet that the other engine manufacturers are either looking at the same thing, or something very similar.

[321apex]

Note that in standard turbocharger installations the exhaust energy captured by the turbine is much more than required by the compressor to produce the boost and provide the air mass flow. A wastegate is installed to prevent the turbo from spinning out of control.

The MGU-H will recover that excess energy, rather than just letting it out of the exhaust.

Indeed that's exactly how it is.

Note that in the image http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/ Tommy linked earlier the MGU-H contribution at peak combined power is ~110hp @ 12,000rpm, and seems to be about 120hp further up the rev range.

This picture (cosworth?) is not exactly the object of actual testing but rather estimates, and as such I am not willing to believe it's theoretical assumptions per verbatim.

I look at it this way. The MGU-H has to have the ability to run reliably at 125 000 RPM. When you consider it as an electric motor, the rotor must have the diameter small enough to sneak under the burst limit (with some safety margin) of it's elements (steel core and copper wiring). For 160HP @ 125kRPM the torque would be 6.7 lb-ft which for my gut feel is a lot considering how small this rotor will have to get.

This is why I felt that a quarter of 160HP is more likely. Perhaps an opinion of some electrical engineers would be worthwhile here to provide us with some additional insight.

[Mr.G]

I'm not sure if this will be easy to copy. It may be caused by better cooling system that they can afford this. Not only software solution.

[Tommy Cookers]

don't we know that ? .......
the turbine is much bigger than would be required to power the compressor alone
the rules broadly demand that EM power via the crankshaft is permanent and never unmatched to ICE power

the rotor of a directly driven mgu-h will be very long relative to the diameter (this will also give the best response)
the MM mgu-h shown at Monza last Sept was rated at 80 kW (or 90 ?) , this presumably a continuous rating
ie it might be expected frequently to allow eg 10-15 kW more for several seconds at a time

with modern magnetic materials and liquid cooling electric machines can have capabilities far beyond everyday expectations
there is nothing technically new here, such unusual devices have been available for special purposes for many years

do we know after the recent track tests ? ......
whether for all 3 makers power units these devices are direct drive (or any geared drive) ?
whether they are all AC devices ?

[Del Boy]

BTW, I just looked up the 2014 F1 rules and the direct flow of energy between MHU-H and MGU-K is allowed as "unlimited". So my previous post is clarified.

Whilst the direct flow of energy is allowed and unlimited, between the MGUH and MGUK the regulations also say the MGUK can only return 4MJ for 33 seconds per lap. Surely that regulation is the limit. The regulations don't say it has to come from the battery.
Here the regulation from Formula 1 - MGU-H is an energy recovery system connected to the turbocharger of the engine and converts heat energy from exhaust gases into electrical energy. The energy can then be used to power the MGU-K (and thus the drivetrain) or be retained in the ES for subsequent use. Unlike the MGU-K which is limited to recovering 2MJ of energy per lap, the MGU-H is unlimited. MGU-H also controls the speed of the turbo, speeding it up (to prevent turbo lag) or slowing it down in place of a more traditional wastegate.

A maximum of 4MJ per lap can be returned to the MGU-K and from there to the drivetrain - that’s ten times more than with 2013’s KERS. That means drivers should have an additional 160bhp or so for approximately 33 seconds per lap.

[ecapox]

Diventa affascinante scoprire che è possibile produrre dell'energia aggiuntiva (al di fuori dei 33 secondi già concessi dal regolamento FIA), cercando la massima efficienza dei sistemi e riducendo le fasi della gara in cui sarà necessario ridurre il passo per coprire la distanza del Gp con i 100 kg di carburante. Va chiarito che non toccherà ai piloti allegerire il pedale sul gas, ma sarà una delle tante centraline elettroniche a gestire la portata istantanea di energia, parcellizzando la potenza. Il conduttore, quindi, aprirà sempre il gas a tavoletta, perché sarà diversa la risposta della power - unit a seconda della strategia che sarà in atto in quel giro.

This is the part i found interesting:

It becomes fascinating to find out that it is possible to produce extra energy (outside of the 33 seconds written in the FIA regulations), looking to find the maximum efficiency of the systems and to reduce the times during races where it will be necessary to reduce their pace in order to make it to the end of the race with the allotted 100kg of gas. It needs to be clarified that it will not be the drivers reducing the throttle pedal pressure [and activating this], but it will be one of the many electronic sensors that will determine the flow of the electric power, splitting the power. The driver will always press the throttle like normal, but the response from the power-unit (unclear if this is just engine or engine and MGU-K) will be different based on the strategy that is needed during that lap.

sounds like some super trick stuff happening. I read this as, Engine cuts off, but because we are still making excess power outside of the 33 seconds stored, we will directly power the car without the need to use fuel. Hmmmmmmmm

[Tommy Cookers]

IMO
as others have ably said .......
there is no 33 sec limit rule (the 33 sec comes from a perverse interpretation of the 4 MJ and the 120 kW rules)
you are not allowed mu-k running at 120 kW for 33 sec cumulative total time in any lap
because for the rest of the lap time you could have no mu-k running
this non-use is prevented by the rules defining the monotonic-style relationship of mu-k torque to ICE torque and accelerator use
unless the driver only has his foot off the accelerator for all the lap except that 33 sec total