- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
That's what I make of it as well. In an energy limited formula which F1 now is to have a system that uses resistors to dissipate excess energy only to find that causes vast heating problems within the bodywork so replace it with a bypass valve around the turbo to avoid the heating problem but still lose the energy is fundamentally wrong. I expect their cars to have to run very slowly at times to conserve fuel - especially the high fuel consumption tracks = Germany, Bahrain, Australia & India; but they should have sorted this out within a month or two. But Australia will really show it - if the engines are still running towards the end of the race.dren wrote: From what I've gathered it's the control system that Renault is behind on. And as stated above, I find it very hard to believe they never tested the PU as a whole before winter testing.
F1 2014Cold Fussion wrote:What similarities are there in the P1 compared to the PU's? The P1 doesn't do any turbo compounding or regenerative breaking. Sure they could potentially slot in an F1 PU into the P1 and use it as a test mule, but they could just as well do it with a 12c. I don't see many similarities between the 918 and the 919 either, other than the regenerative breaking on both axles.
The value / comparison with the P1 is the management of the energy store and its interaction between ES & MGU-k. Once you have got that relationship ironed out the last piece of the puzzle is the MGU-h and how that manages its power outputs.The electric motor can be deployed manually by the driver or left in automatic mode, whereby the car's ECUs 'torque fill' the gaps in the petrol motor's output, which is considered turbo lag[lol].
...
Power for the electric motor is stored in a 324-cell lithium-ion high density battery pack located behind the cabin, developed by Johnson Matthey Battery Systems. The battery can be charged by the engine or through a plug-in equipment...
Mercedes said they have been working on the PU for ~ 4 years...the SLS E-Cell was first unveiled in mid 2010 as an early prototype.The SLS E-Cell also uses a sophisticated brake energy recuperation system to continually recharge the battery pack with electricity created under braking.
It's not possible to capture all the engery. Some forms of energy is low quality and is not worth capturing, when compared to the draws back of capturing it. I beleive Mercedes and Ferrari have realized this. Their cars simply use 100kg to do a race distance, i don't think they take it any further than that. Renault may have made the mistake of trying to capture it all.tok-tokkie wrote:That's what I make of it as well. In an energy limited formula which F1 now is to have a system that uses resistors to dissipate excess energy only to find that causes vast heating problems within the bodywork so replace it with a bypass valve around the turbo to avoid the heating problem but still lose the energy is fundamentally wrong. I expect their cars to have to run very slowly at times to conserve fuel - especially the high fuel consumption tracks = Germany, Bahrain, Australia & India; but they should have sorted this out within a month or two. But Australia will really show it - if the engines are still running towards the end of the race.dren wrote: From what I've gathered it's the control system that Renault is behind on. And as stated above, I find it very hard to believe they never tested the PU as a whole before winter testing.
It seems Merc run the ES far from full and are able to send any excess energy there when it is available. Their control system seems able to manage all the energy flows smoothly without losing any. Look at the way the Williams has been running.
It seems to me that Ferrari are not able to control the energy flows smoothly so the car is difficult to drive and their system currently fails when the engine is run full tilt - they can't then handle all the energy flows smoothly.
I agree with tok-tokkie, and it seems like you do too Ringo, in your second statement. I don't agree that Renault tried to capture all of the energy, though. They wouldn't have used resistors as a dump for the "excess" energy if that was the case. They just aren't managing it well. It is in their control system and modeling. Ferrari has stated this is an area they need to improve in.ringo wrote:Renault may have made the mistake of trying to capture it all.tok-tokkie wrote:It seems Merc run the ES far from full and are able to send any excess energy there when it is available. Their control system seems able to manage all the energy flows smoothly without losing any. Look at the way the Williams has been running.
It seems to me that Ferrari are not able to control the energy flows smoothly so the car is difficult to drive and their system currently fails when the engine is run full tilt - they can't then handle all the energy flows smoothly.
One thing to note also is how rudimentary the renualt unit seems, based on the comments from the drivers. It seems that it's not very drivable because of how the electrical power interacts with the engine power. there isn't a seamless interaction with both. I hear there is a lot of turbo lag and the boost kicks in violently, suggesting the kers and mguh aren't working well with the engine.
That is not too much different from the 2009-2013 kers system, baring the automatic control (this is surely not too difficult a calibration problem though). I would suggest the braking by wire and mgu-h control systems would be much trickier to get the calibration correct, so I would think a proper test mule would at least incorporate some of these things. Furthermore, the kers system in the P1 is developed in house by Mclaren I believe, with the engine work being done by Ricardo, surely Honda would develop the entire PU inhouse?mrluke wrote: The value / comparison with the P1 is the management of the energy store and its interaction between ES & MGU-k. Once you have got that relationship ironed out the last piece of the puzzle is the MGU-h and how that manages its power outputs.
Actually it is even harder for the manufacturers of the complete power unit.autogyro wrote:The teams are having to deal with much higher levels of electrical energy in the same packaged volume.
It is far from an easy task with the available technology.
The "not to difficult calibration problem" appears to be the thing that Ferrari have highlighted as the most important thing to refine before Melbourn and is responsible for a few Renault crank case failures..I think a lot of the logic used to solve this problem will also apply to the management of the mgu-hCold Fussion wrote:That is not too much different from the 2009-2013 kers system, baring the automatic control (this is surely not too difficult a calibration problem though). I would suggest the braking by wire and mgu-h control systems would be much trickier to get the calibration correct, so I would think a proper test mule would at least incorporate some of these things. Furthermore, the kers system in the P1 is developed in house by Mclaren I believe, with the engine work being done by Ricardo, surely Honda would develop the entire PU inhouse?mrluke wrote: The value / comparison with the P1 is the management of the energy store and its interaction between ES & MGU-k. Once you have got that relationship ironed out the last piece of the puzzle is the MGU-h and how that manages its power outputs.
And 880hp is far to high (would mean that the ICE is making 720hp, or similar to what the V8s were).alemos24 wrote:I think that 580 hp from the ICE is too low.
I've read lots of articles where it is said that the new PU with MGU-H and MGU-K produces 880 hp .
wuzak wrote:And 880hp is far to high (would mean that the ICE is making 720hp, or similar to what the V8s were).alemos24 wrote:I think that 580 hp from the ICE is too low.
I've read lots of articles where it is said that the new PU with MGU-H and MGU-K produces 880 hp .
) that maybe the ICE produces 620-630 hp .