2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[strad]

no they cut little slits from the edge of the hole to the edge of the floor thus making them (laugh laugh) not holes.

[xpensive]

@wusak;
If the split turbo with the MGU-H in between had been foreseen, the rules would surely not have mentioned the clutch period.

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.

But here we are anyways and judging by omnicorse, I'm not alone suspecting the presence of even more than one clutch.

A secondary clutch between the MGU-H and compressor would xplain the Mercedes cars slow pace on the formation lap,
the compressor is disconnected in order to use all turbine-power for the MGU-H to charge the battery for the start.

Clever indeed.

[wuzak]

The clutch is not mentioned in 5.1.6 - only in 5.2.4. Such that the MGUH can be isolated from the turbo using a clutch.

In the same manner that the MGUK can be disconnected from the ICE.

If the compressor is discnnected during the warm-up lap, the MGUH is connected to the turbine alone and they are going at a low pace would mean they wouldn't be able to generate much, if any, power from the turbine.

More likely that they drag the MGUK against teh ICE to fill the ES, though that also doesn't explain the slow pace.

[wuzak]

I did not read anything in that omnicourse article that suggested a second clutch or one between the turbine and compressor.

It did mention a clutch between the turbo and MGUH - which is perfectly legal, though the article says not.

But I'm only going on a google translation.

[xpensive]

As you seem to almost systematically misread my posts wuzak, I will give this a rest now, indefinitely I might add.

The facts and realities of the MHPE ERS-system will come out eventually.

[atanatizante]

Guys you have more knowledge than mine, so please be kind with me and correct my following affirmations:

According to the Appendix 3 (Power Unit Energy Flow diagram):

1.1 Max. 4MJ/lap from ES to MGU-K or in other words over a lap they have for just 33,3 sec. the max. power allowed by the rules – 120kW

1.2 From ES this amount of power (for the above mention amount of time) must come 50% from MGU-K (2MJ) and (in order to have the max. 4MJ allowed by the rules) the other 50% (2MJ) must come from MGU-H

1.3 From the diagram MGU-H could also harvest max. 120kW (only if track permitted) but just only 60kW could be stored by the ES over a lap, then the other theoretical half power (60kW) could be used:
a) to power the car out of the 33,3 sec. period of time
b) for a short period of time to power the MGU-K in order to spool the turbo

2.1 Now as a conclusion from the above statements (if they are right) the supposed extra 60bhp (45kW) to have Merc over Renault must come only from MGU-H, isn’t it?

2.2 So from 1.2 and 2.1 now they must have a MGU-H that can produce 45+60=105kW, at least, isn`t it?

2.3 If rules permitted could they be allowed to have an ERS that can produce 119,9kW out of the 33,3 sec. range of time, then they must have an MGU-H that can produce this particular power above mention, which could be spent like this : 60kW for charging ES and the remaining 59,9kW to power the MGU-K on the outside 33,3 sec period of time ... if you can follow what I`m saying (sorry for that but as you could figured out I`m struggle with explaining things coz English isn`t my first language)

2.4 Could MGU-H be almost always in harvesting mode and only minimum time to be spent for spooling the turbo with energy coming out of ES or MGU-K?

2.5 In order to have a more powerful MGU-H you have to have a bigger turbo, right? So which way to develop it : in diameter or in depth ?

[wuzak]

The energy flows are limited between the ES and the MGUK - 2MJ in and 4Mj put per lap at a maximum rate of 120kW.

The energy flow between the MGUH and ES is unlimited, as is the energy flow between the MGUH and the MGUK. There is no restriction on the power that the MGUH can use or provide. Obviously, if the MGUH could produce more than the 120kW that the MGUK could use, some of it would have to be sent to the ES. But that is unlikely.

At most circuits the ES will not be able to store the 2MJ from normal braking. That is, perhaps, why they lift and coast - not to save fuel, as many people think, but to store more energy in the ES.

I would tend to discount the 4MJ/33s per lap theory because of the MGUK storage limit. The MGUH's power should, ideally, be sent to the MGUK directly, this, more than likely, giving much more than 4MJ over the lap.

Where Ferrari and Renault have struggled relative to the Mercedes is probably the ability to directly use the power of the MGUH, and also the amount of power their MGUH's can develop.

There could also be a shortfall in pure ICE power, which would also affect MGUH recovery ability. McLaren have claimed that they are 40hp down on Mercedes because they use a different fuel.

All Ferrari teams are using Shell and, I believe, all Renault teams are using Total.

[wuzak]

As you seem to almost systematically misread my posts wuzak, I will give this a rest now, indefinitely I might add.

The facts and realities of the MHPE ERS-system will come out eventually.

Which post have I misread now?

And yes, teh details are bound to come out.

[monsi]

5.2.4 in no way defines or contradicts the connection arrangements required by 5.1.6. Which says: "The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity". It then goes on to say that the MGUH can be directly connected to the shaft assembly.

Are there any useful configurations where these parts could rotate in opposite directions ? I note that the rules do not - as far as I can see, unless angular velocity is defined directionally - specify that they have to rotate in the same direction.

[beelsebob]

5.2.4 in no way defines or contradicts the connection arrangements required by 5.1.6. Which says: "The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity". It then goes on to say that the MGUH can be directly connected to the shaft assembly.

Are there any useful configurations where these parts could rotate in opposite directions ? I note that the rules do not - as far as I can see, unless angular velocity is defined directionally - specify that they have to rotate in the same direction.

Velocity is a vector, speed is a scalar. Direction is indeed included.

[Pierce89]

You do remember that, at the time of the DDD, holes in the floor were expressly forbidden.So... think twice before you claim something in the f1 rules is clear.

Since the holes were in the transition between the reference plane and the step plane I think the argument was that they weren't holes in the floor, since the transition is not the floor.

The F-duct is one that got through too. The rules require that the wing sections be closed sections. So how could the wing have a slot in it? By manufacturing the wing in such a way that it could be argued that it was closed while still having the slot.

I know the arguments, but to argue that part of the floor isn't the "floor", and that a hole isn't a "hole" requires one to disregard the rules as much anything discussed here.Sure, its ostensibly against the rules, but this is the same team who made the arguments above.

As far as the f-duct, the closed section rule is what got rid of it. Before, the rule just stated that the RW was limited to two planes.

[ringo]

if a clutch is used on the system, wont the entire thing stall each time when the system is engaged?

The clutch is probably used only to disengage the ers-h where there is issue with the entire ers like we saw in Canada with mercs

It shouldn't if the MGUH is spun up to a matching speed before engagement.

I think there may be a small band where the turbine and compressor are matched well enough such that there is enough excess power to continue accelerating the turbo but not enough worth extracting via the MGUH. During that band they may disconnect the MGU.

In any case, the manufacturers would probably zip past that point using the MGUH to drive the turbo up to speed faster and then switch over to generating as soon as possible.

The idea which x has is there are 2 clutches on the system

turbine - clutch - mgu - clutch - compressor

in such a system when the turbine is disconnected, it will speed up much faster than the turbine assisted by the mgu. The turbine speed is also going to be limited to 125,000 rpm while the turbine is free wheeling well beyond that. use a clutch at this moment, it will stall.

And while all this is happening, is your compressor spinning at the exact same speed?

You darn well need to ensure that in that design, the mguh is mimicking the turbine's speed exactly to power the compressor, and that wont be physically possible.

There is no way around the rules. The compressor must spin at the exact speed of the turbine. If you disconnect both of them, you need to employ some system to still maintain that relationship.
the MGUH must be SOLELY attached to the turbine. That means it must not be attached to anything else. so you can't have it decoupled from the turbine and then coupled to the compressor, as that would mean a second device, and hence not solely as the FIA put it.

Look, the trick Mercedes are using is a huge ass turbine, the second trick is their blow off valves. they are opening the blow off valves in the intake to relieve pressure, reducing compressor load to allow for quick spooling to charge MGUH. To me they are using conventional mechanical systems but they are being used in a cleverly novel way.
So they play around with engine power to make electrical power.

[ringo]

from my calculations 240hp is available for electrical conversion from the heat energy remaining from the turbine.
other teams may only be harvesting 100 or 90, while mercedes is maybe getting twice as much and sending the difference over 160hp to storage.
they simply have 160hp going to MGUK at all times compared to other teams.

[wuzak]

I know the arguments, but to argue that part of the floor isn't the "floor", and that a hole isn't a "hole" requires one to disregard the rules as much anything discussed here.Sure, its ostensibly against the rules, but this is the same team who made the arguments above.

The argument was never that a hole wasn't a hole.Just that the hole didn't contravene the regulations because they weren't visible from below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 003667.stm (section "WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL DESIGN?")

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2011/03/22/fl ... explained/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_( ... _diffusers

"The loophole allowed for holes in the underbody, perpendicular to the reference plane (not visible as a hole when viewed from directly above), that fed a diffuser channel that was above the main diffuser."

As far as the f-duct, the closed section rule is what got rid of it. Before, the rule just stated that the RW was limited to two planes.

No, the closed section rule was very much in force at the time.

[Tommy Cookers]

from my calculations 240hp is available for electrical conversion from the heat energy remaining from the turbine. .....

presumably realising 240 hp would cause a significant loss of crankshaft power from the inevitable raising of mean exhaust pressure ?
ie a loss relative to the crankshaft power available with no, little, or less raising of the mean exhaust pressure