Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[digitalrurouni]

What I find fascinating also is how the MGU-H which I find to be the most fascinating feature in the PUs is that they can virtually contribute to the energy production without any limits! How that should not be an area of research and development and brought in to road cars is beyond me! It seems 2021 engine regs are a step in the negative direction though I do like the larger deployment window and the fact that drivers get to control it. Should make the F1 2021 onwards PC game quite fascinating.

[Tommy Cookers]

power recovery turbines (that in F1 drive the MGU-H generation) are little use in a road car

as we typically have 100 - 200 hp road cars and drive them in the 10 - 20 hp range
the cylinder pressure and massflow is low and so there's little exhaust pressure and useable energy following EVO
any power recovered and used directly is eg negated by further throttling needed to keep station with the car in front

the established application of SI PRT (the last generation piston-engine airliners) gave a 'free' power boost of 6% in slow cruise
the throttle being quite well open due to the very lean mixture and the very high aerodynamic pitch (an overdrive effect)
the CR was sub-optimal for this condition, with optimal CR (more like a road car) the PRT would have yielded less output

the MGU-H use as a motor is the enabler of unprecedented efficiency via heat dilution from greatly excessive air
because it allows such air massflow by very high boost and small engine size without response issues (turbo-lag)
with a turbocharger we would need a much bigger engine and much lower boost (for the same air and fuel massflows)
such an engine would lose more energy to coolant and so be less efficient

the PRT seems has been little used in CI engines because they have little energy in the exhaust after turbocharging
but a (2 stroke) compound CI engine with very high massflow and relatively low CR seems plausible in high power applications

[FW17]

TC

I think the tech will be very applicable in commercial and heavy road vehicles.

While it is easy for personal cars to be in a battery pack, taxies, busses, trucks also need new tech, and batteries may not be the best. The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

Diesel is not nice, sooner it is replaced the better. F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

[Sierra117]

TC

I think the tech will be very applicable in commercial and heavy road vehicles.

While it is easy for personal cars to be in a battery pack, taxies, busses, trucks also need new tech, and batteries may not be the best. The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

Diesel is not nice, sooner it is replaced the better. F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

For what it's worth, Mercedes looked to their truck division for their quest for battery efficiency among other things for the current era F1 cars and they credit that for their success in hybrid tech F1.

[roon]

The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

I agree and suggested something similar as a direction for the 2021 engine formula. Ditch the ICE, enlarge the compressor and turbine, add a combustor, and...

• combine the H & K into one higher-output motor, forcing development of a driveable wide rev-band turbine (0 to ~50k rpm; electric drive powered from the ES only from 0 rpm until minimal functional turbine speed).
• or keep the H & K separate using the H purely as a power plant

This would continue to force development of ever more efficient electricity transmission and drive, while still leaving room for novel combustion tech to nerd-out on. Whooshy jet engine sounds, what's not to like? OEMs won't have to squabble over engine sound & cylinder counts and how these associate with their brands, because all the cars will sound like airplanes. They can gesticulate about "aerospace technology" even moreso.

Range extenders may or may not make it to production cars, but then again, neither will 700hp 1.6L V6s. So the "relevance" of the power-plant is not exactly relevant... Motorsport battery, electric motor, control, & transmission tech is perhaps as or more relevant for OEMs to develop these days as motorsport-type reciprocating engines.

[hurril]

TC

I think the tech will be very applicable in commercial and heavy road vehicles.

While it is easy for personal cars to be in a battery pack, taxies, busses, trucks also need new tech, and batteries may not be the best. The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

Diesel is not nice, sooner it is replaced the better. F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

For what it's worth, Mercedes looked to their truck division for their quest for battery efficiency among other things for the current era F1 cars and they credit that for their success in hybrid tech F1.

Where did you read that? I've read that they contacted their truck division for turbo and turbine development, never heard that batteries were involved.

[FW17]

The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

I agree and suggested something similar as a direction for the 2021 engine formula. Ditch the ICE, enlarge the compressor and turbine, add a combustor, and...

• combine the H & K into one higher-output motor, forcing development of a driveable wide rev-band turbine (0 to ~50k rpm; electric drive powered from the ES only from 0 rpm until minimal functional turbine speed).
• or keep the H & K separate using the H purely as a power plant

This would continue to force development of ever more efficient electricity transmission and drive, while still leaving room for novel combustion tech to nerd-out on. Whooshy jet engine sounds, what's not to like? OEMs won't have to squabble over engine sound & cylinder counts and how these associate with their brands, because all the cars will sound like airplanes. They can gesticulate about "aerospace technology" even moreso.

Range extenders may or may not make it to production cars, but then again, neither will 700hp 1.6L V6s. So the "relevance" of the power-plant is not exactly relevant... Motorsport battery, electric motor, control, & transmission tech is perhaps as or more relevant for OEMs to develop these days as motorsport-type reciprocating engines.

When using a jet combustion chamber, car would sound like it is on a CVT

Totally agree with getting rid of IC and simplify the system with a high efficiency jet combustion chamber, surely those are much higher than 50% when running at only one throttle position.

[Tommy Cookers]

the 'logic' of the turbine-electric approach is to have the turbine sized to 500 hp and running continuously at 500 hp
and huge ES and MG capacity meeting the vehicles need to operate at 1000 hp peaks and -1000 hp peaks
a 500 hp turbine is efficient at 500 hp
a 1000 hp turbine is less efficient at 500 hp and inefficient at 200 hp
unlike current '1000 hp' F1

the 'problem' with the EV content is ES inefficiency and limitations - the EM etc is close to 100% efficient

[FW17]

the 'logic' of the turbine-electric approach is to have the turbine sized to 500 hp and running continuously at 500 hp
and huge ES and MG capacity meeting the vehicles need to operate at 1000 hp peaks and -1000 hp peaks
a 500 hp turbine is efficient at 500 hp
a 1000 hp turbine is less efficient at 500 hp and inefficient at 200 hp
unlike current '1000 hp' F1

the 'problem' with the EV content is ES inefficiency and limitations - the EM etc is close to 100% efficient

ES will remain the same at 4 MJ

the turbine MGU H will be be 1000hp constant

the combination will weigh more than current 140 kg power unit

CE will vary the torque to the MGU k between 350 - 600 ft-lbs to have 1000 hp always between 9000 and 15000 rpm

CE will charge the battery on the run when torque requirement is lesser and run the K directly with H

[Postmoe]

The Mercedes turbo with mgu-h would make the perfect range extender if a non reciprocating combustion chamber with an efficiency of an f1 engine can be worked.

F1 tech could be the way in making a light reliable high efficiency range extender.

I agree and suggested something similar as a direction for the 2021 engine formula. Ditch the ICE, enlarge the compressor and turbine, add a combustor, and...

• combine the H & K into one higher-output motor, forcing development of a driveable wide rev-band turbine (0 to ~50k rpm; electric drive powered from the ES only from 0 rpm until minimal functional turbine speed).
• or keep the H & K separate using the H purely as a power plant

This would continue to force development of ever more efficient electricity transmission and drive, while still leaving room for novel combustion tech to nerd-out on. Whooshy jet engine sounds, what's not to like? OEMs won't have to squabble over engine sound & cylinder counts and how these associate with their brands, because all the cars will sound like airplanes. They can gesticulate about "aerospace technology" even moreso.

Range extenders may or may not make it to production cars, but then again, neither will 700hp 1.6L V6s. So the "relevance" of the power-plant is not exactly relevant... Motorsport battery, electric motor, control, & transmission tech is perhaps as or more relevant for OEMs to develop these days as motorsport-type reciprocating engines.

I find this new direction enticing. Do you know if those turbicars could be within the present FIA regulation concerning total fluel and max flow? Would they need to reach a certain altitude?

[PlatinumZealot]

Gas turbines are worse at low speed low load. And they have very narrow operating bands. Unlike a piston engine you need speed to build pressure. Variable geometry is complex as hell too.
In other words even if you are doing the low speed low load with an electric motor, you still will be burning fuel to keep that turbine "hot" remember the turbine is the primary mover now, it has nothing else to keep it spining but itself. And it takes relativley long to build pressure. It wont be fuel efficent. But it should be much lighter than the current V6s.

[FW17]

Gas turbines are worse at low speed low load. And they have very narrow operating bands. Unlike a piston engine you need speed to build pressure. Variable geometry is complex as hell too.
In other words even if you are doing the low speed low load with an electric motor, you still will be burning fuel to keep that turbine "hot" remember the turbine is the primary mover now, it has nothing else to keep it spining but itself. And it takes relativley long to build pressure. It wont be fuel efficent. But it should be much lighter than the current V6s.

Turbine is not a prime mover but at a constant speed constant load to run the generator which are connected to a battery source and drive motors

[PlatinumZealot]

Gas turbines are worse at low speed low load. And they have very narrow operating bands. Unlike a piston engine you need speed to build pressure. Variable geometry is complex as hell too.
In other words even if you are doing the low speed low load with an electric motor, you still will be burning fuel to keep that turbine "hot" remember the turbine is the primary mover now, it has nothing else to keep it spining but itself. And it takes relativley long to build pressure. It wont be fuel efficent. But it should be much lighter than the current V6s.

Turbine is not a prime mover but at a constant speed constant load to run the generator which are connected to a battery source and drive motors

Ok. I see. It can work indeed. But it would be too close to formula E and the existing car engine manufacturers would be alienated. General electric, IHI, rolls royce, IHI and mitsubishi would be the new engine manaufacturers. Good bye Ferrari and the rest!

Hmm. Come to think of it, I had a similar idea back before 2014 engines came out. Forgot the thread.

[dren]

A combustion turbine's efficiency is under 50%. Why the shift? For a less complex set-up? You could do the same with a diesel yet still use the diesel for direct drive if you wanted.

[roon]

When using a jet combustion chamber, car would sound like it is on a CVT

Perhaps, but not if run through a multi ratio transmission. The turboelectric motor-engine, operable from 0-50k rpm, or thereabouts for a medium-size turbine, would produce noticeable gas flow noise from perhaps 10k rpm through its redline. Gear ratios would dictate the rpm sweep it needs to go through. A 10% drop in engine speed per shift in this context would then generate noticeable 5k rpm steps. Ergo we'd have something that sounds like an airplane shifting--a sound heretofore unheard.

I find this new direction enticing. Do you know if those turbicars could be within the present FIA regulation concerning total fluel and max flow? Would they need to reach a certain altitude?

I had in mind carrying-over of the fuel flow regulation. Altitude has an effect always, but no more so here than with other combustion engine types.

Variable geometry is complex as hell too.

Complexity not necessarily a deterence in the F1 context. Witness the current engine formula.

...remember the turbine is the primary mover now, it has nothing else to keep it spining but itself.

Same as an ICE. Also, it would be attached to a motor-generator, as stated.

And it takes relativley long to build pressure.

Variable geometry + electromotor assistance.

It wont be fuel efficent.

Why?

Gas turbines are worse at low speed low load. And they have very narrow operating bands. And it takes relativley long to build pressure.

As stated, the goal would be to develop a gas turbine which is efficient and operable through a wide rev range. The goal would not be to perpetuate the known deficiencies of traditional gas turbine engines.