2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[MarcJ]

My gut feeling is EV's are coming as soon as they work out how to charge millions of them without crashing the grid.

Take FE or the Tesla P75 race series for example. The tracks don't have the infrastructure to charge the cars, so they have to bring generators with them...

V2G Vehicle to grid algorithms where part of the energy store is used to stabilise the grid and reduce cells degradation.

The degradation models are used in hybrid vehicle power train artificial neural network to identify best source of energy to use.

Models from University of Warick, UK on extending battery life using V2G.

[Zynerji]

“A compromise was reached/we have found a compromise/there are regulations coming which would mean new entrants will get support from existing entrants. There will be components and technology which will have to be shared if it is requested by new entrants”. This was said in between confirming “The drawbridge has been pulled-up and the existing suppliers don’t want anyone else to come in”. An interview with official F1 website by a top F1 official, what better way to trumpet something out?. Can anybody seriously believe that a formula 1 manufacturer will share his technical development secrets with his competition?. (A man that have changed his job and opinion and now have authority over the same sort of people he was himself been before).

This sounds like what I've proposed for years.

This will lead to co-developed engines within 1% of each other, but still have enough differences to be called manufacturer specific.

The ultimate cost control is shared data, as it requires zero management because it becomes an economic dis-incentive to overspend.

I like it, a lot. Especially when they can turn the R&D cost to zero when parity is reached, and the designs are frozen.

I would also expect this to greatly increase the speed of tech transfer to production vehicles, as they will no longer be hiding secrets from rivals.

It's a huge win for the sport and the fans, in my opinion.

[wuzak]

It is interesting that Liberty has characterised the situation as "the drawbridge being up".

To me it is a catch 22.

Lowering the tech to suit one or two new manufacturers requires the 4 existing manufacturers to re-engineer their engines to suit, potentially costing millions, while continuing to develop the current units.

And lowering the entry threshold (ie cost) also potentially lowers the commitment to the sport - it is easier to write off a small fortune than it is to write off a big fortune.

And without commitment from a new manufacturer during the rules defining stage, how can the rules be changed to suit that competitor (or competitors)? They could go through all the regulation changes, only for the new competitor (s) to say they have changed their mind.

[saviour stivala]

The number one attempt in introduce a new specification power unit was to standardize what remains not standardized and that plus the elimination of the MGU-H which is nowadays said to contributing/provide more than 60% of the total hybrid energy of the current engines, the best part of 1000hp at full power. But as soon as the MGU-H is removed it will have to be a new engine design and the spending will start all over again.

But what was not being said was that if any of the present four manufacturers remain new comers will have a really hard time catching-up onto the combustion technology experience gained by any of the present four.

Another thing not being said is, which road car manufacturer that will enter formula one is going to produce a formula one racing engine not being electrified?. All in all a new engine specification was deemed as a must in a power and control struggle.

[Tommy Cookers]

...... the MGU-H which is nowadays said to contributing/provide more than 60% of the total hybrid energy of the current engines, the best part of 1000hp at full power.

......er .... what ?

[wuzak]

...... the MGU-H which is nowadays said to contributing/provide more than 60% of the total hybrid energy of the current engines, the best part of 1000hp at full power.

......er .... what ?

He phrased it poorly, but what I think he means is that 60% of the energy recovered by the ERS and deployed to the wheels comes from the MGUH.

[saviour stivala]

Thanks wuzak for phrasing it properly.

[dren]

That's how I took it as well although it's phrased a bit awkward.

[henry]

...... the MGU-H which is nowadays said to contributing/provide more than 60% of the total hybrid energy of the current engines, the best part of 1000hp at full power.

......er .... what ?

He phrased it poorly, but what I think he means is that 60% of the energy recovered by the ERS and deployed to the wheels comes from the MGUH.

If I may add a simple calculation that supports this.

If the MGU-K recovers 2MJ in a lap then the 60% figure suggests 3MJ from the MGU-H. On a typical lap the H is run at full power for around 60 seconds which would set the H output at 50kW.

I believe the 60% figure to be conservative with the H output 60kW or higher, at least for Mercedes and Ferrari.

[Dr. Acula]

If I may add a simple calculation that supports this.

If the MGU-K recovers 2MJ in a lap then the 60% figure suggests 3MJ from the MGU-H. On a typical lap the H is run at full power for around 60 seconds which would set the H output at 50kW.

I believe the 60% figure to be conservative with the H output 60kW or higher, at least for Mercedes and Ferrari.

According to this article from Motorsport.com https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ital ... 71/?nrt=54, Ferrari was able to get 3203kJ per lap out of the MGU-H in Monza in 2016. Well let's say 3.2MJ because it was certainly not every lap exactly the same amount.

Full throttle per lap is 77% (is that right?)
Let's say the lap we look at was 1:26 (fastest lap was Alonso 1:25.340 with his GP2 engine )

So that means WoT for 66.2 seconds.
Now, the transition time from when the driver gives full throttle to the moment they can start to harverst from the MGU-H is certainly a topic for debate. But 60 seconds harvesting per lap is certainly not far off, so yeah, Ferrari with 50kW from the MGU-H in 2016. Probably more now, so your numbers seem to line up quite well.

[henry]

If I may add a simple calculation that supports this.

If the MGU-K recovers 2MJ in a lap then the 60% figure suggests 3MJ from the MGU-H. On a typical lap the H is run at full power for around 60 seconds which would set the H output at 50kW.

I believe the 60% figure to be conservative with the H output 60kW or higher, at least for Mercedes and Ferrari.

According to this article from Motorsport.com https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ital ... 71/?nrt=54, Ferrari was able to get 3203kJ per lap out of the MGU-H in Monza in 2016. Well let's say 3.2MJ because it was certainly not every lap exactly the same amount.

Full throttle per lap is 77% (is that right?)
Let's say the lap we look at was 1:26 (fastest lap was Alonso 1:25.340 with his GP2 engine )

So that means WoT for 66.2 seconds.
Now, the transition time from when the driver gives full throttle to the moment they can start to harverst from the MGU-H is certainly a topic for debate. But 60 seconds harvesting per lap is certainly not far off, so yeah, Ferrari with 50kW from the MGU-H in 2016. Probably more now, so your numbers seem to line up quite well.

It is difficult to find and confirm these sort of figures. Thanks for your contribution.

In 2014 and 2015 Magnetti Marelli used to publish ERS data, I assumed for Ferrari, from which it was possible to deduce an MGU-H output around 40 to 45kW.

Last year, 2018, AMUS published some comparative speed and distance figures at end of straight for Mercedes and Ferrari at Hockenheim. This was at the time Mercedes was asserting that Ferrari had an advantage on the straights. I made a simple simulator with ICE power, drag and MGU-H power as inputs and adjusted them to match the data provided. I found a limited number of combinations that were consistent with the data. The H powers were in the range 65 to 70kW with the Ferrari figures slightly higher. I’d hazard this is where state of the art is, but I’d not be surprised if it were different.

As for when the the MGU-H starts generating I’d expect it to be before WOT, but I don’t know at what percentage. Between this point and WOT energy will flow to the ES since up to traction limit the MGU-K is not used much, perhaps a little torque fill. Typically the cars spend very little time in this throttle range so the effect on broad brush energy flow calculations can, I believe, be ignored.

Looking back at the Hockenheim data my simulation suggested that Mercedes and Ferrari employed differing recovery strategies at the end of straight. Mercedes switched off the K and charged from the H. Ferrari continued to drive with the K, getting to a higher top speed, and then charged from H and K simultaneously. Interestingly both energy balance and time to cover the distance were very similar for both cars.

[godlameroso]

The power units would be at full boost and capable of harvesting @ max power from the MGU-H @ WOT and > ~8,000rpm, all the way to 12,500rpm.

Motoring the MGU-H uses comparatively little energy compared to it's harvesting potential ~.3MJ/lap, and the power output of the MGU-H is around 60-70kW for the top PU's. This is because all it takes is a brief kick start to get the boost up to a level where it can start making power. It's better to use the MGU-H, BOV, and WG's to keep boost levels precise through the rev-range, it's more efficient than using the MGU-K for torque fill, although MGU-K torque fill is still used.

[henry]

The power units would be at full boost and capable of harvesting @ max power from the MGU-H @ WOT and > ~8,000rpm, all the way to 12,500rpm.

I would expect boost requirements and exhaust energy content to vary with fuel flow rate, 77.5 and 100kg/h at the two engine speeds you note. So I’m not convinced that the full boost and max H power are constant or available over that rev range.

Motoring the MGU-H uses comparatively little energy compared to it's harvesting potential ~.3MJ/lap, This is because all it takes is a brief kick start to get the boost up to a level where it can start making power. It's better to use the MGU-H, BOV, and WG's to keep boost levels precise through the rev-range, it's more efficient than using the MGU-K for torque fill, although MGU-K torque fill is still used.

There are several circumstances where the MGU-H is motored and they vary in their duration and intensity. There is the brief kick mode you describe, high power (200kW?) and short duration, <0.5 sec, the electric supercharger mode, maybe 60kW for a few 1-3 second deployments per lap and possibly a spooling mode used to keep the H assembly revs up during braking. The last of these I’m not clear about, in footage from at Monza Honda seemed to use a different approach . A total consumption in the realms of 0.3MJ/lap doesn’t seem unrealistic.

I agree with you that the combination of H, wastegate and BOV, are the right tools for managing boost, albeit the latter two are inefficient in that they throw away useful resources. I wasn’t really thinking of the MGU-H dealing with boost errors, although it could I suppose.

and the power output of the MGU-H is around 60-70kW for the top PU's.

I think we agree on this. At the upper end of that the ERS could process 6MJ/lap in the race and 8MJ/lap in qualifying, the H providing 66% and 50% respectively.

[Tommy Cookers]

perhaps the fuel rate limit should now be waived ?

some of the H energy recovery is free of fuel cost
some is beneficial only in defeating the fuel rate limit by converting fuel into electricity and expediently accumulating that

waiving the fuel rate limit would show how much benefit the H really is

[dren]

Honda's philosophy is to run the K as much as possible during full throttle events along with motoring the H. They use the deceleration events for H and K generation. Their extra harvest is used to the point to allow the K to be used to its max during a lap. Based on their graphs, it doesn't look like a lot of H->K takes place.