TERS : Thermal Energy Recovery System

[hollus]

I wouldn‘t expect the f1 site to be always correct and neither use it as valid source. Sometimes they overgeneralise to better explain it in laymens terms. What‘s written in technical directives and the rules is what counts.

That being said, yes you can harvest from the mgu-k under braking to prevent giving the energy away as heat. But you could also harvest from the mgu-k while either off throttle or not under full load.

Now, how would that work? Well, the driver controls the power at the wheels through the accelerator pedal. What happens inbetween doesn‘t matter. If for example the driver requests 50% power from the engine, the ecu could apply full throttle to the ice and harvest 50% through either mgu-k or -h. As long as the requested power arrives at the wheels, that‘s fine.

Tl:dr:
You may harvest through the mgu-k under braking, but you‘re not limited to this usage

Second try in answering:- So now I am being told that one way the 'K' can harvest without the brake pedal being used is "The driver requests 50% power (50% throttle) from the engine, and the ECU could apply 'full throttle' to the ICE and harvest 50% through either 'K' or 'H'. just imagine me posting such technicalities on here.

Are you disagreeing with the numbers or with the concept?
The numbers are obviously a simplified explanation, no one expects 400HP to be harvested.

[saviour stivala]

"The driver requests 50% power (spells applying 50% throttle) to the engine, and the ECU could apply full throttle to the ICE". Go check the rules and see if that is possible or not. and once again, just imagine if I posted something like that to justify my point on here. also why is it that I have to repeat a post hoping it will be let through?.

[saviour stivala]

I wouldn‘t expect the f1 site to be always correct and neither use it as valid source. Sometimes they overgeneralise to better explain it in laymens terms. What‘s written in technical directives and the rules is what counts.

That being said, yes you can harvest from the mgu-k under braking to prevent giving the energy away as heat. But you could also harvest from the mgu-k while either off throttle or not under full load.

Now, how would that work? Well, the driver controls the power at the wheels through the accelerator pedal. What happens inbetween doesn‘t matter. If for example the driver requests 50% power from the engine, the ecu could apply full throttle to the ice and harvest 50% through either mgu-k or -h. As long as the requested power arrives at the wheels, that‘s fine.

Tl:dr:
You may harvest through the mgu-k under braking, but you‘re not limited to this usage

Second try in answering:- So now I am being told that one way the 'K' can harvest without the brake pedal being used is "The driver requests 50% power (50% throttle) from the engine, and the ECU could apply 'full throttle' to the ICE and harvest 50% through either 'K' or 'H'. just imagine me posting such technicalities on here.

Are you disagreeing with the numbers or with the concept?
The numbers are obviously a simplified explanation, no one expects 400HP to be harvested.

I disagree both with the number (driver request/throttle pedal position and actual engine throttles possibilities position) as well as with the concept.

[hollus]

From the 2019 Technical regulations:

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.

That strongly suggests that the driver asks for a certain power (torque, actually) and the software has to try to deliver that amount of torque to the wheels. Modern F1 is drive by wire, hence the "torque demand" wording. The software can decide how to achieve that torque to the wheels, and that could include wasting energy by sending it to MGU-K or MGU-H.
Engine throttle position is not linked to the accelerator pedal, torque demand is. There isn't even a throttle body control of the engine anymore, it is much more complicated than that.

I cannot find anything else relating to the question and nothing banning achieving 50% power (torque) after asking for 50% power (torque), at the wheels, by trying to produce 60% power (torque) in the engine and dumping 10% into K and H, directly or indirectly.

Feel free to challenge this, but not by just stating it so or by interpretation of the spirit of the rules. The discussion is at the level of the actual rules, let's not bring it below that.

It is OK to disagree, but unless you have tangible information to repel the concept, agreeing to disagree is the best way for the discussion to move forward. Your point is made, loud and clear.

[subcritical71]

I wouldn‘t expect the f1 site to be always correct and neither use it as valid source. Sometimes they overgeneralise to better explain it in laymens terms. What‘s written in technical directives and the rules is what counts.

That being said, yes you can harvest from the mgu-k under braking to prevent giving the energy away as heat. But you could also harvest from the mgu-k while either off throttle or not under full load.

Now, how would that work? Well, the driver controls the power at the wheels through the accelerator pedal. What happens inbetween doesn‘t matter. If for example the driver requests 50% power from the engine, the ecu could apply full throttle to the ice and harvest 50% through either mgu-k or -h. As long as the requested power arrives at the wheels, that‘s fine.

Tl:dr:
You may harvest through the mgu-k under braking, but you‘re not limited to this usage

Second try in answering:- So now I am being told that one way the 'K' can harvest without the brake pedal being used is "The driver requests 50% power (50% throttle) from the engine, and the ECU could apply 'full throttle' to the ICE and harvest 50% through either 'K' or 'H'. just imagine me posting such technicalities on here.

Are you disagreeing with the numbers or with the concept?
The numbers are obviously a simplified explanation, no one expects 400HP to be harvested.

The concept is sound. If I recall correctly, Limebeer even showed this combination in a presentation of power to the rear wheels being a sum of the ICE output, MGU-K output (motoring or generating), power from wastegate (open->closed), and the something about fuel flow. There was also a feedback loop which was a comparator of desired vs delivered demand. That was from research done in 2013/14. By balancing these maps you are able to optimize the control of the car based on your current strategy mode.

Edit: Here is the graphical version.

[saviour stivala]

From the 2019 Technical regulations:

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.

That strongly suggests that the driver asks for a certain power (torque, actually) and the software has to try to deliver that amount of torque to the wheels. Modern F1 is drive by wire, hence the "torque demand" wording. The software can decide how to achieve that torque to the wheels, and that could include wasting energy by sending it to MGU-K or MGU-H.
Engine throttle position is not linked to the accelerator pedal, torque demand is. There isn't even a throttle body control of the engine anymore, it is much more complicated than that.

I cannot find anything else relating to the question and nothing banning achieving 50% power (torque) after asking for 50% power (torque), at the wheels, by trying to produce 60% power (torque) in the engine and dumping 10% into K and H, directly or indirectly.

Feel free to challenge this, but not by just stating it so or by interpretation of the spirit of the rules. The discussion is at the level of the actual rules, let's not bring it below that.

It is OK to disagree, but unless you have tangible information to repel the concept, agreeing to disagree is the best way for the discussion to move forward. Your point is made, loud and clear.

Power unit torque demand (2019):- 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.6.1 shows what is allowed between driver throttle pedal position demand and actual engine throttles positions. driver throttle pedal demand position and actual engine throttles position interpretatons were actually strengthened out by the FIA at the height of the RBR/Renault EBD polemics.

[hollus]

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.

[hollus]

You seem to interpret the rules so that only what is explicitly written in there is allowed. Most other people, I think, interpret things as allowed unless it goes against any of that text. Nothing, as far as I can see, in those texts, goes against the concept outlined above.

Driver throttle pedal demand position and actual engine throttles position interpretatons were actually strengthened out by the FIA at the height of the RBR/Renault EBD polemics.

Where? It is not in the Technical regs. If the text got more demanding, it was, apparently, later removed. The fuel flow limits made the whole cold-hot blowing moot anyways.
Let's discuss 2019 designs within the frame of 2019 regulations, shall we?

[subcritical71]

Very interesting dissertation I've only just started to read that I thought I'd share with everyone. This thesis was written in 2018 with the help and support of Ferrari. I'm only about 20 pages in after a quick scan through, but it seems very well written and offers a glimpse of what is allowed and not allowed.

If the driver is not requesting full power, the control system must deliver the amount of power requested by the driver, and the energy management system can only decide how to split it between the ICE and the MGU-K. Conversely, if the driver is requesting maximum power, the regulations allow the energy management system to decide the amount of propulsive power to provide and the split between the actuators. The degree of freedom offered by the thrust controller allows to trade off lap time against energy consumption and cope with the finite size of the battery and the fuel consumption limit of 105 kg per race.

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch ... sAllowed=y

[henry]

Very interesting dissertation I've only just started to read that I thought I'd share with everyone. This thesis was written in 2018 with the help and support of Ferrari. I'm only about 20 pages in after a quick scan through, but it seems very well written and offers a glimpse of what is allowed and not allowed.

If the driver is not requesting full power, the control system must deliver the amount of power requested by the driver, and the energy management system can only decide how to split it between the ICE and the MGU-K. Conversely, if the driver is requesting maximum power, the regulations allow the energy management system to decide the amount of propulsive power to provide and the split between the actuators. The degree of freedom offered by the thrust controller allows to trade off lap time against energy consumption and cope with the finite size of the battery and the fuel consumption limit of 105 kg per race.

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch ... sAllowed=y

Promises to be a fascinating read. It will be interesting to compare it with the Limebeer paper. Limebeer modelled a limited range of the potential power options, on a quick skim this paper looks as though it deals with more.

[saviour stivala]

The (power unit torque demand 5.5 -1 -2 -3 -4 and 5.6.1 I posted are all from 2019 regulations and they clearly show that a 50% driver throttle pedal demand and a throttle map giving 100% engine throttle is not allowed. agreeing and disagreeing is normal and healthy on a discussion forum, and as I said I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with me. But as aral said, interpretations of the rule especially to suit own opinion can be wrong. "EBD" I was referring to the height of the ‘EBD’ exhaust blown diffuser era when RBR/Renault were accused of wrongly interpreting throttle maps rules incorrectly and the FIA stepped-in to stop their wrong interpretations of said throttle maps.

Talk on the work of the mods removed. PMs to Steven welcome.

[hollus]

The (power unit torque demand 5.5 -1 -2 -3 -4 and 5.6.1 I posted are all from 2019 regulations and they clearly show that a 50% driver throttle pedal demand and a throttle map giving 100% engine throttle is not allowed...

"Clearly show"... where? Exactly where? How? Which words?
Those regs talk of an accelerator pedal position and a power (torque) to the wheels resulting from that. They say nothing of what happens in between. Pedal -----> Tyres. The PU is not even mentioned except for a time delay.

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.

[Dr. Acula]

The (power unit torque demand 5.5 -1 -2 -3 -4 and 5.6.1 I posted are all from 2019 regulations and they clearly show that a 50% driver throttle pedal demand and a throttle map giving 100% engine throttle is not allowed...

"Clearly show"... where? Exactly where? How? Which words?
Those regs talk of an accelerator pedal position and a power (torque) to the wheels resulting from that. They say nothing of what happens in between. Pedal -----> Tyres. The PU is not even mentioned except for a time delay.

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.

You're absolutly correct. Basically as long as the pedal position isn't 100%, so basically full throttle, and you respect Article 5.5.4 you can do whatever you want as long as the resulting relative torque output at the "flywheel" corresponds with the relative throttle position. This torque output is a combination of the ICE and MGU-K torque output. But how exactly a Team does balance the output of the two in the end is completly up to them.

[saviour stivala]

The (power unit torque demand 5.5 -1 -2 -3 -4 and 5.6.1 I posted are all from 2019 regulations and they clearly show that a 50% driver throttle pedal demand and a throttle map giving 100% engine throttle is not allowed...

"Clearly show"... where? Exactly where? How? Which words?
Those regs talk of an accelerator pedal position and a power (torque) to the wheels resulting from that. They say nothing of what happens in between. Pedal -----> Tyres. The PU is not even mentioned except for a time delay.

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.

50ms allowed says it all. ALL is OK with me with what have been removed.

[subcritical71]

The (power unit torque demand 5.5 -1 -2 -3 -4 and 5.6.1 I posted are all from 2019 regulations and they clearly show that a 50% driver throttle pedal demand and a throttle map giving 100% engine throttle is not allowed...

"Clearly show"... where? Exactly where? How? Which words?
Those regs talk of an accelerator pedal position and a power (torque) to the wheels resulting from that. They say nothing of what happens in between. Pedal -----> Tyres. The PU is not even mentioned except for a time delay.

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.

50ms allowed says it all. ALL is OK with me with what have been removed.

Let us first assume that the K will not exceed its max power output. 50ms is the reaction time between demand and the PU needing to output that demand and doesn't have anything to do with ICE throttle position. I'm not saying the ICE isn't needed, it is, but its throttle position no longer has to be directly related to pedal position. The PU output can be any combination of ICE output and MGU-K output. Can you have 50% pedal position and 100% of that from the ICE, no, but that was covered already as an over simplification. You can have 50% pedal position and 40% from the ICE and 10% from the K, 50% from the ICE and 0% from the K, or 35% from the ICE and 15% from the K.... and so on. The CE takes care distributing that power based on a number of things. The pedal position does not have to be a direct correlation to the ICE throttle position. If a team wanted to only use the MGU-K until its maximum power was realized and leave the ICE at 0% until the demanded output was greater than the K max power, they could. I'm not saying it would be logical, it might be, it might not be. Look at RIC at Monaco (last year?), he lost the K and was able to continue and not be disqualified. The ECU had to compensate for that loss of K power by supplying the complete torque demand from the ICE.

In summary, at <100% pedal position, you only have to output the torque (measured by an FIA approved sensor) which corresponds to the given pedal position. What percentage of that torque comes from the ICE or K is completely up to the teams as long as they stay within the 200Nm limit of the K.

Edit: fixed the incorrect MGU-K limit from 120Nm to 200Nm.