TERS : Thermal Energy Recovery System

[saviour stivala]

“are you still trying to prove that the ICE throttle/s must be directly related to the accelerator pedal?”. Yes in formula one racing it must be. As otherwise how can it be said that the driver is driving the car unaided?. This here driver we talking about is driving a formula one car in competition and not a modern road car with the help of all its gizmos.
(The power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA standard software).
Without any regulated control F1 engines would probably not have throttle/s anymore. As far back as 2011 when teams were abusing the system left right and centre, teams were using maps to power off-throttle blown floors, throttles were left open more or less the entire lap to maintain exhaust flow, and torque and ignition maps alone were left to control the torque produced, if the rules back then had not been clarified, the air intake would have been left fully opened and torque would have been controlled by ignition.
In my opinion PU torque must be controlled by the driver, except for the exceptions of, downshifts, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. The driver controls the torque by means of accelerator pedal. At zero per cent pedal the torque demand must be less than or equal to zero. At 100% pedal the torque must match or exceed the maximum torque output of the engine/PU in its current state. There are limits on the shape of torque demand as a function of pedal position and so engine speed (rpm) to prevent engine/PU characteristics that could be driver aids. Respecting these restrictions, the torque demand is shaped against throttle/s position and engine/PU speed to deliver the desired response for driver and car.

[Dr. Acula]

In my opinion PU torque must be controlled by the driver,

Which it is. The driver presses the pedal 70%, the PU delivers 70%. The driver presses the pedal 100% the PU delivers 100% torque. Why should it be importent how the PU achieves this as long as the driver demand and the torque output correspond with each other? A traction control for instance would divert away from the driver demand which would clearly violate the rules.
Also i posted a set of old rules a few dozens posts back. The FIA even changed the wording from throttle to torque somewhere between 2009 and 2013 because controlling the throttle is utter nonesense. It wouldn't prevent anything when it comes to a traction control.

[subcritical71]

In my opinion PU torque must be controlled by the driver,

Which it is. The driver presses the pedal 70%, the PU delivers 70%. The driver presses the pedal 100% the PU delivers 100% torque. Why should it be importent how the PU achieves this as long as the driver demand and the torque output correspond with each other? A traction control for instance would divert away from the driver demand which would clearly violate the rules.
Also i posted a set of old rules a few dozens posts back. The FIA even changed the wording from throttle to torque somewhere between 2009 and 2013 because controlling the throttle is utter nonesense. It wouldn't prevent anything when it comes to a traction control.

My understanding is there is a lot more trickery that could be incorporated if the rules were dictated as throttle position vs power output, one of those being traction control.

[subcritical71]

“are you still trying to prove that the ICE throttle/s must be directly related to the accelerator pedal?”. Yes in formula one racing it must be. As otherwise how can it be said that the driver is driving the car unaided?. This here driver we talking about is driving a formula one car in competition and not a modern road car with the help of all its gizmos.
(The power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA standard software).
Without any regulated control F1 engines would probably not have throttle/s anymore. As far back as 2011 when teams were abusing the system left right and centre, teams were using maps to power off-throttle blown floors, throttles were left open more or less the entire lap to maintain exhaust flow, and torque and ignition maps alone were left to control the torque produced, if the rules back then had not been clarified, the air intake would have been left fully opened and torque would have been controlled by ignition.
In my opinion PU torque must be controlled by the driver, except for the exceptions of, downshifts, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. The driver controls the torque by means of accelerator pedal. At zero per cent pedal the torque demand must be less than or equal to zero. At 100% pedal the torque must match or exceed the maximum torque output of the engine/PU in its current state. There are limits on the shape of torque demand as a function of pedal position and so engine speed (rpm) to prevent engine/PU characteristics that could be driver aids. Respecting these restrictions, the torque demand is shaped against throttle/s position and engine/PU speed to deliver the desired response for driver and car.

What, in your opinion, is the ICE throttle?

[Dr. Acula]

My understanding is there is a lot more trickery that could be incorporated if the rules were dictated as throttle position vs power output, one of those being traction control.

Indeed. Just one very simple example.

Every time the engine sounds very rough out of the corners the traction control is working. The sound is generated because in order to reduce the torque output, the TC retards the ignition timing and the combustion then isn't fully completed when the exhaust valve opens. The TC does nothing with the throttles because changing the ignition timing has a much faster impact on torque output anyway and can be done also way more precise.
Now, if the FIA would go back to only mention the throttle in the rules, you would have TCs all over again. It was a very smart choice by the FIA to relate to the overall torque output.

[hollus]

Let me try to simplify:
PU ≠ ICE.
Driver (pedal) is supposed to be in control of power (torque) to the wheels.
PU delivers power to the wheels.
ICE does not deliver power to the wheels (or at least ICE output ≠ power to the wheels).

As with everything: IMO.

[godlameroso]

Which means that it is a grey area and can somewhat be exploited as does the brake by wire system. However that is irrelevant to the topic. More interesting is that I have it on good info that the turbos in this formula produce up to ~46psi of boost. Which means that the TERS has to be able to cover whatever energy it takes to make that from the compressor minus any blowdown energy the turbine receives with wide open wastegates.

Further evidence that the MGU-H gains from being as potent as possible. I honestly believe the MGU-H should be standardized, however that would require standardizing the layout, because different layouts require different casings and bearings to support different shaft lengths. The internals of the MGU-H however all come from a common supplier, so there is definitely scope for simplifying things. Perhaps a standard casing, and MGU-H internals, and the casing can be adapted to either layout, so both layouts can be kept.

[gruntguru]

More interesting is that I have it on good info that the turbos in this formula produce up to ~46psi of boost. Which means that the TERS has to be able to cover whatever energy it takes to make that from the compressor minus any blowdown energy the turbine receives with wide open wastegates.

The compressor power at that boost (4.3 Bar abs) would be 110+ kW.

The benefit of open wastegates is positive pumping work of 48 kW during the intake stroke so 43% of the electric power driving the compressor is returned to the crankshaft. ie at this boost level the electric supercharger function could be worth as much as 48 kW (64 hp).

[roon]

Traction control in the effect of a K unit capable of 1/6 ICE power, and some unknown to me amount of torque. As Tommy Cookers often points out. At best(?): 20% effective traction control. Do the cars have a torque sensor for scutiny, or do the FIA calculate from telemetry and data provided by teams.

If torque is linked to accelerator pedal position where is the exploitable loophole. Anything can happen within the PU upstream of the driveshafts but the torque delivery must be constant/replicable and fixed to pedal position. Variance will be detected or infered by FIA.

[gruntguru]

Traction control in the effect of a K unit capable of 1/6 ICE power, and some unknown to me amount of torque. As Tommy Cookers often points out. At best(?): 20% effective traction control.

Actually up to 2/6 PU output range from MGUK full motoring to full braking.

[roon]

Traction control in the effect of a K unit capable of 1/6 ICE power, and some unknown to me amount of torque. As Tommy Cookers often points out. At best(?): 20% effective traction control.

Actually up to 2/6 PU output range from MGUK full motoring to full braking.

1/3 at lowest on-track part throttle ICE value? Or something else. If cumulative 1000+ HP K should be closer to 1/6 or 1/5. K braking should dwarf engine braking power. For sure 6/6 around the garage, though.

[gruntguru]

If total power is 1000 hp, switching the K off reduces that to 1000 - 160 = 840, switching the K to full braking reduces that to 840 - 160 = 680 hp ie 32% torque reduction.

[Tommy Cookers]

More interesting is that I have it on good info that the turbos in this formula produce up to ~46psi of boost.......

The compressor power at that boost (4.3 Bar abs) would be 110+ kW .....

isn't the 46 psi 'boost' really 46 psi abs ? (surely ?)
only we Brits ever meant boost when we said boost - everyone else used abs
eg the FIA meant 2.5 bar abs when limiting turbo F1 to that - but everyone called it and still calls it 2.5 bar boost

and
earlier I suggested the mapping rules with the given limit on torque fall/rpm gradient amounted to a constant power PU
(eg at constant accelerator position when rpm rises suddenly due to wheelspin mapped torque will proportionately fall)
yes this gradient could be seen at partial powers as allowing a disproportionate torque fall - but is this practically useable ?

[godlameroso]

More interesting is that I have it on good info that the turbos in this formula produce up to ~46psi of boost.......

The compressor power at that boost (4.3 Bar abs) would be 110+ kW .....

isn't the 46 psi 'boost' really 46 psi abs ? (surely ?)
only we Brits ever meant boost when we said boost - everyone else used abs
eg the FIA meant 2.5 bar abs when limiting turbo F1 to that - but everyone called it and still calls it 2.5 bar boost

and
earlier I suggested the mapping rules with the given limit on torque fall/rpm gradient amounted to a constant power PU
(eg at constant accelerator position when rpm rises suddenly due to wheelspin mapped torque will proportionately fall)
yes this gradient could be seen at partial powers as allowing a disproportionate torque fall - but is this practically useable ?

46 psi MAP.

[saviour stivala]

Let me try to simplify:
PU ≠ ICE.
Driver (pedal) is supposed to be in control of power (torque) to the wheels.
PU delivers power to the wheels.
ICE does not deliver power to the wheels (or at least ICE output ≠ power to the wheels).

As with everything: IMO.

The ICE/engine is one of the two elements out of the six that makes-up the power unit, the other being the MGU-K by which power and torque is delivered to the wheels.
“the only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single accelerator pedal”.