TERS : Thermal Energy Recovery System

[saviour stivala]

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.
[/quote

"the power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA approved software".
With the FIA approved software having to be used, cheating and drivers aids isn't possible. and traction control is regarded as a driver's aid by the FIA.

[subcritical71]

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.

"the power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA approved software".
With the FIA approved software having to be used, cheating and drivers aids isn't possible. and traction control is regarded as a driver's aid by the FIA.

I really don’t think anyone is disputing that, I certainly am not. Those are the rules as written in 2019. You keep contending that the ICE throttle(s) are mandated to be in direct relation to the accelerator pedal like they were in past rules, then provide no current rules which stipulate such. Instead you try to steer the discussion all around the place seemingly to stir the pot. Have you backed away from that opinion of yours regarding the ICE throttles? The articles you quoted are exactly why the torque delivered is what is mandated and not the ICE throttle position.

[saviour stivala]

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.

"the power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA approved software".
With the FIA approved software having to be used, cheating and drivers aids isn't possible. and traction control is regarded as a driver's aid by the FIA.

I really don’t think anyone is disputing that, I certainly am not. Those are the rules as written in 2019. You keep contending that the ICE throttle(s) are mandated to be in direct relation to the accelerator pedal like they were in past rules, then provide no current rules which stipulate such. Instead you try to steer the discussion all around the place seemingly to stir the pot. Have you backed away from that opinion of yours regarding the ICE throttles? The articles you quoted are exactly why the torque delivered is what is mandated and not the ICE throttle position.

In a formula 1 power unit exactly in the ICE/engine the throttle’s/butterflies opening/closing position certainly have a relationship to the driver accelerator pedal operating position. Except for the exceptions of downshift, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. Teams having to use the mandated standard FIA approved ECU and software are certainly limited as to the use and capabilities of the power unit/ICE/engine software compared to what is used on a modern road going car.
Relationship in the travel (closed-to-open, a travel of 0-100) of the power unit/ICE/engine throttle/s/butterflies and driver accelerator pedal travel (0-100) exists because when the driver presses the accelerator pedal he is demanding more speed, more power and torque. Torque/power and power unit/ICE/engine RPM being the measured quantities of power unit/ICE/engine output or better say torque/power and speed (power unit/ICE/engine RPM being inversely proportional with each other, when accelerator pedal is being pressed more power unit/ICE/engine RPM is being demanded, proportionately opening throttles increases power unit/ICE/engine RPM.

[gruntguru]

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.

In that case perhaps 80 kW.

[gruntguru]

"the power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA approved software".
With the FIA approved software having to be used, cheating and drivers aids isn't possible. and traction control is regarded as a driver's aid by the FIA.

I really don’t think anyone is disputing that, I certainly am not. Those are the rules as written in 2019. You keep contending that the ICE throttle(s) are mandated to be in direct relation to the accelerator pedal like they were in past rules, then provide no current rules which stipulate such. Instead you try to steer the discussion all around the place seemingly to stir the pot. Have you backed away from that opinion of yours regarding the ICE throttles? The articles you quoted are exactly why the torque delivered is what is mandated and not the ICE throttle position.

In a formula 1 power unit exactly in the ICE/engine the throttle’s/butterflies opening/closing position certainly have a relationship to the driver accelerator pedal operating position. Except for the exceptions of downshift, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. Teams having to use the mandated standard FIA approved ECU and software are certainly limited as to the use and capabilities of the power unit/ICE/engine software compared to what is used on a modern road going car.
Relationship in the travel (closed-to-open, a travel of 0-100) of the power unit/ICE/engine throttle/s/butterflies and driver accelerator pedal travel (0-100) exists because when the driver presses the accelerator pedal he is demanding more speed, more power and torque. Torque/power and power unit/ICE/engine RPM being the measured quantities of power unit/ICE/engine output or better say torque/power and speed (power unit/ICE/engine RPM being inversely proportional with each other, when accelerator pedal is being pressed more power unit/ICE/engine RPM is being demanded, proportionately opening throttles increases power unit/ICE/engine RPM.

This is nonsense. You need to read other peoples posts and think about what they are saying.

[subcritical71]

"the power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA approved software".
With the FIA approved software having to be used, cheating and drivers aids isn't possible. and traction control is regarded as a driver's aid by the FIA.

I really don’t think anyone is disputing that, I certainly am not. Those are the rules as written in 2019. You keep contending that the ICE throttle(s) are mandated to be in direct relation to the accelerator pedal like they were in past rules, then provide no current rules which stipulate such. Instead you try to steer the discussion all around the place .seemingly to stir the pot Have you backed away from that opinion of yours regarding the ICE throttles? The articles you quoted are exactly why the torque delivered is what is mandated and not the ICE throttle position.

In a formula 1 power unit exactly in the ICE/engine the throttle’s/butterflies opening/closing position certainly have a relationship to the driver accelerator pedal operating position. Except for the exceptions of downshift, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. Teams having to use the mandated standard FIA approved ECU and software are certainly limited as to the use and capabilities of the power unit/ICE/engine software compared to what is used on a modern road going car.
Relationship in the travel (closed-to-open, a travel of 0-100) of the power unit/ICE/engine throttle/s/butterflies and driver accelerator pedal travel (0-100) exists because when the driver presses the accelerator pedal he is demanding more speed, more power and torque. Torque/power and power unit/ICE/engine RPM being the measured quantities of power unit/ICE/engine output or better say torque/power and speed (power unit/ICE/engine RPM being inversely proportional with each other, when accelerator pedal is being pressed more power unit/ICE/engine RPM is being demanded, proportionately opening throttles increases power unit/ICE/engine RPM.

I guess you proved my points....

[Pierce89]

To SS
50% pedal position demands 50% available torque at whatever throttle opening that requires. If it demanded the throttle to open 50% instead, then the ignition or boost etc could be manipulated to give whatever torque the programmers desire. That's why the rules changed from stipulating torque demand instead of throttle opening. So no the rules do not demand a directly proportional relationship between pedal position and throttle opening.

[FPV GTHO]

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”.

The power unit is the whole combination of ICE, MGUK, MGUH, turbo, control electronics and ERS battery. There is no combination of fewer parts that is still defined as the power unit.

[saviour stivala]

Yes the power unit comprises ICE, TC, K, H, ES, CE.
The two elements out of those six elements that delivers power and torque to the wheels are the ICE and the K.
The ICE throttles controls the engine RPM by directly controlling the amount of air going into the ICE cylinders, this as demanded by accelerator pedal demand. The more air the more fuel and so more power/torque, the ICE throttles controlling the ICE rpm also controls the contribution (power/torque) of the K to the ICE crankshaft.

[FPV GTHO]

Yes the power unit comprises ICE, TC, K, H, ES, CE.
The two elements out of those six elements that delivers power and torque to the wheels are the ICE and the K.
The ICE throttles controls the engine RPM by directly controlling the amount of air going into the ICE cylinders, this as demanded by accelerator pedal demand. The more air the more fuel and so more power/torque, the ICE throttles controlling the ICE rpm also controls the contribution (power/torque) of the K to the ICE crankshaft.

There is no tangible evidence to suggest the MGUK contribution is dictated by the ICE throttle

[godlameroso]

Yes the power unit comprises ICE, TC, K, H, ES, CE.
The two elements out of those six elements that delivers power and torque to the wheels are the ICE and the K.
The ICE throttles controls the engine RPM by directly controlling the amount of air going into the ICE cylinders, this as demanded by accelerator pedal demand. The more air the more fuel and so more power/torque, the ICE throttles controlling the ICE rpm also controls the contribution (power/torque) of the K to the ICE crankshaft.

The turbo also delivers power to the wheels, because the turbo determines how much air is entering the cylinders, the same air that is being combusted to drive said wheels.

[saviour stivala]

Whatever air quantity and boost the turbo produces.
The more pressed-down the accelerator pedal the more the ICE throttles opens, the more of that boosted air gets into the cylinders and the higher the ICE revs gets, the higher the ICE revs the more power and torque produced.
Start lifting off the accelerator pedal the more the ICE throttles closes the less of that boosted air gets into the cylinders the less ICE revs, the less ICE revs the less power and torque.
No matter the quantity of air and boost the turbo is pushing into ICE cylinders as permitted by the ICE throttles open position as demanded by the accelerator pedal, the power and torque produced is transferred to the driven wheels by the ICE crankshaft. The ICE crankshaft also transfers to the driven wheels what is contributed by the MGU-K.
The ability/capability of the control electronics/ECU to control the power and torque produced that goes to the driven wheels as per the demand of the accelerator pedal is under full control of the FIA regulations by the FIA mandating the use of a standard ECU and software.

[hollus]

This is getting personal and going in circles. I assume my part of a mea culpa here.

For the benefit of both parts of this current discussion: Both sides now have told the other that they are wrong. Both sides have explained their arguments thoroughly and everyone has made up their minds.
What hasn’t worked in the last 8 pages is not going to work going forward, and no, one cannot convince the other part by insistence, at least not in the internet.
It is time to set it to rest and agree to disagree regarding the discussion of what the rules say about what controls torque to the wheels.

[subcritical71]

This is getting personal and going in circles. I assume my part of a mea culpa here.

For the benefit of both parts of this current discussion: Both sides now have told the other that they are wrong. Both sides have explained their arguments thoroughly and everyone has made up their minds.
What hasn’t worked in the last 8 pages is not going to work going forward, and no, one cannot convince the other part by insistence, at least not in the internet.
It is time to set it to rest and agree to disagree regarding the discussion of what the rules say about what controls torque to the wheels.

While I agree that its best to disagree in situations like this, I see the fundamental difference being interpretation vs opinion and I don't see how the rules can be interpreted (not opined) any other way. But so be it. I'm sure it will just pop up in another thread.

[gruntguru]

So here is how the SS engine control works - lets say in one particular mode setting on the steering wheel.

1. The ICE throttle position is in a fixed relationship to the accelerator pedal.

2. Because the rules also specify a fixed relationship between PU torque and the accelerator pedal, the torque added by the MGUK must also bear a fixed relationship to the accelerator pedal.

3. If the ES runs low or the 2MJ per lap available to the MGUK expires, the system must now use "magic" to replace the torque formerly provided by the MGUK. The use of "magic" is an extreme measure but the only alternative would be to break the rules, since the relationship between PU torque and accelerator pedal must otherwise change.