TERS : Thermal Energy Recovery System

[WhiteBlue]

The problem is the lack of agreement on cost control. As long as teams like Red Bull and Ferrari can influence the F1 politics and veto budget caps you will have attempts to control cost by freeze and tight specs. And there will be no free development of recovery systems and power trains.

[autogyro]

The problem is the lack of agreement on cost control. As long as teams like Red Bull and Ferrari can influence the F1 politics and veto budget caps you will have attempts to control cost by freeze and tight specs. And there will be no free development of recovery systems and power trains.

I agree, so it must be time to make this plain to F1 fans and the general public.

By allowing Ferrari and Red Bull to 'rule the roost', it allows the road vehicle manufacturers to stagnate development of better fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles by default.

This is of direct benefit to Ferrari who still want to produce gas guzzling super cars with little attempts to address the issues of excess fuel use, their latest hybrid 'Bugranos' prove that.

It is not so clear when you look into Red Bulls motivation.
Macca of course sit on the wall and Merc keep silent.

[dragosmp]

Agree with TC there. There would be no weight saving, only loss of functionality if one of the functions of the MGU-H was not used.

Hey there, first post

Just wanted to say that it can make a difference, but not on the motor. If the motor is used as a generator/motor it needs a two-way inverter which is quite a bit more complicated than if the HERS were used in generator mode only. That said, considering how big the turbo is and the added inertia of the H motor it would have been impractical to use the H in generator-only mode. There is a mass penalty, but it's offset by the performance gain when avoiding turbo-lag.

[autogyro]

Agree with TC there. There would be no weight saving, only loss of functionality if one of the functions of the MGU-H was not used.

Hey there, first post

Just wanted to say that it can make a difference, but not on the motor. If the motor is used as a generator/motor it needs a two-way inverter which is quite a bit more complicated than if the HERS were used in generator mode only. That said, considering how big the turbo is and the added inertia of the H motor it would have been impractical to use the H in generator-only mode. There is a mass penalty, but it's offset by the performance gain when avoiding turbo-lag.

Yes but the concept remains limited if the compressor, turbine and the MGU-H remain solidly joined together.
The system is not a fully compounded powertrain in the true sense of the word.
They have removed the requirement of electric traction only in the paddock because of this.
The energy drain would be to great.

[WhiteBlue]

Agree with TC there. There would be no weight saving, only loss of functionality if one of the functions of the MGU-H was not used.

Hey there, first post

Just wanted to say that it can make a difference, but not on the motor. If the motor is used as a generator/motor it needs a two-way inverter which is quite a bit more complicated than if the HERS were used in generator mode only. That said, considering how big the turbo is and the added inertia of the H motor it would have been impractical to use the H in generator-only mode. There is a mass penalty, but it's offset by the performance gain when avoiding turbo-lag.

You have lost me there. I do not see why a two way inverter is any heavier than a one way. The really heavy components are the IGBTs and they can be used for both ways of transformation AFAIK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated- ... transistor good read for IGBTs

So please tell us why you think there would be more weight.

[WhiteBlue]

Hey there, first post

Just wanted to say that it can make a difference, but not on the motor. If the motor is used as a generator/motor it needs a two-way inverter which is quite a bit more complicated than if the HERS were used in generator mode only. That said, considering how big the turbo is and the added inertia of the H motor it would have been impractical to use the H in generator-only mode. There is a mass penalty, but it's offset by the performance gain when avoiding turbo-lag.

Yes but the concept remains limited if the compressor, turbine and the MGU-H remain solidly joined together.
The system is not a fully compounded powertrain in the true sense of the word.
They have removed the requirement of electric traction only in the paddock because of this.
The energy drain would be to great.

I fail to follow your reasoning here. The 2014 F1 hybrid turbo compound is a true compounded system in my view. It recovers heat to mechanical energy and delivers that energy to the rear wheel. So the power source is compounded. The special aspect is the way the mechanical energy is transmitted. They convert it to electricity and reconvert it to mechanical energy between the two MGUs. That is surely unique if you compare it to traditional mechanical only systems that we know from other compounded applications.

The scope for additional efficiency improvements if you allow unlimited development would be fairly small compared to the vast financial resources that would be engaged by the top teams. Each top team would have to have their own power train developments to be competitive. Red Bull obviously have lobbied to avoid that. I'm quite convinced that they had the option to do their own power train at some time (P.U.R.E.) but eventually they recognized that all 2014 power trains will be fairly equal in performance.

[dragosmp]

@WhiteBlue

I'm thinking that if the TERS would be a generator-only, than the energy flow would be AC to DC only (generator==>DC bus). As such you can use a simpler 3 phase rectifier bridge out of diodes and ditch IGBTs and their driver card altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier
Using the TERS as motor only though (for whatever use that would be) does imply IGBTs and then the generator mode is bonus, but not the other way around. I may be missing something.

cheers

[olefud]

does anyone think that the 2014 rules are not related to upcoming marketing/legitimising of complicated road car product ?

Interesting question. I tend to think not. For their needs, road cars have pretty much licked the spool up problem. Also, though I like the concept of compounding, road cars operate almost entirely at the low end of power capacity such that the waste heat is minimal, particularly after satisfying the need to light off catalysts. My old turbocharged car seldom reported a positive boost during normal driving. Harvesting kinetic energy is probably the better opportunity for the road.

F-1 is actually an easier target in this regard. Full boost operation yields great quantities of waste heat energy. Maybe an open highway truck could be optimized for a steady speed, hard-working, lightweight engine with waste heat to harvest. But they’ve done a pretty good job of using the expansion in the cylinder to efficiently harvest the needed energy.

[autogyro]

White Blue Wrote

I fail to follow your reasoning here. The 2014 F1 hybrid turbo compound is a true compounded system in my view. It recovers heat to mechanical energy and delivers that energy to the rear wheel. So the power source is compounded. The special aspect is the way the mechanical energy is transmitted. They convert it to electricity and reconvert it to mechanical energy between the two MGUs. That is surely unique if you compare it to traditional mechanical only systems that we know from other compounded applications.

The scope for additional efficiency improvements if you allow unlimited development would be fairly small compared to the vast financial resources that would be engaged by the top teams. Each top team would have to have their own power train developments to be competitive. Red Bull obviously have lobbied to avoid that. I'm quite convinced that they had the option to do their own power train at some time (P.U.R.E.) but eventually they recognized that all 2014 power trains will be fairly equal in performance.

Indeed all the 2014 powertrains will be almost identical.
The problem will be controlling rear tyre wear.
No doubt the FIA will allow 'development' to sort that problem.
After all tyres are a major supply problem and 'aero' has to much of a hold over budgets for it to be any other way.
I see it as regulations solely for marketing not technology.

[Tommy Cookers]

does anyone think that the 2014 rules are not related to upcoming marketing/legitimising of complicated road car product ?

Interesting question. I tend to think not. For their needs, road cars have pretty much licked the spool up problem. Also, though I like the concept of compounding, road cars operate almost entirely at the low end of power capacity such that the waste heat is minimal, particularly after satisfying the need to light off catalysts. My old turbocharged car seldom reported a positive boost during normal driving. Harvesting kinetic energy is probably the better opportunity for the road.

F-1 is actually an easier target in this regard. Full boost operation yields great quantities of waste heat energy. Maybe an open highway truck could be optimized for a steady speed, hard-working, lightweight engine with waste heat to harvest. But they’ve done a pretty good job of using the expansion in the cylinder to efficiently harvest the needed energy.

I assume that these Europe-centred rules have not happened by accident

no turbocharger will give at low power/rpm what would be the ideal boost for a DI engine
because the exhaust flow in that region is insufficient to boost as high as DI would potentially allow
(centrifugal 'compressor' delivery characteristics are inherently badly suited to gasoline/petrol car engine needs)
Ford's own Ecotec data shows substantially inferior output in that region, which is crucially important to driver satisfaction
in normalised comparison with larger displacement equal power NA engines
of course in the official tests Ecotec shows outstanding economy (although the real-world economy is controversial ?)

in road use '2014 F1 technology' could deliver ideal low rpm boost, from the integrated motor/generator and turbocharger
and whatever level of exhaust power recovery that would be available in road use, as represented by official tests
my guess is that such road cars would show well in such tests, and that products will be brought to market on this basis
and that your experience (however valid) would not have been supported by the official tests

IMO the race season will become a continuous free campaign giving credibility to such green glamour
this is what the European manufacturers want, to sell their expensive and complicated cars

[olefud]

Your point is well taken. Hadn’t thought of keeping the turbo at speed 100% duty cycle. Still, if a road vehicle average waste heat was less than the net electrical energy required by the full time spool up, might as well use the alternator for the same result.
Running the turbine as an impeller under low power demands might also produce some interesting idiosyncrasies.

[WhiteBlue]

I think this Euro centric idea makes no sense. Downsized turbo engines will be the future of the automotive world in Aisa and America as well. Half of Europe's new cars are running on turbos if you consider all the diesels that are very successful. There is no reason at all in my view why there should not be gasoline turbo injected DI engines all over the place in a few years time. In fact all the new European small cars will have 3 zylinder and two cylinder turbo gasoline engines in a few years time. You only need to have a look what BMW, Audi, Fiat, Renault and other companies have in the development pipeline. New cars with naturally aspired engines will be exotic in a decade if you ask me. Have a look at the future by BMW!


http://blog.caranddriver.com/first-look ... ne-family/

The engine is called the B38 and it’s a turbocharged three-cylinder, with an 82.0-mm bore and a 94.6-mm stroke, displacing 1499 cc. ..The new engine family employs BMW’s Valvetronic system, which controls intake valve limit to efficiently regulate engine power, as well as direct fuel injection to provide the coolest possible combustion conditions to limit knock. While direct fuel injection has been in widespread use for more than 10 years, manufacturers are still experimenting with ways to optimize the injectors. ..With this new B38 engine, BMW has gone back to the centrally placed vertical injectors. The new engine uses a conventional aluminum block and head. ..To reduce the natural imbalance in three-cylinder engines, which causes the engine to rock longitudinally like a teeter-totter, there is a single balance shaft located in the oil pan. The B38 is about 20 pounds lighter than the current four-cylinder N20 and a few inches shorter. More important, it is expected to deliver up to 15 percent better fuel efficiency, thanks to its reduced friction, more-efficient combustion, and more highly loaded operation.

[Tommy Cookers]

the subject of this thread is whatever F1 could do for efficiency ?
turbo downsizing and GDI are already in our showrooms years ahead of what F1 is doing
so my view was related to the potential of the parts of the 2014 F1 package that are unique and new
ie alternately driving the turbine electrically and recovering power from it electrically

of course some Japanese makers also wish to sell expensive and complicated products
and their buying public, like us in Europe, has let itself be dominated by Government propaganda over such matters
from the global perspective the EU and Japan can be seen as protectionist and anti-competitive

for most of the 20th century most countries had a respected tax incentivisation of a simple and inexpensive form of downsizing
ie smaller engines attracted less tax (and wasted less energy to coolant and to exhaust)
tax incentivisation is now based on 'economy/CO2' figures that increasingly generate only disbelief
and technologies eg variable valve motion as in the few modern small-engined cars eg Fiat are banned from F1

[WhiteBlue]

The subject of this thread is the discussion of the 2014 TERS system. If we consider how it relates to road going versions one should also consider how the 2013 F1 engines compare to road going NA equivalents. I think it is comparable. F1 implemented their KERS system quite different compared to the way a Prius for instance implements a hybrid system.

Hence we can expect an F1 capable system to be somewhat different to road going turbo technology. F1 racing has particular cost containment issues and restraints that are based on the differences between roard and race cars. For the wider aspects of political relevance I think that the 2014 concept relates sufficiently to the industry trends.

We are beyond peak oil for Christ's sake and the overwhelming issue of mobility politics, energy politics and environmental politics are sustainability and resource conservation. F1 must adapt to the real world in order to remain an attractive series for manufacturers. So it is laudable that the turbo compounded, down sizing concept was selected and implemented. For the NA fans the only way forward is accepting the reality. In one years time NA engines will be history in F1.

[Tommy Cookers]

The subject of this thread is the discussion of the 2014 TERS system.
..... one should also consider how the 2013 F1 engines compare to road going NA equivalents.
We are beyond peak oil for Christ's sake ......

So it is laudable that the turbo compounded, down sizing concept was selected and implemented. For the NA fans the only way forward is accepting the reality.

there are no road going equivalents of 2013 F1 engines
2013 F1 engines much or most of the time fuel 20-22% more than they can burn so are relatively inefficient
since 1991 in Europe and earlier in the USA and Japan road cars fuel 2% rich to realise 3 way catalysis
before that road cars were fuelled lean most of the time and were in that way more efficient (less throttling etc losses)

so the FIA have set up the 2013 engine as a straw man so they can easily knock him down
GDI does not belong to the FIA, or even to the turbocharged engine

there are no NA fans in my house, I have consistently praised the 2014 rules
I have commended their potential to boost low-end torque (to match the NA) by electrically motoring the turbocharger assembly
and their potential for recovering free power equal to about 10% of crankshaft power

the peak oil minded are most distressed by real-world shortfall from ever-better official economy/CO2 figures
real-world economy will not come from even 120 bhp engines when we only use 10-20 bhp 99.5% of the time