roon wrote: ↑07 Sep 2018, 00:40
Dr. Acula wrote: ↑06 Sep 2018, 20:39
The 919 didn't had a MGU-H.
Semantic distinction. It had an MGU attached to a heat-energy recovery turbine. Depending on the properties of the system, there may have been use for both motoring and generating the device.
Dr. Acula wrote: ↑06 Sep 2018, 20:39
This and the more open rules concerning energyflow in LMP1 made it a much simpler setup compared to what we see now in F1.
In what sense do you consider it simpler? 4WD, MGUK, MGUH/ERS-H, turbosupercharger with VGT, MJ deploy restrictions, etc.
Here's the LMP1 energy flow diagram:
https://i.imgur.com/kgwZAjJ.png
Well, the diagram shows every possible energyflow within the rules. The interesting part is what is writen under the diagram. It is only aloud to use 2 energy recovery systems. Porsche decided to harvest at the front axle under braking, so basically with a MGU-K and with an exhaust turbine.
The energyflow diagram for the 919 would much more look like this:
The Deployment limit in LMP1 is basically a hard cap. It's not like in F1 where you have the 4MJ from the ES to the MGU-K and the 2MJ limit in the opposite direction.
There's never the question where the energy is used for the greatest effect in the 919 because there's only one motor to send it to. (Well, technically 2 because they use 2 motors on the front axle but you get the point...)
So, there are only two things to do actually. Find a way to harvest at least 8MJ every lap in LeMans and determine the best places on the track to deploy the energy and your job is done. There's no way around the 8MJ deployment limit.
In F1 you have to get around the 4MJ ES to MGU-K limit, the 2MJ MGU-K to ES limit as good as you can. You have to answer the question if it is more efficient to send some energy from the MGU-H to the ES for later use or better directly support the MGU-K or split the generated energy up...and so on and so on. Compared to the LMP1, energy managment in F1 is hell.