With unlimited power transfer from the MGU-H to the MGU-K, does anyone think this type of architecture might give an advantage? Is it possible that this may be why Mercedes has been untouchable if they already have it?
There is a limit to MGU-K output, you cannot deliver more than 160hp/120kw from MGU-K to the wheels. That said, there's still great benefit of having a MGU-H that can deliver more than 120kw. You can use the excess energy to charge the battery, or run other systems.
I don't think there's a magic bullet in any component in the car. Maybe teams are exploiting this, they're also exploiting a bunch of things you never even thought of. What if in addition to the standard armature and windings, there's thermoelectric generators, magnetic arrays, and all sorts of other neat tricks designed to boost MGU-H output as well as efficiency. Then there's the working voltage of the ERS, at present most teams aren't even close to the 1 MV limit, not even half way there. The regulations assume a 5% loss, any efficiency above 95% is extra power.
From the regulations:
Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are being respected.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.
You say "160hp to the wheels" I thought they were crank shafts mounted? If 160 to the wheels, can they push more to compensate for the losses inherent in the ICE valve train/pumping?
5.2.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft.
The rotational speed of the MGU-K may not exceed 50,000rpm.
The maximum torque of the MGU-K may not exceed 200Nm. The torque will be referenced to the crankshaft speed and the fixed efficiency correction defined in Article 5.2.2 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K torque.
5.2.2 states
Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are being respected.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.
They don't really state too clearly how they measure power. All I see is DC measurements, which means energy to the MGU-K is only being monitored via the ES, so does that mean there's no restriction in power sent to the K from the H as an AC signal?
All the energy to the K will come from a single inverter so they only need to measure the DC-in to that inverter. So the assumed efficiency of 0.95 will include the motor and the inverter. That reduces the scope for finding that "little extra" on top of the 120 kW.
There needs to be an inverter for the battery, but can't you bypass the battery entirely if you're transferring power from the H<->K? If you're doing A/C to A/C do you still need an inverter? I guess you can't, and the K and H connect to the same BMS.
what do you think about turning MGU-H into flywheel?
make it a bit heavier (0.5kg) and spin it faster when there is excess energy.
IF my calculations are right, speeding up turbo from 100,000 to 120,000 rpm would easily store 100 kJ.
doing this many times during the lap would allow teams to defeat 4MJ rule.
sosic2121 wrote:what do you think about turning MGU-H into flywheel?
make it a bit heavier (0.5kg) and spin it faster when there is excess energy.
IF my calculations are right, speeding up turbo from 100,000 to 120,000 rpm would easily store 100 kJ.
doing this many times during the lap would allow teams to defeat 4MJ rule.
But then you add more inertia to the turbine and the compressor, so there has to be a careful compromise.
sosic2121 wrote:what do you think about turning MGU-H into flywheel?
make it a bit heavier (0.5kg) and spin it faster when there is excess energy.
IF my calculations are right, speeding up turbo from 100,000 to 120,000 rpm would easily store 100 kJ.
doing this many times during the lap would allow teams to defeat 4MJ rule.
But then you add more inertia to the turbine and the compressor, so there has to be a careful compromise.
I don't think inertia is bad for the turbo, but it could impact the handling of the car.
Cycling the turbo between 100k and 120k will also cycle the PR by 40%, creating a problem for engine mapping and maintaining the operating point at peak efficiency.
