Misleading/incorrect information on f1 websites

[turbof1]

So guys,

Today I got confronted by what can be safely said incorrect information. And unfortunaly... on the official formula one website:

A maximum of 4MJ per lap can be returned to the MGU-K and from there to the drivetrain - that’s ten times more than was possible with KERS, the ‘bolt-on’ recovery system ERS replaced in 2014. That means drivers have access to an additional 160bhp or so for approximately 33 seconds per lap.

https://www.formula1.com/en/championshi ... stems.html

This paragraph implies there's a regulatory 4MJ limit/lap that the MUG-K can deploy on the drivetrain, and therefore can only deploy 120kw for 33.33s/lap. There recently is a lot of discussion around this, but it has turned out this is factually false: teams can deploy more than 4MJ on the drive train, and will do so especially during qualifying.

Also the following is untrue:

MGU-H (where the ‘h’ stands for heat) is an energy recovery system connected to the turbocharger of the engine and converts heat energy from exhaust gases into electrical energy. The energy can then be used to power the MGU-K (and thus returned to the drivetrain) or be retained in the ES for subsequent use. Unlike the MGU-K which is limited to recovering 2MJ of energy per lap, the MGU-H is unlimited. The MGU-H also controls the speed of the turbo, speeding it up (to prevent turbo lag) or slowing it down in place of a more traditional wastegate.

The MGU-K is not limited to recovering 2MJ each lap. It can recover more, but it can't store more than 2MJ. Honda by its own admission said they, during 2017 they'd for instance harvest 3MJ a lap through the MGU-K, 2MJ gets stored on the ES, and 1MJ will be used to spool the MGU-H, which will make the turbo overspin and produce energy for the MGU-H to harvest and store on the ES (and it can do that unlimited as there's unlimited flow allowed between the ES and the MGU-H):


It pains me to see that even the official formula one websites is spread incorrect information. This does not help anybody and sows a lot of confusion.

When in doubt, always grab back to the official FIA regulations at their official website! https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110 At the end of the day, only what goes in those pdfs has any regulatory meaning! What is posted in articles, even if on the F1's official website owned by the commerical side, has absolutely no meaning for the teams and manufacturers.

[MtthsMlw]

Especially the ''you can only use the MGU-K for 33 seconds a lap'' misconception is super wide-spread. Can be frustrating sometimes

[Just_a_fan]

Makes me wonder if the intention of the regs was to limit the electrical energy to 33s per lap - a form of "overtaking boost" if you like. But the regs weren't written correctly (no surprise there) and the result was a loop hole you could drive a train through. The FIA then left the regs as they were and the teams carried on doing what they're doing but the marketing types that write websites don't realise/understand.

[saviour stivala]

I for one (the one directly involved) in this was totally dumbfounded being informed about the incorrect and misleading technical information carried out in black on white by such thing as the official F1 website. I have promptly wrote to their webmaster expressing my disgust at such happenings. But now contrary to what turbof1 said it seems that even the FIA are involved in this mess.

[Edax]

I don’t see it as sloppyness. I agree with just a fan, the way it is explained is how the system was originally intended. To give the manufacturers an equal amount of boost over the lap, and to put the tchnical challenge in harvesting that amount. What is happening now is the result of engineering creativity.

I think it is more a sign that the current rules are to complex to maintain or to explain.

I have to admit that it took me a while and some help from this site to figure out what was going on ( and it is more or less my job to understand such systems )

[jjn9128]

This is always the problem with trying to simplify things for the masses - I always have this issue on aerodynamic articles and stories where I'm left scratching my head and saying "that's not quite right", e.g. Tobi Gruner saying "span" means length, i.e. "chord" .

The flip side is you give the whole story and leave the majority more confused because they don't really understand the simple stuff.

This is a technical forum so I like to think we're more up to speed on this stuff... but we have to remember there are millions of fans out there who just don't care. All they care about is the drivers or the inter-team drama or the parties, for them the simplification is enough.

[ME4ME]

Misleading/incorrect information on f1 websites

Good thing that most articles here on F1technical hold a much higher standard than those on some of the more famous sites.

However, might I suggest that the forums on this site need further continues work, policing if you like, to keep a high level of discusion. For years the F1 PU threads here on F1technical have been the place to go to to gain a deeper understanding of the current units and how they're designed and operated by the different manufacturers. Lately though, discussions have been going in circles, findings from the early V6 years have been forgotton, facts are being ignored, new people have entered the discussion, people have been stubbern and speculation has been wild.

The level of factually incorrect or misleading information filling those threads - the Ferrari and Honda PU threads in particular - have been way too high making having a meaningful discussion hard. I think the admins here on this site could do a better job to sort out the plain-wrong comments from the actual discussion and steer the conversation somewhat. A condition for this is obviously having admins who have a solid understanding themselves, although I have no doubt there are a couple of those around.

[turbof1]

Misleading/incorrect information on f1 websites

Good thing that most articles here on F1technical hold a much higher standard than those on some of the more famous sites.

However, might I suggest that the forums on this site need further continues work, policing if you like, to keep a high level of discusion. For years the F1 PU threads here on F1technical have been the place to go to to gain a deeper understanding of the current units and how they're designed and operated by the different manufacturers. Lately though, discussions have been going in circles, findings from the early V6 years have been forgotton, facts are being ignored, new people have entered the discussion, people have been stubbern and speculation has been wild.

The level of factually incorrect or misleading information filling those threads - the Ferrari and Honda PU threads in particular - have been way too high making having a meaningful discussion hard. I think the admins here on this site could do a better job to sort out the plain-wrong comments from the actual discussion and steer the conversation somewhat. A condition for this is obviously having admins who have a solid understanding themselves, although I have no doubt there are a couple of those around.

We are working hard on breaking the discussion going in circles. Part of that is getting awareness around that the official f1 website does not always spread correct information (or none-simplified). Just removing and constantly interfering in the discussions is not getting the misconceptions away; we first need to set a proper base. We have quite a few ideas how to work on that.

[subcritical71]

I for one am not surprised. The ONLY source should be the regulations, full stop. Not marketing websites, not even the F1 website, which is not a technical website. It exists to market their product. The FIA should be the only source for clarification. As I think it was henry that mentioned before, even if you believe the 4MJ is the maximum, the marketing fluff does not make sense when you factor in the 95% efficiency assumed for the MGU-K. Because then the MGU-K is really using approx. 126kW -> 0.126 MJ/s -> 31.75 seconds max deployment, not 33.33333.

But that's why we have this technical forum which have people who can think critically about what is said in the media and not believe it hook, line, and sinker.

[turbof1]

But that's why we have this technical forum which have people who can think critically about what is said in the media and not believe it hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, but not everybody who joins here starts at that level. I myself have no engineering background, academic or professional. It took a while before I reached the same critical thinking here and only after I picked things up from others. Anybody who joins here without knowing a decent reference, might see the official f1 website as a credible source.

Regarding the 95% efficiency factor: even I forget about that most of the time . But you are of course correct.

Therefore the following:
We are planning to write a reference article compiling the information we gathered about Power Units, regarding fuel, energy flow, etc. I'll be contacting members myself to see who wants to help out with this, but anybody who feels he or she can contribute, is free send me a personal message. The main goal is getting a factual piece together which approximates what's going on with current power units. Goal is first to see who is interested in helping out, and then get everyone together for a team chat. Proper credit will of course be given; the contributors can choose to get credit under their actual name or their forum username.