Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Power of hybrid Power Units


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 November 2015 - 13:31

There have been lots of suggestions as to how much power the current ICE can produce on 100kg/h fuel flow rate.

 

One number I have seen a few times is ~700hp for the Mercedes ICE, without help from the MGUK. So an all up figure of 860hp.

 

Andy Cowell mentioned not long ago that the potential power from the fuel was 1240kW, 

 

That would mean his fuel has 44.6MJ/kg and that his ICE is 42% efficient.

 

It has also been suggested that Mercedes and Ferrari are pushing up to 45% efficiencies for their ICE, 

 

Based on the fuel value, that would mean 748hp for the ICE and over 900hp total. 

 

Do you think these sort of efficiency numbers are feasible for these engines?



Advertisement

#2 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 November 2015 - 14:56

The tender for the client engines hints to these power and efficiency numbers as it demands a power output of at least 640kW or ~870hp(860bhp).

 

 

Edit: Based on the top speeds at Monza during qualifying (370km/h V10 vs 355km/h V6) the V6 should produce about

 

(355/370)³ * 950hp = 839hp

 

if cdA and ambient conditions are similar. But is cdA really similar with DRS?


Edited by thegforcemaybewithyou, 24 November 2015 - 15:29.


#3 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 November 2015 - 21:53

The tender for the client engines hints to these power and efficiency numbers as it demands a power output of at least 640kW or ~870hp(860bhp).

 

 

Edit: Based on the top speeds at Monza during qualifying (370km/h V10 vs 355km/h V6) the V6 should produce about

 

(355/370)³ * 950hp = 839hp

 

if cdA and ambient conditions are similar. But is cdA really similar with DRS?

 

The V10s that managed 370km/h ran very skinny wings. So drag should be similar, even with DRS.



#4 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 November 2015 - 04:32

A BTE of 42% at the rear wheels is very impressive for a small displacement, high-rpm otto cycle engine, if true.



#5 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 November 2015 - 06:22

I don't think there is much question that Mercedes and Ferrari are now at that level (and probably higher).

 

Don't forget, the Honda RA168e was at 32%. That was 30 years ago with no turbine recovery, no DI and an airflow-limited formula. (Race fuel was limited but power was essentially limited by displacement/boost.)



#6 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 25 November 2015 - 14:29

is my idea of testing the gas motors power on the grid

and allowing extra electric power to equalize the total power

practical or possible if  agreed to [ a big problem]

 

if M B makes the quoted 700 hp

and the red bull unit say 650 hp

simply allow red bull 50 extra electric hp



#7 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 25 November 2015 - 21:08

How much do the ICE and "other bits" work together? Obviously in harmony, but...

 

Could you not have a combo of these new engine rules the FIA are musing? Have a standard 2.whatever-it-was litre V6 underneath, kind of a spec motor. But then the OEMs(or tuners) add their own turbos and hybrid systems? Because the hybrid bit is where a lot of the work/money is, and the appeal; so the manufacturers can take that hit. 



#8 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,343 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 25 November 2015 - 22:13

It's so obvious!  Small block Chevys.



#9 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 25 November 2015 - 22:50

And beam axles!

#10 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 November 2015 - 01:11

is my idea of testing the gas motors power on the grid

and allowing extra electric power to equalize the total power

practical or possible if  agreed to [ a big problem]

 

if M B makes the quoted 700 hp

and the red bull unit say 650 hp

simply allow red bull 50 extra electric hp

So why bother with all the R&D, billions spent etc if everyone is gifted equal power in the end? Might as well start with a spec formula and $100K SBC's that last a whole season. Change the name to F-5000 perhaps?



#11 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 November 2015 - 01:13

It's so obvious!  Small block Chevys.

 

I'm floating it as a semi serious idea. There's so many common/shared parts across the automobile industry, and the ICE isn't the interesting bit these days.



#12 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2015 - 00:58

Andy Cowell has claimed that the V6T hybrids are as powerful as the V10s:

“If [you] just look at the internal combustion engine, then today’s V6 1.6 litre turbo-charged engine is approximately the same power as the V8 engine was.
 
“Both of those ran a hybrid system and if you add the KERS system onto the V8 and the ERS system onto the V6, and look at their maximum power values, then today’s V6 with ERS is 10 per cent more powerful than we had with the V8 and the KERS system.
 
“The ERS system is available for the majority of the lap; the KERS system was only available for 6.7 seconds of the lap, so in terms of laptime, impact of the V6 and ERS, is significantly greater than we had with the V8 and KERS system.”
 
Cowell added that the current V6 power units are now producing more power than the V10 engines, which were last used in F1 in 2005 and hold most of the lap records at circuits still on the calendar from that era, and are almost twice as efficient.
 
He said: “If you look at the total power that we’ve got today and compare it with the V10, and the last few races of the V10 era, we have more power than we had at the end of the V10 era.
 
“If you look at the fuel flow rate of the V10 era, it was over 190kgs an hour, 194kgs an hour, and today we’re at 100kgs an hour. [It’s] the same power, [with] about half the fuel flow rate, which is a phenomenal change in terms of efficiency of the power unit, as we now call it.”
 
 
So ~ 750hp for the ICE plus 160hp = ~910hp!
 
750hp would represent an ICE efficiency of 45%


#13 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,730 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 28 November 2015 - 05:20

When people talk about "small block Chevies"  these days does this refer to the old-style cast iron block type of engine or the newer   "LS"  all aluminium variety of engine?   Or are both types of engine regarded as "SBC"?    



#14 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,036 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 November 2015 - 23:30

And beam axles!

It has been done for decades, that is called Sprintcar racing. 

Though that is far less exciting these days too with slick dusty tracks and using about 400 of the 800hp.

Though I still [occasionally] pay to go watch. I was offered free tickets to Melbourne GP this year and knocked them back.



#15 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 29 November 2015 - 06:05

When people talk about "small block Chevies" these days does this refer to the old-style cast iron block type of engine or the newer "LS" all aluminium variety of engine? Or are both types of engine regarded as "SBC"?

The folks on the Hot Rod Drag Week tour have a specific displacement limit (which I've forgotten) that is the "small block" cutoff for the early and late styles. You can't run a 427 LS motor in the small block classes.

#16 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 29 November 2015 - 21:20

When people talk about "small block Chevies"  these days does this refer to the old-style cast iron block type of engine or the newer   "LS"  all aluminium variety of engine?   Or are both types of engine regarded as "SBC"?    

the original mouse motor of 1955 is the base "small block Chevies"

 

my rule is if it fits it is one

and none of the major LSx bits fit a mouse's or the other way around

 

but as with too many things

there are iron block LS-1 motors

and alloy block mouse motors



#17 Pierce89

Pierce89
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 22 December 2015 - 03:30

So why bother with all the R&D, billions spent etc if everyone is gifted equal power in the end? Might as well start with a spec formula and $100K SBC's that last a whole season. Change the name to F-5000 perhaps?


You caN get 650 hp for a full season of oval track racing for 20k in a SBC, so I doubt it would "require" 100k if we're gonna run f5000. Actually it would be damn sweet. I would kill for a series running ~3 yr old f1 cars but with SBC power.

Edited by Pierce89, 22 December 2015 - 03:34.


#18 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,349 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 December 2015 - 04:33

Isn't that basically the old F5000 or Tasman series (which were great)?



#19 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 December 2015 - 23:03

You caN get 650 hp for a full season of oval track racing for 20k in a SBC, so I doubt it would "require" 100k if we're gonna run f5000. Actually it would be damn sweet. I would kill for a series running ~3 yr old f1 cars but with SBC power.

You would need 800 hp and a "proper" lightweight race engine that will turn left, right and stop at 5G.



Advertisement

#20 Pierce89

Pierce89
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 26 December 2015 - 04:21

You would need 800 hp and a "proper" lightweight race engine that will turn left, right and stop at 5G.

So.. a dry sump Nascar motor? I meant a real aluminum SBC including the weight. It would certainly move the weight distribution back, but we want rude spectacular cars anyway.

#21 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 February 2016 - 00:11

Apparently Mercedes are claiming that they are getting 50% TE for 2016's PU.
 

The headline, Cowell says, is that the V6 hybrid turbo is now the most powerful F1 engine ever – even greater than the 2005 V10s that revved to 20,000rpm.
Meanwhile the technology has advanced the efficiency of engines to 50 per cent, meaning that 50 per cent of the potential power than can be derived from a unit of petrol is being converted.

 
And

Combustion is one of the key areas of this technology and one where the largest gains are to be had. The fuel limit for an F1 Grand Prix, which is 100kg, has a potential output of 1240kw of power.

 
http://www.jamesalle...f1-engine-base/
 
 
620kW is 830hp.
 
IF that is just the crankshaft power, the total including ERS would b 990hp.
 
Regarding being the most powerful ever, Cowell must be referring to Mercedes'  engines, as they did not compete in the original turbo era, some of which may have exceeded this power figure.



#22 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 February 2016 - 12:32

He's probably talking about the 50% than the HP figures. Of which we know so much turbo era was anecdote inflation.

#23 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 February 2016 - 12:33

You guys forgot to add the higher weight of the cars. They also have more rubber (no groves) so they might come out of the slow corners faster than the old cars. All im saying is that it is hard to compare.


Edited by MatsNorway, 06 February 2016 - 12:34.


#24 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 183 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 06 February 2016 - 14:46

Assuming they're referring to crankshaft power, is there any reason these higher efficiencies couldn't have been achieved before this current fuel efficiency era?

In other words, are the increases due to a change in design philosophy driven by the nature of the current regs, or is it technological (e.g. advances in material science, advances in combustion chamber design), or a bit of everything?



#25 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 February 2016 - 15:04

I've always wondered about that kind of stuff. Because they played with exhaust blown diffusers in the 80s and 90s, then seemingly gave up on them, then 2010 they were suddenly like "you know..." and you wonder why they didn't do it before. 


Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 06 February 2016 - 15:05.


#26 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 February 2016 - 15:58

I've always wondered about that kind of stuff. Because they played with exhaust blown diffusers in the 80s and 90s, then seemingly gave up on them, then 2010 they were suddenly like "you know..." and you wonder why they didn't do it before. 

 

Ferrari moved away from exhaust blown diffusers in the '90s because it made the cars less predictable for the driver. Hence they started using top mounted exhausts.

 

By 2010 the engineers were using the engine to blow the diffuser even if the driver was off the throttle. 



#27 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 February 2016 - 16:02

Assuming they're referring to crankshaft power, is there any reason these higher efficiencies couldn't have been achieved before this current fuel efficiency era?

In other words, are the increases due to a change in design philosophy driven by the nature of the current regs, or is it technological (e.g. advances in material science, advances in combustion chamber design), or a bit of everything?

 

I think the smaller engine size and turbo helps. Also the lower rpm - the V8s and V10s before needed lots of rpm to make the power.

 

The high rpm required big bores (limited to 98mm on the V8s) and short strokes (<40mm) which would have an adverse effect on the combustion chamber and more surface are for heat loss to the coolant. 

 

In contrast the V6s have an 80mm bore and 53mm stroke.



#28 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 February 2016 - 17:36

Makes you wonder what they could achieve if they had not quite as many rules.

 

If i where to remove only one i would take away the ramping of the fuel flow. That alone would do decent on fuel efficiency.

 

Hehe. im imagining enviromentalists protesting for more open rules to make them more efficient..


Edited by MatsNorway, 06 February 2016 - 17:37.


#29 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 February 2016 - 17:59

Ferrari moved away from exhaust blown diffusers in the '90s because it made the cars less predictable for the driver. Hence they started using top mounted exhausts.

 

By 2010 the engineers were using the engine to blow the diffuser even if the driver was off the throttle. 

 

Was the gain in electronics/code that much in that period? We're talking late 90s, not late 70s.



#30 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 February 2016 - 21:34

In the late 90s, you were not walking around with a device less than 10mm thick capable of accessing satellites, with more than enough power to launch their own satellites, connected to a vast Web containing more knowledge than has ever been compiled in the history of man, that we use to watch funny cat videos and argue with strangers about nothing. I'd say there's been all sorts of technological developments.

#31 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 February 2016 - 22:19

Makes you wonder what they could achieve if they had not quite as many rules.

 

If i where to remove only one i would take away the ramping of the fuel flow. That alone would do decent on fuel efficiency.

 

Hehe. im imagining enviromentalists protesting for more open rules to make them more efficient..

 

I'd argue that it is the fuel flow regulation that is driving the efficiency gains.

 

Drop them and keep the race fuel limit and you will end up with more fuel saving races.

 

I would take away the race fuel limit and allow them to race harder. They will have to amend the limit if the cars are going to be significantly faster next year.



#32 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 February 2016 - 22:30

Read my post again. Im not against fuel flow, i like it very much.

Having a fuel flow variable by rpm does probably hurt efficiency a tiny bit. It is an artifical "make the engines rev a bit rule"

 

Would be cool with no fuel capasity limit as you say tho.


Edited by MatsNorway, 06 February 2016 - 22:31.


#33 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 February 2016 - 22:43

In the late 90s, you were not walking around with a device less than 10mm thick capable of accessing satellites, with more than enough power to launch their own satellites, connected to a vast Web containing more knowledge than has ever been compiled in the history of man, that we use to watch funny cat videos and argue with strangers about nothing. I'd say there's been all sorts of technological developments.

 

Is that mostly down to hardware or software? Likewise what were we missing in 1998 when periscope exhausts became fashionable that prevented 'modern' EBDs. 



#34 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 February 2016 - 22:56

It may be that the idea of controlling the engine independently of the driver to provide consistent exhaust for blowing the diffuser had not occurred to the engineering teams back then, or if it did they may have thought it of questionable legality.



#35 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 February 2016 - 23:49

I think hardware and software go hand in hand. When has the latest PC run the latest in software better than the previous best PC and concurrent software? We conceive of ideas, we push hardware to the maximum with software, develop better hardware, then better software and so on. The hardware is alway operating at or near it max shortly after its released.

#36 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 February 2016 - 13:22

But isn't this just relatively simple coding? Does a smartphone do much more than a late 90s PC can, or is it mostly far more compact hardware? 

 

I can understand earlier cars not having the GPS based lap time predictors and what not, because that would require some hardware tweaks, but this is engine management software? Surely it's refinement more than innovation. 



#37 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 February 2016 - 20:23

Some of it might be compact hardware. Phones today runs PC games of yesterday. (quake on cellphone gives several hits on YT)

 

I can't comment on engine management but i doubt its the only reason. Diffusers probably had less room to be developed etc.


Edited by MatsNorway, 07 February 2016 - 20:48.


#38 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 08 February 2016 - 17:02

Ferrari moved away from exhaust blown diffusers in the '90s because it made the cars less predictable for the driver. Hence they started using top mounted exhausts.

 

By 2010 the engineers were using the engine to blow the diffuser even if the driver was off the throttle. 

Wuzak, I was watching the 1995 Australian GP a couple of days ago and David Coulthard was being interviewed during the race.  He had retired after a rather embarrassing looking incident saw him colliding (understeering) with the pit wall on entry.

 

He said that there was a problem with the selected aero strategy on the car, that the engine (overrun?) continued to push him on.  I guess back then they couldn't blow (above off throttle power) with the exhaust valves open.



#39 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 February 2016 - 20:16

I thought the idle was too high, basically. 



Advertisement

#40 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 08 February 2016 - 20:52

I thought the idle was too high, basically. 

Yes.  I think the teams used this to tune how the exhaust blew the diffuser with the throttle pedal in the low percentage range:

https://www.youtube....I18SK94&t=2m20s

 

EDIT:

Ignore what I said.  It sounded like David said 'aero strategy' when he in fact said 'idle strategy' as you mentioned Ross.  The idle strategy is used as a form of rear wheel ABS as I understand it.  This is a least one of its functions.


Edited by OO7, 08 February 2016 - 20:58.