51 replies to this topic

[DrFurby]

Just a newbie question comes to my mind.  Wouldn't have been better for the sport just to set a limit for MGU-H recovered energy similar to the one for the MGU-K?

 

If you have a look at the whole picture, it seems like pretty much the difference in performance from the PU's is substantially related to the energy recovery stuff.  From my point of view, limiting the MGU-H would have significantly closed the performance gap among everyone. Then, you could eventually open up the limit progressively as the technology is better understood and mature, giving time for everyone to catch up.

 

My point is that this doesn't contradict the technological changes that may be needed from time to time in F1.

 

However, things as such done, one could believe that some people in F1 have a hidden agenda not related in anyway to the sport benefits but, actually, to pure economical dark interests. This people may live off creating a permanent technological imbalance, thus the need for regular changes in the regulations. They may be selling influences behind the scenes a la FIFA. Who knows, maybe one day we'll hear of them in the news, in a corruption scandal.

 

Waiting for your thoughts.

 

Best Regards  .

[OO7]

Welcome to the forum DrFurby.

 

Limiting MGU-H would close the field, however I believe there is still a lot of scope for the others to develop in this area, so in my opinion it doesn't need to change.

Edited by OO7, 07 December 2015 - 19:46.

[Wuzak]

Renault and Ferrari are said to have ERS as good as Mercedes'.

 

So little difference there.

 

Renault are down on ICE power, which also affects MGUH recovery potential.

[FPV GTHO]

I don't agree. Sometimes I wish the MGUK wasn't limited to 2KJ.

It came up during Spa that Renaults MGUK was working better than the others, which was helping Red Bulls pace despite the engine dependant circuit layout.

Maybe if Renault were able to harvest more kinetic energy to make up their 4KJ bank, they would be more competitive.

The FIA probably limited the MGUK to drive development into the MGUH however

Edited by FPV GTHO, 08 December 2015 - 01:11.

[Wuzak]

I don't agree. Sometimes I wish the MGUK wasn't limited to 2KJ.

It came up during Spa that Renaults MGUK was working better than the others, which was helping Red Bulls pace despite the engine dependant circuit layout.

Maybe if Renault were able to harvest more kinetic energy to make up their 4KJ bank, they would be more competitive.

The FIA probably limited the MGUK to drive development into the MGUH however

 

The problem is that the would struggle to harvest more than 2MJ on almost all of the circuits.

 

To get the 2MJ now they have to lift and coast at the end of the straights. 

 

I believe that when you see the light flashing at the end of the straight that is the MGUH feeding the ES instead of the MGUK. That is used to top up the ES to its allowed 4MJ.

[FPV GTHO]

It's a big ask but if someone like Honda can generate 2.2KJ a lap instead of 2KJ, given they clearly couldn't top up the rest through the MGUH, that's an extra 200J they can deploy on the straights.

[zztopless1]

I'd like to see them go the other way and remove the power limit on the mgu-k while keeping energy transfer between the mgu-h and mgu-k unlimited.

Edited by zztopless1, 09 December 2015 - 10:01.

[senna da silva]

I'd like to see them go the other way and remove the power limit on the mgu-k while keeping energy transfer between the mgu-h to mgu-k unlimited.

 

Agreed. Energy recovery is where I would like to see them compete and push the technology forward.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Agreed. Energy recovery is where I would like to see them compete and push the technology forward.

 

I'd like to see them go the other way and remove the power limit on the mgu-k while keeping energy transfer between the mgu-h to mgu-k unlimited.

A very big +1 from me...(or is it a +2?)

[Jon83]

Just get rid of it completely.

[Fatgadget]

Just get rid of it completely.

Why? It's the most clever bit about these engines!

[FerrariV12]

+3

 

I'd like to see them be allowed to deploy as much as they can harvest and I've felt as much since 2009

[Wes350]

I would ban the MGU-H From being allowed to spool the turbo. Make it harvest only.

And then allow unlimited energy deployment. I think it would simplify things on the engineering side and might even help a bit with the sound.

[BRG]

Isn't Porsche harvesting 8MJ in the WEC?  How come F1 is so far behind the curve?  Pineapple of technology once again....

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

I'd like to see them go the other way and remove the power limit on the mgu-k while keeping energy transfer between the mgu-h to mgu-k unlimited.

 

That's not enough. The best formula for the sport and for the manufacturers would be to reduce the minimum weight to 600kg. No refuelling, but also no fuel flow limit, no total race fuel consumption limit.

 

Every team can decide if it uses energy recovery(which is unlimited in terms of power and total energy amount) or not.

 

We would have

- 600kg cars with no electric power

- 600kg cars with a small amount of electric power

- 610kg cars with more electric power

.

.

.

- 700kg cars with a lot of electric power

 

The FIA would publish the amount of fuel consumed and electric energy recovered for every car after each race. One can only dream...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I would ban the MGU-H From being allowed to spool the turbo. Make it harvest only.

And then allow unlimited energy deployment. I think it would simplify things on the engineering side and might even help a bit with the sound.

Disagree with that as being able to spool the turbo should be a big help to the everyday small cc turbo car...

[jure]

That's not enough. The best formula for the sport and for the manufacturers would be to reduce the minimum weight to 600kg. No refuelling, but also no fuel flow limit, no total race fuel consumption limit.

 

Every team can decide if it uses energy recovery(which is unlimited in terms of power and total energy amount) or not.

 

We would have

- 600kg cars with no electric power

- 600kg cars with a small amount of electric power

- 610kg cars with more electric power

.

.

.

- 700kg cars with a lot of electric power

 

The FIA would publish the amount of fuel consumed and electric energy recovered for every car after each race. One can only dream...

No fuel flow limit will cause engines to have in excess of 1000hp. Nobody would run energy recovery since additional horsepower wouldn't be noticeable. As absolute power increases further gains are less and less effective due to other constraints (aero, tyres,..).

 

I think they should unfreeze battery size / weight restrictions and mgu-k energy deployment. I would impose additional constraints on fuel used. It should resemble fuel used in ordinary cars.

Edited by jure, 08 December 2015 - 18:55.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I would ban the MGU-H From being allowed to spool the turbo. Make it harvest only.

And then allow unlimited energy deployment. I think it would simplify things on the engineering side and might even help a bit with the sound.

Personally the problem with the sound is the "noise" is all wasted engine and in this hybrid generation you want as little noise as possible as you want to work the exhaust gases to the maximum to get as much power into the MGU-K...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 08 December 2015 - 19:05.

[PiperPa42]

Isn't Porsche harvesting 8MJ in the WEC?  How come F1 is so far behind the curve?  Pineapple of technology once again....

They are allowed to release up to 8MJ at Le Mans. On the smaller circuits the amount is scaled down.

Here is the quote from appendix B, page 52
 

 

The amount of releasable energy per lap will be limited in the proportion of length of circuit relative to the length of Le Mans circuit multiplied by factor 1.55​

http://www.fia.com/s... 19.12.2014.pdf

By my calculations it's 6,37 MJ for Spa and 5,36MJ for Silverstone, but i seem to remember the commentators talking about the teams not being able to harvest that much energy, I might be wrong though.

/Lars

[FPV GTHO]

I would ban the MGU-H From being allowed to spool the turbo. Make it harvest only.

And then allow unlimited energy deployment. I think it would simplify things on the engineering side and might even help a bit with the sound.

If you did that, the turbo would have to be smaller to spoil quicker and in turn would produce less excess boost that could be harvested instead of wasted through a wastegate.

[Wes350]

If you did that, the turbo would have to be smaller to spoil quicker and in turn would produce less excess boost that could be harvested instead of wasted through a wastegate.

Just out of curiosity what if the MGU-H was'nt allowed to be attached to the turbo but could be attached to anywhere else on the drivetrain?

Edited by Wes350, 09 December 2015 - 03:17.

[FPV GTHO]

Then it would be an MGUK.

[V8 Fireworks]

Disagree with that as being able to spool the turbo should be a big help to the everyday small cc turbo car...

 

Small cc turbo cars are stupid.

 

I will stick to my 2000cc thank you very much. 

[V8 Fireworks]

 Nobody would run energy recovery since additional horsepower wouldn't be noticeable. 

 

Energy recovery is a waste of time!!?  What?  I am shocked!!   

 

[Victor_RO]

Just out of curiosity what if the MGU-H was'nt allowed to be attached to the turbo but could be attached to anywhere else on the drivetrain?

 

That's what Porsche did on the 919, the MGU-H is harvest-only and linked to a turbine that is downstream of the turbo in the exhaust.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Small cc turbo cars are stupid.

I will stick to my 2000cc thank you very much.

Lol! I just knew you would disagree V8firework!

[quaint]

That's not enough. The best formula for the sport and for the manufacturers would be to reduce the minimum weight to 600kg. No refuelling, but also no fuel flow limit, no total race fuel consumption limit.

 

Every team can decide if it uses energy recovery(which is unlimited in terms of power and total energy amount) or not.

 

We would have

- 600kg cars with no electric power

- 600kg cars with a small amount of electric power

- 610kg cars with more electric power

.

.

.

- 700kg cars with a lot of electric power

 

The FIA would publish the amount of fuel consumed and electric energy recovered for every car after each race. One can only dream...

 

600 kg (incl. driver) sounds good, but I think F1 should be pushing the boundaries more. I'd start at 550 kg including the driver.

Edited by quaint, 09 December 2015 - 07:29.

[Wuzak]

600 kg (incl. driver) sounds good, but I think F1 should be pushing the boundaries more. I'd start at 550 kg including the driver.

 

You start to push the boundaries of the safety of the cars and the ability of the smaller teams to build such a chassis. The extra weight loss would come at a cost.

 

before 1988 teh cars were weighed at 500kg without the driver, for 1988 the turbo cars were weighed at 540kg.

[JeePee]

Small cc turbo cars are stupid.

 

I will stick to my 2000cc thank you very much. 

As much as I think F1 cars should be screaming monsters, I very much like my 211 bhp small 1.6 turbo under the hood of my car, which is probably more powerful than your 2 liter while doing 1:18 if I want to.

[jure]

Energy recovery is a waste of time!!?  What?  I am shocked!!   

 

I never said that. If you increase the power from 600hp to 760hp (or more if allowed) thanks to energy recovery it's something else than if you increase power from 1200hp to 1400hp. In the latter case time gained will be significantly smaller. Besides, electrical part makes it harder to package the engine, center of gravity gets worse and you corner slower and thus you waste recovered energy on corner exit for additional acceleration, consequently destroying tyres,.... I'm only saying this in response to thegforcemaybewithyou  proposal. Otherwise I think that energy recovery is very good concept., there are just some limitations that I personally don't like.

Edited by jure, 09 December 2015 - 09:58.

[jure]

600 kg (incl. driver) sounds good, but I think F1 should be pushing the boundaries more. I'd start at 550 kg including the driver.

The more you push the boundaries the bigger advantage of those who have huge budget will be. It's inevitable. Technology is complicated and requires time, money and workforce. Teams with huge budgets sooner or latter purchase best engineers, best equipment and together with almost unlimited budget you get Merceeds - like domination. 

[DrFurby]

The more you push the boundaries the bigger advantage of those who have huge budget will be. It's inevitable. Technology is complicated and requires time, money and workforce. Teams with huge budgets sooner or latter purchase best engineers, best equipment and together with almost unlimited budget you get Merceeds - like domination. 

 

Then wouldn't be better for the sport to limit things like the MGU-H? I mean, isn't just throwing the magical word "unlimited" somewhere in the regulations paving the road for domination and abuse? I don't see any befinit, audience-side, from allowing unlimited recovery from the MGU-H. It will certainly increase technology development speed but will also increase the field gap. It makes more sense to me to slow down tech development a bit and maintaning a more tight ecosystem 

[itsademo]

600 kg (incl. driver) sounds good, but I think F1 should be pushing the boundaries more. I'd start at 550 kg including the driver.

You do realise the minimum weight was increased for driver safety (and other reasons) dont you?

Or would people like to go back to the noughties when drivers were being forced to lose as many pounds and ounces as possible as they are the cheapest way of reducing weight c/w drivers collapsing after races finish.

 

FYI Rosburgs take on the idea of making drivers shed weight

which is what this idea would make happen

 

 

Rosberg expresses weight loss concerns

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/75111

 

[quaint]

You do realise the minimum weight was increased for driver safety (and other reasons) dont you?

Or would people like to go back to the noughties when drivers were being forced to lose as many pounds and ounces as possible as they are the cheapest way of reducing weight c/w drivers collapsing after races finish.

 

FYI Rosburgs take on the idea of making drivers shed weight

which is what this idea would make happen

 

It is a sport.

[jure]

Then wouldn't be better for the sport to limit things like the MGU-H? I mean, isn't just throwing the magical word "unlimited" somewhere in the regulations paving the road for domination and abuse? I don't see any befinit, audience-side, from allowing unlimited recovery from the MGU-H. It will certainly increase technology development speed but will also increase the field gap. It makes more sense to me to slow down tech development a bit and maintaning a more tight ecosystem 

This it true, however, I think energy recovery is becoming more and more relevant for road cars. Technology, which potentially contributes to road car development, should be developed.  I think that right now there is too much emphasis on ICE. Everyone is looking for better fuel and optimizing their ICE for that fuel - which is F1 specific project. In real life, no one is going to sell you a car which will consume 1L/100km and produce some amazing hp, but you will have to use special fuel otherwise the engine will be total piece of crap. On the other hand very good energy recovery system is more (not totally) independent of fuel used and can greatly enhance power and consumption. 

I would like to see that focus of development shifts from ICE and fuel to the electrical part of PU. I think this could quite easily be achieved by setting harsh fuel restrictions. This way we would still have some differences in ICE performance, but ERS would be the main differentiator in performance and consumption.

[quaint]

This it true, however, I think energy recovery is becoming more and more relevant for road cars. Technology, which potentially contributes to road car development, should be developed.  I think that right now there is too much emphasis on ICE. Everyone is looking for better fuel and optimizing their ICE for that fuel - which is F1 specific project. In real life, no one is going to sell you a car which will consume 1L/100km and produce some amazing hp, but you will have to use special fuel otherwise the engine will be total piece of crap. On the other hand very good energy recovery system is more (not totally) independent of fuel used and can greatly enhance power and consumption. 

I would like to see that focus of development shifts from ICE and fuel to the electrical part of PU. I think this could quite easily be achieved by setting harsh fuel restrictions. This way we would still have some differences in ICE performance, but ERS would be the main differentiator in performance and consumption.

 

F1 cars “recover” energy in situations which normal road cars never see. Trying to fit prototype racing into an irrelevant mould is beyond stupid.

[jure]

F1 cars “recover” energy in situations which normal road cars never see. Trying to fit prototype racing into an irrelevant mould is beyond stupid.

Why is there so much talk about road relevance then?  Why do they even use hybrids? They should just stick to v8 or v10. They are cheaper, simpler and louder.

[Crossmax]

600 kg (incl. driver) sounds good, but I think F1 should be pushing the boundaries more. I'd start at 550 kg including the driver.

Why? So that lighter drivers will have a bigger advantage over heavier ones? That was the main reason the limit was increased, and at least in my view that was a sensible decision.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Why? So that lighter drivers will have a bigger advantage over heavier ones? That was the main reason the limit was increased, and at least in my view that was a sensible decision.

 

Just do what Indycar does http://www.indycar.c...hSpecifications

 

"14.3.2.1. Driver Equivalency Weight will be required to bring the combined weight of Driver and Driver ballast to 185lbs. The Driver ballast weight tolerance is - 0 to + 1.00lbs. INDYCAR reserves the right to weigh any Driver at any time and adjust Driver ballast accordingly."

 

Problem solved!

[itsademo]

F1 cars “recover” energy in situations which normal road cars never see. Trying to fit prototype racing into an irrelevant mould is beyond stupid.

so which of the accelerate, coast, brake and turn situations dont all cars see? 

Its only the amounts of energy over time involved that are different 

and if you cant see what is now being used for road going cars like the McLaren and Porshce hybrid road going cars (developed in F1) and how in the future it will become more main stream.

Isnt that your lack of vision not a lack of a great reason the teams want to be using these techs?

[DrFurby]

Why is there so much talk about road relevance then?  Why do they even use hybrids? They should just stick to v8 or v10. They are cheaper, simpler and louder.

 

Actually, if you have a look, let's say, a Prius, it doesn't even have a turbo. A Prius, a road relevant car for that matter,  doesn't recover energy while at full throttle on a straight road. It certainly could if you mount a turbo and a MGU-H system on it, but it would make no sense. Essentially, you would be adding a lot of extra cost just to recover some energy 0,05% of the time, which could be easily offset by weight and other factors. 

 

A F1 is a pure workhorse wasting lots of energy through the turbo's wastegate while being driven in a ridiculous NON-GREEN way     

 

PS. if the MGU-H would be road-car relevant, wouldn't have any of the important car manufacturers come with a solution for production cars? 

Edited by DrFurby, 10 December 2015 - 19:46.

[jure]

Actually, if you have a look, let's say, a Prius, it doesn't even have a turbo. A Prius, a road relevant car for that matter,  doesn't recover energy while at full throttle on a straight road. It certainly could if you mount a turbo and a MGU-H system on it, but it would make no sense. Essentially, you would be adding a lot of extra cost just to recover some energy 0,05% of the time, which could be easily offset by weight and other factors. 

 

A F1 is a pure workhorse wasting lots of energy through the turbo's wastegate while being driven in a ridiculous NON-GREEN way     

 

PS. if the MGU-H would be road-car relevant, wouldn't have any of the important car manufacturers come with a solution for production cars? 

I hope they will in future. Technology is currently very undeveloped (it seems).  Every technology is expensive at start. When the parts become more common, they come down in price. Engines used to be without turbo, then turbo came, now biturbo is common, while some even mount 3 or 4 turbos. What are your expectations for the future? Batteries and electric motors? Fine, but some recovery systems to at least recover braking energy would still be welcome. I think batteries to enable 1000km range will still be either heavy or expensive in near future. Also recharging such batteries is probably not a matter of minutes. An alternative to fully electric cars (engines) are small turbo engines with recovery systems and some not to large battery. If you do not want to go fully electric, while still increase efficiency, this is the only way I see. 

 

Why did Mercedes and Renault even threaten to quit if such engines are not road relevant?  If this is the case, they are just throwing money out of window. If v8 engines stayed, Renault would be a front runner now, as would Mercedes.

 

Besides, why are there still only TFT screens in cars costing 30000 eur, while you can buy a phone with amoled for 300eur. Why is there no capable computer in car, when I can build very capable using an intel i3 and consuming less than 200w for 300eur (or even less)?,... To me it seems manufacturers are serving us yesterdays technology.

Edited by jure, 10 December 2015 - 21:37.

[Wuzak]

 if the MGU-H would be road-car relevant, wouldn't have any of the important car manufacturers come with a solution for production cars? 

 

http://jalopnik.com/...r-end-turbo-lag

[DrFurby]

I hope they will in future. Technology is currently very undeveloped (it seems).  Every technology is expensive at start. When the parts become more common, they come down in price. Engines used to be without turbo, then turbo came, now biturbo is common, while some even mount 3 or 4 turbos. What are your expectations for the future? Batteries and electric motors? Fine, but some recovery systems to at least recover braking energy would still be welcome. I think batteries to enable 1000km range will still be either heavy or expensive in near future. Also recharging such batteries is probably not a matter of minutes. An alternative to fully electric cars (engines) are small turbo engines with recovery systems and some not to large battery. If you do not want to go fully electric, while still increase efficiency, this is the only way I see. 

 

Why did Mercedes and Renault even threaten to quit if such engines are not road relevant?  If this is the case, they are just throwing money out of window. If v8 engines stayed, Renault would be a front runner now, as would Mercedes.

 

Besides, why are there still only TFT screens in cars costing 30000 eur, while you can buy a phone with amoled for 300eur. Why is there no capable computer in car, when I can build very capable using an intel i3 and consuming less than 200w for 300eur (or even less)?,... To me it seems manufacturers are serving us yesterdays technology.

 

For the most part, they are spending a lot of money in things that are never going to be road relevant. For example, open cockpit, open wheels, wings, carbon brakes, slick tyres... For example, in the case of carbon brakes, certainly it's an option for high end sport cars but will probable never make it into the common car. The reason is that sport is sport and street is street. Actually, I don't really get why are trying to mix two things on different sides of the spectrum. If they really wanted to be road relevant, they should start by some more common sense things like closed wheels (which would be more eco-friendly too).

 

Even MGU-H becomes cheap in the future, the problem is that a common car would never be driven in the same way than a F1. That's specially true if we consider that pollution regulations are becoming more and more tight and almost no one (except Top Gear) who owns a Prius would drive it in the same way.

 

But even if you're right and MGU-H eventually makes it into the mainstream,  is it really worth damaging F1 as a sport for the sake of tech? As far as I know, there's something similar in the Porsche Lemans prototype and this technology could be developed elsewhere 

Edited by DrFurby, 10 December 2015 - 22:14.

[DrFurby]

http://jalopnik.com/...r-end-turbo-lag

 

Not sure if this point is valid for you or for me, as you're precisely citing a manufacturer that is developing that tech outside of F1, which is exactly my point: you don't need to screw up F1 in order for someone to develop anything if it is relevant for road cars (not counting that it seems it's not even for energy recover but for turbo lag only, which is a classic problem). 

Edited by DrFurby, 10 December 2015 - 22:20.

[senna da silva]

Not sure if this point is valid for you or for me, as you're precisely citing a manufacturer that is developing that tech outside of F1, which is exactly my point: you don't need to screw up F1 in order for someone to develop anything if it is relevant for road cars (not counting that it seems it's not even for energy recover but for turbo lag only, which is a classic problem). 

 

Understanding the potential of the MGU-H is key. An ICE is only 33% efficient approx. another 33% is lost to heat, noise etc. If we can harness that energy into a PU the relevancy isn't just for F1 and roadcars it's relevant to all engines.There is a huge upside to the development of the MGU-H with respect to getting all of the power from the fuel. I'm not sure how developing the MGU-H in F1 is going to "screw up the sport", quite the opposite in my opinion.

[FPV GTHO]

I think the end game on MGUH development is a permanent feed of energy straight to the MGUK, which is unlimited by the rules. Then you can use your energy store to keep the compressor up to speed.

[Ferrari2183]

Why is there so much talk about road relevance then?  Why do they even use hybrids? They should just stick to v8 or v10. They are cheaper, simpler and louder.

Because it's a red herring. The move was made purely to shake up the competitive standing.

 

Mercedes new exactly what they were doing... Renault not so much when they demanded these engines.

[MrMan]

 

 

Besides, why are there still only TFT screens in cars costing 30000 eur, while you can buy a phone with amoled for 300eur. Why is there no capable computer in car, when I can build very capable using an intel i3 and consuming less than 200w for 300eur (or even less)?,... To me it seems manufacturers are serving us yesterdays technology.

 

Because 200W at 12V is a constant current consumption of 16A, for a 2 hour race that would require at the very minimum a heavy 32Ah battery. I could go on about this, but a PC in the sense you are talking about is not an efficient use of resources, especially in something like F1.

[jure]

Because 200W at 12V is a constant current consumption of 16A, for a 2 hour race that would require at the very minimum a heavy 32Ah battery. I could go on about this, but a PC in the sense you are talking about is not an efficient use of resources, especially in something like F1.

I didn't mean for f1. I just wanted to demonstrate that we are not nearly getting the technology we could in cars, even if it costs just a small fraction of what a whole car does .