More engine talk!
Discussion
As this thread seems to be petering out, I would like to pose a question to anyone in the know.
At the final team principal's press conference a journalist posed the question to the effect of
What percentage of fuel saving is derived from the ERS compared to the turbo / ICE part of the engine package? The TPs all filibustered through their answers and no one gave a coherent reply.
To help illustrate the point, Nico's ERS then packed up half way through the race, but he did not run out of fuel. So it seems that ERS might provide an enhanced level of performance, but does not actually save that much fuel.
Any thoughts?
At the final team principal's press conference a journalist posed the question to the effect of
What percentage of fuel saving is derived from the ERS compared to the turbo / ICE part of the engine package? The TPs all filibustered through their answers and no one gave a coherent reply.
To help illustrate the point, Nico's ERS then packed up half way through the race, but he did not run out of fuel. So it seems that ERS might provide an enhanced level of performance, but does not actually save that much fuel.
Any thoughts?
rdjohn said:
As this thread seems to be petering out, I would like to pose a question to anyone in the know.
At the final team principal's press conference a journalist posed the question to the effect of
What percentage of fuel saving is derived from the ERS compared to the turbo / ICE part of the engine package? The TPs all filibustered through their answers and no one gave a coherent reply.
To help illustrate the point, Nico's ERS then packed up half way through the race, but he did not run out of fuel. So it seems that ERS might provide an enhanced level of performance, but does not actually save that much fuel.
Any thoughts?
Well, I'm not 'in the know per-se, but some thoughts:At the final team principal's press conference a journalist posed the question to the effect of
What percentage of fuel saving is derived from the ERS compared to the turbo / ICE part of the engine package? The TPs all filibustered through their answers and no one gave a coherent reply.
To help illustrate the point, Nico's ERS then packed up half way through the race, but he did not run out of fuel. So it seems that ERS might provide an enhanced level of performance, but does not actually save that much fuel.
Any thoughts?
Fuel efficiency *is* performance.. particularly in the new, economy formula, they are completely inter-related. The more efficient you are, the faster you can go - either by starting with less fuel (hence weight), or by being able to 'turn up' the engine more. In a nutshell, everything is fuel limited.
For Nico, of course he would get to the finish on the fuel he has, they just have to 'turn down' the performance of the car - run lean, short shift, less boost, lift and coast - whatever is needed to reduce the consumption to make it to the end. All of which will make the car slower.
Scuffers said:
Ers is limited by regs to 2Mj per lap.
Total energy store is 4Mj
So, yes, it's somewhat limited.
In order for those numbers to be meaningful you need to put that into context against the ICE part of the equation. So, for something VERY ballpark and with a bit of googling:Total energy store is 4Mj
So, yes, it's somewhat limited.
Something around 1.7-2kg/lap of fuel
Petrol is around 44.5Mj/kg
Internal combustion engines are around 30% efficient
So that's (very) approximately 26 Mj of 'fossil' energy per lap. Which means ERS is throwing in about 7-8% of the energy usage lap on lap, assuming that you can harvest enough round the lap in order to achieve that.
I think is a pretty safe assumption (remember you can cap the boost by harvesting energy from the turbo using ERS instead of opening the wastegate for instance) Total energy store only comes into the equation IF they cannot put in what they take out lap on lap. I guess there may be reasons why that would happen, but I've not heard any mention of that during the season; I figure that's more likely to do with duty cycle on the energy store.
I would expect the ERS to contribute a bit more than that in laptime, given that the energy can be used in many interesting ways, particularly to smooth out torque curves, spin up the turbo, and otherwise cover lag etc. In short it's going to give you a car that just responds more quickly, and accurately than a conventional turbocharged engine. Of course, you could turn that (hypothetical) 7% performance around and say they'd have to use 7% more 'fossil' energy to go the same speed without ERS (arguably more due to the driveability constraints).
Dunno if it's available online, but DC did a segment for the beeb where he drove the 2014 williams - he seemed quite impressed by what the new power units do
upsidedownmark said:
In order for those numbers to be meaningful you need to put that into context against the ICE part of the equation. So, for something VERY ballpark and with a bit of googling:
Something around 1.7-2kg/lap of fuel
Petrol is around 44.5Mj/kg
Internal combustion engines are around 30% efficient
So that's (very) approximately 26 Mj of 'fossil' energy per lap. Which means ERS is throwing in about 7-8% of the energy usage lap on lap, assuming that you can harvest enough round the lap in order to achieve that.
I think is a pretty safe assumption (remember you can cap the boost by harvesting energy from the turbo using ERS instead of opening the wastegate for instance) Total energy store only comes into the equation IF they cannot put in what they take out lap on lap. I guess there may be reasons why that would happen, but I've not heard any mention of that during the season; I figure that's more likely to do with duty cycle on the energy store.
I would expect the ERS to contribute a bit more than that in laptime, given that the energy can be used in many interesting ways, particularly to smooth out torque curves, spin up the turbo, and otherwise cover lag etc. In short it's going to give you a car that just responds more quickly, and accurately than a conventional turbocharged engine. Of course, you could turn that (hypothetical) 7% performance around and say they'd have to use 7% more 'fossil' energy to go the same speed without ERS (arguably more due to the driveability constraints).
you're on the right lines, BUT!Something around 1.7-2kg/lap of fuel
Petrol is around 44.5Mj/kg
Internal combustion engines are around 30% efficient
So that's (very) approximately 26 Mj of 'fossil' energy per lap. Which means ERS is throwing in about 7-8% of the energy usage lap on lap, assuming that you can harvest enough round the lap in order to achieve that.
I think is a pretty safe assumption (remember you can cap the boost by harvesting energy from the turbo using ERS instead of opening the wastegate for instance) Total energy store only comes into the equation IF they cannot put in what they take out lap on lap. I guess there may be reasons why that would happen, but I've not heard any mention of that during the season; I figure that's more likely to do with duty cycle on the energy store.
I would expect the ERS to contribute a bit more than that in laptime, given that the energy can be used in many interesting ways, particularly to smooth out torque curves, spin up the turbo, and otherwise cover lag etc. In short it's going to give you a car that just responds more quickly, and accurately than a conventional turbocharged engine. Of course, you could turn that (hypothetical) 7% performance around and say they'd have to use 7% more 'fossil' energy to go the same speed without ERS (arguably more due to the driveability constraints).
the regs state that energy recovered from the turbo cannot be 'stored' and has to be 'used', the ES is solely there to store recovered brake energy.
this is why in qualifying, they enevitable do a 'charging' lap to get the ES full so that they can use the full 4Mj in one lap, as the regs limit ERS to half that per lap.
I am lead to believe the power Merc get from the MGU-H (turbo) per lap easily exceeds the 2Mj limit for ERS, hence why Nico both in the last race and Canada did not really loose out that much on laptime, the loose is more about lack of rear braking and 'kick' of boost out of slow corners.
There is an interesting conversation between Rosberg and his engineer when Nico was due to pit with his ERS failed. Based on that I think the ERS has a much larger influence on turbo performance than I realised. They must be running a pretty big compressor wheel in these turbo's and are relying significantly on the ERS to spin them up, giving a much laggier response than you would engineer in without an ERS boosted spool rate, if they were conventionally driven by the hot side. This may be a way to exploit the split turbo design easier too and will help reduce torsional twist on the connecting shaft if you are driving the turbo via the ERS all the time.
So in the context of what Christian Horner was saying is it reasonable to assume that say an extra 10% in fuel allowance would allow the mega costly Hybrid technology to be dumped with consequential huge savings for teams and little significant loss in performances?
It was this point that I thougt the journalist was seeking, perhaps he had been primed by CH.
It was this point that I thougt the journalist was seeking, perhaps he had been primed by CH.
jsf said:
There is an interesting conversation between Rosberg and his engineer when Nico was due to pit with his ERS failed. Based on that I think the ERS has a much larger influence on turbo performance than I realised. They must be running a pretty big compressor wheel in these turbo's and are relying significantly on the ERS to spin them up, giving a much laggier response than you would engineer in without an ERS boosted spool rate, if they were conventionally driven by the hot side. This may be a way to exploit the split turbo design easier too and will help reduce torsional twist on the connecting shaft if you are driving the turbo via the ERS all the time.
you may be onto something there...they can use the ES to spin up the turbo, but this eats into the 2Mj/lap limit, if they can use the ERS directly during braking to keep it spinning, that's effectively 'free' power..
Ah, oops.. I got that back to front, I had it in my head they could store 4 and only use 2, not recover 2 and use 4. I'd also missed that you couldn't store the MGU-H output.
Yes, as I understand it they can skip the energy store and pump MGU-K straight into MGU-H to control the turbo. Almost certain they're (all) using the MGU to spool the turbo, Have you looked at pictures of those things? In any ordinary installation they'd lag half way into next week!
And no, adding 10% fuel and deleting the ERS would not reduce the costs. You'd want to start over and completely redesign the engine, starting with the turbo (see above). It's rather heavily optimised around a given design concept - witness how much more 'right' Merc have got it over everyone else.
ETA, personally I'm very skeptical that it's the 'hybrid' part that is mega costly. What IS mega costly is developing any new concept. The 'old' engines were so far down a path that all the avenues for major performance gain had been explored, development was close to / closing in on static. These engines are new, and therefore there's a lot of avenues to explore, which means costly experimentation. They've attempted to limit that by development credits, but that does mean there's a little more 'luck' in exploring the correct avenues first time.
Last year's V8's were hybrid too.. albeit with rather less of a contribution.
Yes, as I understand it they can skip the energy store and pump MGU-K straight into MGU-H to control the turbo. Almost certain they're (all) using the MGU to spool the turbo, Have you looked at pictures of those things? In any ordinary installation they'd lag half way into next week!
And no, adding 10% fuel and deleting the ERS would not reduce the costs. You'd want to start over and completely redesign the engine, starting with the turbo (see above). It's rather heavily optimised around a given design concept - witness how much more 'right' Merc have got it over everyone else.
ETA, personally I'm very skeptical that it's the 'hybrid' part that is mega costly. What IS mega costly is developing any new concept. The 'old' engines were so far down a path that all the avenues for major performance gain had been explored, development was close to / closing in on static. These engines are new, and therefore there's a lot of avenues to explore, which means costly experimentation. They've attempted to limit that by development credits, but that does mean there's a little more 'luck' in exploring the correct avenues first time.
Last year's V8's were hybrid too.. albeit with rather less of a contribution.
Edited by upsidedownmark on Tuesday 2nd December 16:21
rdjohn said:
So in the context of what Christian Horner was saying is it reasonable to assume that say an extra 10% in fuel allowance would allow the mega costly Hybrid technology to be dumped with consequential huge savings for teams and little significant loss in performances?
It was this point that I thougt the journalist was seeking, perhaps he had been primed by CH.
But that misses the point that there has already been a large amount of money spent developing the hybrid technology which would now be wasted (and not generate the expected return for the engine manufacturers) to be replaced by a change in technology which would be expensive for the engine manufacturers in terms of development costs. They all agreed the rules and the duration of them being in force.It was this point that I thougt the journalist was seeking, perhaps he had been primed by CH.
Paddy Lowe has it about right in saying it is just sour grapes from those who aren't winning.
So you spend huge resources on a completely new power train assembly, then 24 months later you scrap it, years inside the contractually agreed period of supply.
Yeh, that will go down well with Honda, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes.
It would be the death of the sport if that happened. To think that's likely is ignoring the commercial realities of life.
Maybe that's what some people want to happen, it would certainly change the sport beyond recognition.
Yeh, that will go down well with Honda, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes.
It would be the death of the sport if that happened. To think that's likely is ignoring the commercial realities of life.
Maybe that's what some people want to happen, it would certainly change the sport beyond recognition.
Paddy Lowe tells it like it is: http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/12/02/paddy-lowe-red-...
Crafty_ said:
Paddy Lowe tells it like it is: http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/12/02/paddy-lowe-red-...
Paddy Lowe said:
Mercedes F1 technical chief Paddy Lowe says that Red Bull’s push for changes to power unit rules is motivated purely by self-interest.
Whereas Mercedes only want to lock in their current engine advantage for the good of the sport...While I totally agree with you jsf, you have to wonder why CH is taking the viewpoint he has. Yes, sour grapes looks like an obvious answer if, like me, you are in your 60s and find that drinking Red Bull just makes you want to throw-up in your helmet.
However RB seem to be the two teams that are actually trying to connect with a younger generation of fan. If young fans are turinng away in their droves by the engine noise etc.., then at board level what is the point of them being in F1?. They have made a huge commitment to F1 for what may be zero return.
Christian Horner is a racer at heart. I feel it is important that everyone understands what the real benefits of this technology is? The Hybrid supercars are simply extravagant versions of the technology available in the Prius; heat recovery is not used. Most could do a very fast lap of the Ring, but not two.
The technology is very unlikely to trickle down to a quick Clio that a youthful Renault buyer might desire. So in the end we are producing a formula that might only appeal to buyers of luxury AMG's, Ferraris and McLarens and effectively is a turn-off to regular fans of F1.
Joe Saward posed another good question at the same press conference. He raised the question about the commitment of the Strategy Group members to be in F1 until 2020. It seems that while they were happy to sign a commitment clause. Not one of them is obliged to pay a penalty if they decide to pull out in the interim.
However RB seem to be the two teams that are actually trying to connect with a younger generation of fan. If young fans are turinng away in their droves by the engine noise etc.., then at board level what is the point of them being in F1?. They have made a huge commitment to F1 for what may be zero return.
Christian Horner is a racer at heart. I feel it is important that everyone understands what the real benefits of this technology is? The Hybrid supercars are simply extravagant versions of the technology available in the Prius; heat recovery is not used. Most could do a very fast lap of the Ring, but not two.
The technology is very unlikely to trickle down to a quick Clio that a youthful Renault buyer might desire. So in the end we are producing a formula that might only appeal to buyers of luxury AMG's, Ferraris and McLarens and effectively is a turn-off to regular fans of F1.
Joe Saward posed another good question at the same press conference. He raised the question about the commitment of the Strategy Group members to be in F1 until 2020. It seems that while they were happy to sign a commitment clause. Not one of them is obliged to pay a penalty if they decide to pull out in the interim.
RYH64E said:
Crafty_ said:
Paddy Lowe tells it like it is: http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/12/02/paddy-lowe-red-...
Paddy Lowe said:
Mercedes F1 technical chief Paddy Lowe says that Red Bull’s push for changes to power unit rules is motivated purely by self-interest.
Whereas Mercedes only want to lock in their current engine advantage for the good of the sport...I fully expect to hear Horner whining about this repeatedly all next year. At some point he'll threaten RB will pull out of F1 to get his own way. Especially if Ferrari sort themselves out.
Its all balls anyway, Merc didn't win this year purely because of the engine, the entire car is a very effective package. RB whiilst behind aren't that far behind - after all they won 3 races. Given the rough start pre-season for the Renault its actually turned out rather good for them.
The engine manufacturers have collectively spent over $1 billion to develop these new engines, to regulations which they all agreed on in advance. They need to stay in the sport with these regulations for a number of years in order to recoup that investment. They are not going to throw that away after one season and spend even more money developing something else. Trying to force them to do that will likely see one or more of them leave.
Toto Wolff said:
Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Honda are aligned on the power-unit specifications - a V6 turbo hybrid as per the current rules. We all agree development of the internal combustion engine and hybrid system will remain a part of the rules.
If we want to adapt the engine regulations, we will discuss that. It's nice to hear the views of individual teams as part of that discussion but they do not reflect the views of the manufacturers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30258200If we want to adapt the engine regulations, we will discuss that. It's nice to hear the views of individual teams as part of that discussion but they do not reflect the views of the manufacturers.
thegreenhell said:
Toto Wolff said:
It's nice to hear the views of individual teams as part of that discussion but they do not reflect the views of the manufacturers.
Just a thought on the un-freeze (apologies if someone has already brought this up...) have Renault & Ferrari given much thought to what happens if Mercedes agree to the unfreeze and find another 10% in their power unit... Not just negating any improvement F & R can find but extending the gap?
January this year a very well placed sourced mentioned the MB power unit was already exceeding 1000hp on the dyno. A year down the line how much more do they have in reserve?
Hope the Honda lump is fit from the start.
January this year a very well placed sourced mentioned the MB power unit was already exceeding 1000hp on the dyno. A year down the line how much more do they have in reserve?
Hope the Honda lump is fit from the start.
jsf said:
There is an interesting conversation between Rosberg and his engineer when Nico was due to pit with his ERS failed. Based on that I think the ERS has a much larger influence on turbo performance than I realised. They must be running a pretty big compressor wheel in these turbo's and are relying significantly on the ERS to spin them up, giving a much laggier response than you would engineer in without an ERS boosted spool rate, if they were conventionally driven by the hot side. This may be a way to exploit the split turbo design easier too and will help reduce torsional twist on the connecting shaft if you are driving the turbo via the ERS all the time.
There was a video done recently analysing the Honda F1 renders that have been released and they suggested the Merc was running something like a 300mm diameter compressor.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff