More engine talk!
Discussion
rdjohn said:
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.
I think you will find its the older generations that are complaining about the volume. The younger generations have grown up on video games and relatively quiet and un tinkered with engines in small hatches. My generation (I am 49) grew up with moding the engines before anything and fitting a straight through system, followed by a trip to a rally or race circuit with unsilenced cars.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.
The new generation cars are far more like what the youth will appreciate, with interesting technology and noises going on.
EddyP said:
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.
jsf said:
Blimey, that will flow some air once it's spinning.
I run a 72mm compressor wheel on my 2.1 litre. That's producing just shy of 500BHP and just over 500ftlb torque at 1.8BAR boost at 125,000rpm, to give you some idea of the potential of a compressor wheel of that size.
I don't think they mean a 300mm compressor wheel! (it's not like you can see/measure it from the outside)I run a 72mm compressor wheel on my 2.1 litre. That's producing just shy of 500BHP and just over 500ftlb torque at 1.8BAR boost at 125,000rpm, to give you some idea of the potential of a compressor wheel of that size.
I would suggest they are on about how big the compressor housing is, and although 300mm is still pretty big, is not ridiculous, my guess is that they are going for the highest efficiency compressor design running at the lowest shaft speed possible, which kind of makes sense when you consider what the MGU-H has to work with.
(in off-the-shelf turbo terms, the biggest Garrett (GT6041) that's rated at 1,300-2,000Hp has a 105.7/141.2 (Ind/Exd) compressor wheel, it's compressor housing is just shy of 300mm)
Excellent - I was about to post that, and comment the same.
What that does say to me is that my hypothetical figures were very conservative. The ES may be worth 7-8% of the energy demand per lap, but the hybrid system is worth even more:
The max boost you can run is practically limited by physics - detonation, peak cylinder pressure etc. Traditionally you limit the boost pressure by opening the wastegate and allowing exhaust gas to bypass the turbo. With the ERS-H implementation, there is no need to do that - you use the ERS-H as a generator to drag energy out of the turbine, and directly power the ERS-K; so you're getting a double whammy from the turbo, none of which is measured for the 2/4Mj limits. Another reason for it to be big, so as to extract as much energy as possible from the exhaust gas flow without unduly hindering the ability of the engine to breathe. Also another reason why the cars are quiet - the more energy you rob from the exhaust gas flow, the less noise it makes.
What that does say to me is that my hypothetical figures were very conservative. The ES may be worth 7-8% of the energy demand per lap, but the hybrid system is worth even more:
The max boost you can run is practically limited by physics - detonation, peak cylinder pressure etc. Traditionally you limit the boost pressure by opening the wastegate and allowing exhaust gas to bypass the turbo. With the ERS-H implementation, there is no need to do that - you use the ERS-H as a generator to drag energy out of the turbine, and directly power the ERS-K; so you're getting a double whammy from the turbo, none of which is measured for the 2/4Mj limits. Another reason for it to be big, so as to extract as much energy as possible from the exhaust gas flow without unduly hindering the ability of the engine to breathe. Also another reason why the cars are quiet - the more energy you rob from the exhaust gas flow, the less noise it makes.
upsidedownmark said:
The max boost you can run is practically limited by physics - detonation, peak cylinder pressure etc.
well, yes and no.- if* there were no fuel limits, you would be right, however, as they run to fuel flow limits, max air-mass is limited by how lean you dare run the engine.
the clever bit with these engines is to get the max out of the exhaust turbine without massively compromising the boost required at inlet (ie, the ratio of MAP to E-Map).
Er.. yes and yes 
I consider a viable fuel-air mixture to be 'physics', although it is a fair point to bring up fuel limits..
Either way, it doesn't change the point.. and yes, there are a lot of very complicated and interesting trade offs going on that are more than just 'how much can you shove in a battery pack then reclaim later'..
Also, I can't see anywhere in the tech regs where it says you can't store what you harvest from the MGU-H. The diagram from appendix 3 of the tech regs seems to suggest quite the opposite.
Intrigued by your last comment - flow out is a direct function of flow in plus burning fuel, or are you referring to the turbine design/optimisation? That would be rather interesting as I'd expect it to be very determined by the conditions under which they chose to run the turbine - RPMs, nozzle etc. Interestingly the regs also ban variable geometry vanes, inlets etc. I'm inclined to suspect that the contemporary F1 turbo is very different to a typical 'free' turbo, and largely down to the MGU-H.. but that's rather beyond my level.
I consider a viable fuel-air mixture to be 'physics', although it is a fair point to bring up fuel limits..Either way, it doesn't change the point.. and yes, there are a lot of very complicated and interesting trade offs going on that are more than just 'how much can you shove in a battery pack then reclaim later'..
Also, I can't see anywhere in the tech regs where it says you can't store what you harvest from the MGU-H. The diagram from appendix 3 of the tech regs seems to suggest quite the opposite.
Intrigued by your last comment - flow out is a direct function of flow in plus burning fuel, or are you referring to the turbine design/optimisation? That would be rather interesting as I'd expect it to be very determined by the conditions under which they chose to run the turbine - RPMs, nozzle etc. Interestingly the regs also ban variable geometry vanes, inlets etc. I'm inclined to suspect that the contemporary F1 turbo is very different to a typical 'free' turbo, and largely down to the MGU-H.. but that's rather beyond my level.
upsidedownmark said:
Intrigued by your last comment - flow out is a direct function of flow in plus burning fuel, or are you referring to the turbine design/optimisation? That would be rather interesting as I'd expect it to be very determined by the conditions under which they chose to run the turbine - RPMs, nozzle etc. Interestingly the regs also ban variable geometry vanes, inlets etc. I'm inclined to suspect that the contemporary F1 turbo is very different to a typical 'free' turbo, and largely down to the MGU-H.. but that's rather beyond my level.
what I was getting at (and I don't know the answer to this) is this;to get more energy out of the exhaust turbine (for the MGU-H) will inevitably mean higher E-Map, this in turn will raise MAP and to some extent, reduce the output of the IC engine.
the question is do they make more in recovery than the penalty in parasitics?
if by upping E-Map to recover another X Kw, is the increased parasitics less than X Kw?
now, going back to the comment on compressor size, that would imply they are running it at significantly less than the 125,000Rpm limit and also they are chasing ultimate adiabatic efficiency at highish boost levels (if you ignore anything else, a larger compressor wheel at lower rpm will be several points more efficient at the same flow/pressure point, the downside would be lag, but with the MGU-H driving it, that problem disappears.
Aha.. yes, completely agree.. I suspect that's partly why big turbochargers
I'd also imagine it's 'easier' to develop torque from a larger turbo spinning more slowly than a smaller one spinning at great speed - although I think the RPM limit is on the MGU, which can be geared, so not an absolute limit on the turbo. But if you don't need to worry about lag, why make it small..
Can't help thinking that this is one area that really could move into road cars over time.
I'd also imagine it's 'easier' to develop torque from a larger turbo spinning more slowly than a smaller one spinning at great speed - although I think the RPM limit is on the MGU, which can be geared, so not an absolute limit on the turbo. But if you don't need to worry about lag, why make it small..
Can't help thinking that this is one area that really could move into road cars over time.
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/...
5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
upsidedownmark said:
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/...
5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
I agree..5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
only change I can see for 2015 is this line:
5.9.3 Variable length intake trumpets are forbidden in 2014 only.
not sure if there is any gain from implementing this on a FI engine?
upsidedownmark said:
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/...
5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
I don't think they have waste gates? Maybe something as a safety feature in case of excess boost but the pressure should be controlled by the éturbo.5.9 Variable geometry systems :
5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.
???
ETA: My read - 'devices needed for control of pressure charging systems' = wastegate.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff