2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

I guess if the sole intention was to increase storage in the ES, the engine could continue under power - converting fuel to battery charge without compromising lap time. Lift and coast would be a deliberate sacrifice of lap time - extending the braking zone to increase ES charge while using zero fuel.

I think the loss in time from the lift and coast is more than made up for by the extra energy the MGUK can use.

If it was faster to not lift and coast, I doubt they would do it on most circuits.

[gruntguru]

But - if the lift and coast (taken in isolation) comes with any time penalty, that could be overcome by using the engine to charge the ES instead. or - is that not allowed?

[wuzak]

But - if the lift and coast (taken in isolation) comes with any time penalty, that could be overcome by using the engine to charge the ES instead. or - is that not allowed?

It is allowed, but you do have to use more fuel to do it.

[PlatinumZealot]

[...] more energy is to be had from the front brakes.

Available energy is not the problem with its recovery.
It is the short time in wich you would have to store it that makes things difficult.

cheers

Super capacitor.

[PlatinumZealot]

I guess if the sole intention was to increase storage in the ES, the engine could continue under power - converting fuel to battery charge without compromising lap time. Lift and coast would be a deliberate sacrifice of lap time - extending the braking zone to increase ES charge while using zero fuel.

I think the loss in time from the lift and coast is more than made up for by the extra energy the MGUK can use.

If it was faster to not lift and coast, I doubt they would do it on most circuits.

There is no loss in lap time if you are lift and coasting better than the other guy though. haha.

[Moose]

I guess if the sole intention was to increase storage in the ES, the engine could continue under power - converting fuel to battery charge without compromising lap time. Lift and coast would be a deliberate sacrifice of lap time - extending the braking zone to increase ES charge while using zero fuel.

I think the loss in time from the lift and coast is more than made up for by the extra energy the MGUK can use.

If it was faster to not lift and coast, I doubt they would do it on most circuits.

The loss in time is more than made up for just by the lower amount of fuel you have to carry around at the start of the race, this was even true in the V8 and V10 eras. They haven't started a race with enough fuel to run flat out for decades.

[Tommy Cookers]

But - if the lift and coast (taken in isolation) comes with any time penalty, that could be overcome by using the engine to charge the ES instead. or - is that not allowed?

It is allowed, but you do have to use more fuel to do it.

ICE charging ES by gu-k action is limited to only 'zero torque' the PU accelerator-off ie generation equal to ICE friction only as 2013 ?
the engine friction is relatively smaller than it was then

presumably gu-h action is unlimited

[dero]

[...] more energy is to be had from the front brakes.

Available energy is not the problem with its recovery.
It is the short time in wich you would have to store it that makes things difficult.

cheers

Super capacitor.

Quick Calculation:

F1 Car ~700kg, 300km/h, braking in 2.4s -> 2.4MJ / 1.000kW
70% on front brakes -> 700kW available.
a suitable Supercap would have at least 35kg and 60l volume [1]
it would need a internal resistance of under 0.2Ohms [2] and this would lead to about 700 Ampere of current

And then you would need a MGU-K good for 700kW and cables + power electronics for bespoken 700A
Just a quick reminder, P.loss = I^2 * R

cheers Stefan

[1] ... assuming 60kJ/kg and 40kJ/l
[2] ... assuming 1000V maximum rail voltage, P.max = 1/4 * V.rail^2 / R.int

[PlatinumZealot]

Why would you want to take 100% of the front braking electrically. That is crazy. Your brake disks would never warm up.
Just like the rear brakes you have to apportion it to a certain amount of energy over one lap. As a simple calculation you can assume that you can get two times more energy from the front disks as they do now from the rear. Hmm so you can reduce that 700kW to even half that amount or less.

You do not need 700Amp cables. You simply use a voltage on the cable side and have a voltage converter within the power electronics. Either way, I still would not use such a high regeneration rate from the front brakes. I think getting twice of what they have now is a good start.

[Facts Only]

Why would you want to take 100% of the front braking electrically.

So you can get rid of the front brakes altogether. That would be the ultimate aim, brakes waste the power units energy by turning kinetic energy into heat and dissipating it into the wider world.

[gruntguru]

You do not need 700Amp cables. You simply use a voltage on the cable side and have a voltage converter within the power electronics. Either way, I still would not use such a high regeneration rate from the front brakes. I think getting twice of what they have now is a good start.

700 amps @ 1000 V gives you the 700 kW. So you are suggesting what - a 2000 V system?

Anyway 700 kW is an average value for the hypothetical braking event. At the beginning (300 km/h) the braking power is 1600 kW @ 4G.

The way to do it would be combined battery and capacitor storage. Capacitors absorb only the surplus beyond the battery's max charge rate and discharge into the battery later. Still - we are not going to see 1,600 kW MGUs, or even 700 kW for that matter.

[ringo]

2300 volt systems are common in heavy industry. that is an option. But not all the energy needs to be harvested in one even as zealot says. I guess you are limited to the power electrical technology available and its weight.

[chip engineer]

Why would you want to take 100% of the front braking electrically. That is crazy. Your brake disks would never warm up.
...

You should be able to use smaller brakes (and have less unsprung weight) to get them to heat appropriately.

[CBeck113]

One further and important advantage to underfueling is the 0.2s advantage at the beginning of the race - you get out in front of your direct competition and can control where you save the fuel. If you need to pass then you can't save fuel.

[ian_s]

i wonder what would happen if instead of the 100kg maximum fuel limit, the FIA insisted on a fixed amount of fuel, that theoretically would mean the cars could run at the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit for the entire race.

we'd have no running in 'fuel saving' mode, the drivers can floor it out of every corner, and in fact are encouraged to push as hard as possible early in the race to burn the fuel off!

Or just underfuel.

but a mandated amount of fuel means they cannot under fuel, that would be against the regulations.