2021 Engine thread

[godlameroso]

1. Full uncapped ERS would lead to energy recovery from both axles and probably would require deployment from both axles (ie 4wd). For it to be used for any length of time it would require a battery pack very much larger than now in use, and extra weight, and/or
   [*}use of a turbine and MGUH. Since you want 20,000rpm you will not want the compressor .....

to have higher recovery from our MGU-K even for a moment would surely require a bigger battery pack ? (and mgu-k and power electronics)
the size of these must be proportional to the peak rate of energy transfer (peak power)
in particular the battery (lifewise) will not stand being charged and discharged at eg 2x or 3x or 5x the present rate even for 1 second at a time

also remember how brief is the high braking power as it is (roughly) proportional to the square of the speed (which falls quickly at 5g deceleration)
we would be adding a lot of weight and bulk etc to access a momentary window of recovery benefit
(it might even be better to brake earlier and longer to recover much more energy without much more power)

increasing the power of ERS (with the necessary response and stability) will increasingly emulate the effects of ABS and traction control
especially if we go all-wheel

The battery packs already are able to store quite a bit more than 4 MJ worth of energy. 3.6MJ = 1KWh. The best commercially available Li based batteries have an energy density of around 380w hrs per kg. With a 20kg minimum weight for the battery pack, we can conservatively estimate that there's probably at least 15kg worth of battery in there.

So the battery packs are anywhere between 5 - 8 KWh(conservative estimate). So the total capacity of the ES is up to ~20MJ as it is. A number which will increase every year pretty much. It's not inconceivable to have a 50kg battery pack, if they cut the weight off the ICE itself. Suppose we make it to 440w hrs/kg by 2020 at the current rate of development with a 50kg ES would give you a 22KWh pack or almost 80MJ of capacity, with that much head room you could realistically charge and discharge 15MJ per lap to the battery with the right voltage.

Only way you could realistically harvest that much energy is to have multiple ERS feeding the ES. MGU-K, MGU-H, probably have to start havesting energy from the suspension at that point. MKG-U(motor kinetic generator unit) to harvest the spring forces as the car pounds around the track can also be used for active suspension.

[NL_Fer]

Heat and high current is one of the great Lithium battery killers. So in an F1 car cooling and (dis)charge current is most important and i believe this lowers the capacity/weight compared to other Lithium batteries.

But i like the WEC rules about it, two ERS sources allowed, like front+rear axle mgu-k or 1 mgu-k + 1 mgu-h allowed and limit on ES capacity.

Also the Formula-e this year allowed for totally free drive train (motor(s)+gearbox) and the standard Spark-Renault battery and chassis. Exciting that some are faster in q and others faster in the race.

But how would a 1000-1200 hp be fun to watch?

[Tommy Cookers]

.......to start havesting energy from the suspension at that point. MKG-U(motor kinetic generator unit) to harvest the spring forces as the car pounds around the track can also be used for active suspension.

that potentially harvestable energy is the amount at present 'harvested' as waste heat by the damper action
considering the present mechanism for dumping damper heat we can see that this potentially harvestable amount is a rather small

[godlameroso]

That's true, if you look at it from simply damper force, but that's not the only force acting on a wheel or axle for that matter. If the dampers actually could absorb all the kinematic energy of the suspension the suspension wouldn't deflect at all. The dampers harvest as heat maybe 15% of the total kinematic energy in the suspension.

[Jolle]

I expect they will fase out the ICE within a few decades. The current PU was a bit of a revolution after an engine freeze. In my mind they should have gone with V6 turbos after the V10 3.0s, then it all would make much more sense.
So, the next step would be to be less reliant on the ICE, lowering the fuel flow by a bit less energy then what front wheel recovering would harvest/deploy.

[NL_Fer]

I have a problem with front axle harvesting, since it makes the car a 4wd and that is not what a formula car should be. Although it is the most efficient way of kinetic energy harvesting.

[Jolle]

I have a problem with front axle harvesting, since it makes the car a 4wd and that is not what a formula car should be. Although it is the most efficient way of kinetic energy harvesting.

That's how you would execute the rules. 4wd would be logical, but an "harvest only" front axle could be possible as well.

[gruntguru]

That's true, if you look at it from simply damper force, but that's not the only force acting on a wheel or axle for that matter. If the dampers actually could absorb all the kinematic energy of the suspension the suspension wouldn't deflect at all. The dampers harvest as heat maybe 15% of the total kinematic energy in the suspension.

I agree with Tommy. Damper energy is the only realistic harvesting potential in the suspension (and it is small considering the very small suspension travel used and the smooth tracks).

Other suspension forces either:
- have no coaxial deflection (therefore no work done).
- in the case of springs the energy is stored during bump but needs to be returned during rebound.

[Zynerji]

I have a problem with front axle harvesting, since it makes the car a 4wd and that is not what a formula car should be. Although it is the most efficient way of kinetic energy harvesting.

That's how you would execute the rules. 4wd would be logical, but an "harvest only" front axle could be possible as well.

What's wrong with AWD in F1? Who is to say that "isn't what a formula car should be"? If AWD is faster around a given track, shouldn't that be determining factor?

Arbitrary beliefs have no place in man vs. nature situations like F1 engineering...

[graham.reeds]

You could also mandate it to be 'in wheel'.

The rules will follow the ACO engine rules like they did last time.

I don't see why they don't deregulate the engine to the point where they say here's the maximum amount of calorific content allowed for an hour. Heres the yoke design you need to fit. Have at it.

Do the same for WEC LMP1.

The original concept was to get VW into F1. It failed. Also none of the current F1 engine manufacturers have taken the F1 engine into WEC.

It was a nice idea but it failed. Judging by FiA/FOM recent track record they will try it again.

I suspect that Audi and Porsche costs are are approaching (or surpassing) those of the bottom end F1 teams. Honda has customer teams in LMP1 but aren't competitive.

TL;DR: the F1 engine rules will be compatible with the ACO engine rules.

[wuzak]

I suspect that Audi and Porsche costs are are approaching (or surpassing) those of the bottom end F1 teams. Honda has customer teams in LMP1 but aren't competitive.

Audi and Porsche are each spending more on LMP1 than Mercedes is in F1....

[Paul]

Wouldn't want in-wheel motors unless hub tethering is significantly improved. I am rather concerned with loose wheels after rather insignificant incidents, like the Mercs colliding in Barcelona.

[Zynerji]

Wouldn't want in-wheel motors unless hub tethering is significantly improved. I am rather concerned with loose wheels after rather insignificant incidents, like the Mercs colliding in Barcelona.

I'd personally rather see it use half shafts and put the front MGU-K in the nose.

I'd also like to see triggers on the steering wheel for the drivers to energize the front wheels independently, so they would need skill to deploy it, like boosting the outside front wheel to make mid corner adjustments to their racing line..

[graham.reeds]

I suspect that Audi and Porsche costs are are approaching (or surpassing) those of the bottom end F1 teams. Honda has customer teams in LMP1 but aren't competitive.

Audi and Porsche are each spending more on LMP1 than Mercedes is in F1....

Linkage for that assertion?

[Jolle]

I suspect that Audi and Porsche costs are are approaching (or surpassing) those of the bottom end F1 teams. Honda has customer teams in LMP1 but aren't competitive.

Audi and Porsche are each spending more on LMP1 than Mercedes is in F1....

Linkage for that assertion?

I would boubt that too, but, it could be if you look at the net-costs, after retracting sponsors, FIA and FOM money etc.
but it's all pennies compared what marketing value the world championships gave in return.