Special thanks to Mr.hino +1Hino wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 13:14Sorry for getting these up late, it took a lot longer than planned. I'm sure there will be some translation errors and maybe Wazarisan can point those out. Enjoy.
https://i.imgur.com/zdCrIvn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RIsna31.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/on0uqSI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/caIsfi9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MUm5lPx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZthjOLz.jpg]
https://i.imgur.com/e39J138.jpg
Hahaha I'll have what you're having pls.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 23:00My Apologies to Hino! I was viewing it on my phone before bed after drinking some stuff that makes everything look Japanese! Yes.. great work indeed.
Honda Engineers also share the view tha the free development of the MGU-H was intentionally allowed by FIA to assist development and mass production for commercial vehicles!Hino wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 13:14Sorry for getting these up late, it took a lot longer than planned. I'm sure there will be some translation errors and maybe Wazarisan can point those out. Enjoy.
https://i.imgur.com/zdCrIvn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RIsna31.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/on0uqSI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/caIsfi9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MUm5lPx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZthjOLz.jpg]
https://i.imgur.com/e39J138.jpg
I think it's a good decision to use Es energy primerily for powering mgu-k, it is more efficient than using it for mgu-h.dren wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 20:39It says they regen around 70kw with the MGUH. It also says they ran the compressor with the H for max power often in 2016 but didn't have enough in the ES in 2017 to do it due to motoring the K more. The extra harvest helped to use eboost again. Thanks for the translation!!!
Pretty obvious answer. Car is under brakes or part throttle through a corner and the turbo speed needs to be maintained for anti-lag purposes. If it can be maintained direct from the K there are a number of benefits eg:Craigy wrote: ↑05 Jan 2018, 12:07Question:
If there was a real aim at not allowing this sort of energy flow, why is the K->H route even available?
H->K is obviously useful for self-sustaining mode, I get that. What's K->H for, if not this? Why is it bidirectional?
In other words, without flywheeling, in which situation do you want to spin up the speed of the compressor+turbine using power recovered from the K?
Others might claim that the intermediate destination is also an additional energy store which would make it illegal. Significant amounts of energy are being stored - although very short term the amount of energy being stored and released per-lap is significant.Nonserviam85 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2018, 13:50Regarding 2. someone can claim that since an intermediate legal destination exist, the whole philosophy is legal. Is there a possibility that FIA didn't anticipate this energy transfer being feasible or achievable when writing the rules? Or maybe this was FIA's intention when they allowed free transfer from/to MGU-H in order to advance the technology in this area?gruntguru wrote: ↑05 Jan 2018, 04:47Look at it this way.Nonserviam85 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 16:31Why you say that? F1 is full of examples of following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law...Unless someone proves or hints that a specific manufacturers gains a huge advantage compared to the others I don't believe it should be banned, especially if all manufacturers do the same.
1. The FIA creates a rule to limit K to ES transfers to <2MJ/lap and ES to K transfers to <4 MJ/lap.
2. Someone comes up with the bright idea of exceeding these limits by sending the energy to a temporary storage location (the H) and almost immediately forwarding it to the (illegal) destination.
3. The FIA can monitor all these energy transfers by looking at data so they know about it.
What would the FIA do? There are only two logical options
1. Ban the "bright idea" as being outside the spirit of Rule # xxx
2. Remove Rule # xxx as being irrelevant since everybody can work around it.
Disagree. There is a K<->H path and there is a H<->ES path. There are perfectly good reasons for each of these - at different times on the track. The FIA did not intend this to become an unlimited K<->ES transfer path. There is no point in encouraging such a thing as opposed to simply adding an unlimited K<->ES path to the diagram.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Jan 2018, 18:18Thing is.. FIA did this to themselves. Remember that diagram they released showing the legal energy flows?
The K to H to ES was on it! The engineers just captitized on FIA frogetting to lock the "mguh backdoor" the way i view it.
http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-conten ... 24x606.jpg
Wonderful effort Hino - I would give you more than one up-vote if I could. Unfortunately your translation shows I was wrong - they are indeed using the H as an energy store - storing and releasing 20 - 40 times per second.Hino wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 13:14Sorry for getting these up late, it took a lot longer than planned. I'm sure there will be some translation errors and maybe Wazarisan can point those out. Enjoy.
https://i.imgur.com/zdCrIvn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RIsna31.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/on0uqSI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/caIsfi9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MUm5lPx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZthjOLz.jpg]
https://i.imgur.com/e39J138.jpg
Okay, so now that the Honda method is clear and everyone can agree that Craigy's theory has substance, can we hypothesize that the other 3 are following a similar route and are doing it better, or alternatively that the other 3 have read the article and are laughing their collective asses off, what with Honda being the worst performing PU and all...
Problem is we will never know from the other manufacturers! The gain however can be significant so I believe the others are doing it even better...AJI wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 11:12Okay, so now that the Honda method is clear and everyone can agree that Craigy's theory has substance, can we hypothesize that the other 3 are following a similar route and are doing it better, or alternatively that the other 3 have read the article and are laughing their collective asses off, what with Honda being the worst performing PU and all...
I really don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to understand if this is what they're all doing.
The real question is: is the gain significant, or is it a dead end and just a red herring?Nonserviam85 wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 11:54...The gain however can be significant so I believe the others are doing it even better...
The benefit is spectacular in road vehicle. Efficiency would at its best on WOT, and yet the ES technology is still lagged behind and very expensive indeed. In the stop and go City trafic, mguh with accumulator-like capability would solve battery problem cheaper than develop next level battery. It also confirm that the real difference of performance is within ICE and deployment mapping. Honda got it worse than other because they only have one team to confirm it and gather data. End of discussionAJI wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 12:56The real question is: is the gain significant, or is it a dead end and just a red herring?Nonserviam85 wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 11:54...The gain however can be significant so I believe the others are doing it even better...
Why would Honda publish that info?