.poz wrote:
In my opinion, energy recovery during braking should be excluded from the calculation of PU efficiency.
I understand what you are saying but it’s not right imho...
If you talk purely about ICE efficiency then sure, but not engine.
it is right imho
the ICE efficiency is priceless because it is the prime mover ie its capabilities govern everything else
the PU 'efficiency' is a reflection of the properties of the vehicle use system ie the recovery on one or another track
(eg on the circle track at Bonneville salt flats the recovery will be zero)
.... Brake-by-Wire (BBW) already prevented drivers from using their full sensitivity to push braking to the absolute limit, and with the new PUs, the massive energy recovery required at every braking zone will make 'on-the-edge' braking a thing of the past. ...
the MGU-K automatically backs down the PU somewhat under braking (and acceleration) if there's a sudden loss of grip
its control characteristic must have a stability margin - anything else would be unsustainable or undriveable
There's a new 2 stroke engine in town. Before I post that, I asked Google if there was ever a 2 stroke F1 car. Here's the answer.
Proposed/Concept Engines: In the 1970s, there were studies into 1.5-litre turbocharged 2-stroke engines, and Ferrari reportedly worked on a 3-cylinder 2-stroke engine concept around 1994, though it was never raced.
Modern Considerations: Around 2020, F1 management, including CTO Pat Symonds, explored the potential for high-efficiency, turbocharged 2-stroke hybrid engines to meet future sustainability goals, but these have not been adopted.
Does anyone remember that ?
Anyway, here's the new engine. It is a supercharged rotary valve 2 stroke. 2 stroke screamers would bring some sound back. Listen to it at 16:25 mins.
The prototype is 578cc with 220 hp and it weighs 50 kg
Energy recovery under braking should be banned from F1.
I'd rather go the opposite way. Regenerate from the front axle too.
I appreciate super-efficient engines that strive to extract every last drop of energy from the fuel, but regenerative braking and the heavy batteries it demands simply aren't right for F1.
Give us back the mgu-h. Make it a spec part if necessary.
Give us back the mgu-h. Make it a spec part if necessary.
It would be enough to separate the turbine and the compressor, with the former dedicated solely to generating electricity and the latter powered by its own electric motor; the design of the MGU-H was complex because it was a series of compromises between two different functions.
Give us back the mgu-h. Make it a spec part if necessary.
It would be enough to separate the turbine and the compressor, with the former dedicated solely to generating electricity and the latter powered by its own electric motor; the design of the MGU-H was complex because it was a series of compromises between two different functions.
I've often wondered if there is any technical merit to having a purely electrical driven compressor.
Give us back the mgu-h. Make it a spec part if necessary.
It would be enough to separate the turbine and the compressor, with the former dedicated solely to generating electricity and the latter powered by its own electric motor; the design of the MGU-H was complex because it was a series of compromises between two different functions.
It would have twice the electric motor weight though.
There's a new 2 stroke engine in town. Before I post that, I asked Google if there was ever a 2 stroke F1 car. Here's the answer.
Proposed/Concept Engines: In the 1970s, there were studies into 1.5-litre turbocharged 2-stroke engines, and Ferrari reportedly worked on a 3-cylinder 2-stroke engine concept around 1994, though it was never raced.
Modern Considerations: Around 2020, F1 management, including CTO Pat Symonds, explored the potential for high-efficiency, turbocharged 2-stroke hybrid engines to meet future sustainability goals, but these have not been adopted.
Does anyone remember that ?
Anyway, here's the new engine. It is a supercharged rotary valve 2 stroke. 2 stroke screamers would bring some sound back. Listen to it at 16:25 mins.
The prototype is 578cc with 220 hp and it weighs 50 kg
So new it doesn't exist for any application. Only as an experiment.
Of course, we first have to wait and see what these new cars will actually deliver during the races.
However, I think that if we continue along the same path with the next regulation change, it seems very likely that we will at least get a front axle generator. In my opinion, that would then open the door to AWD.
So I was wondering what you think about this idea:
The driver could send energy to the front wheels on demand. I was thinking of a “DAS-like” system for activation and deactivation.
Personal preference is for more freedom when it comes to configurations and designs. They could mandate a single or twin turbo 2.0-2.5L ICE of any cylinder count and a crank located spec MGU-K of 200 hp and a manufacturer provided smaller battery (solid state allowed) only 30% of the current size that can be charged via braking on both axles (spec front axle generator only) and on throttle harvesting. Fully sustainable fuels with a defined corridor for energy density 30% higher than 26 capped at 80 kg per race. Aim for cars ~50kg lighter than now and an even smaller footprint.