Nope, the ERS system (not KERS as the energy recovery now includes energy recovery fitted to the turbo) will not be deployed via a button. The deployment well be via engine management systems.

I am sure the early races will be chaotic but it won't be long before everyone figures out the new systems and it'll be pretty much as we were.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No, just back to the good old days of drivers having to look after cars, rather than 100 minutes of qualifying laps. And not just because of tyres.

KERS for 2014 is up to 161hp for up to 33 seconds per lap. It will still be deployed in attack and defense, but stands a chance of fending off a DRS-only pass.

Essentially the engineers will just map it per lap automatically IIRC. I guess they'd have to use GPS data to do it though.

FOM video from Bahrain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcZQpSmizs

Quote from Mustafur :

I think its fixed boost.

"Fixed"...

Damn that Force India sounds rorty as hell! Love it, each car is quite different acoustically to the next.

Quote from Mustafur :

FIA really under estimated the power of whats possible from the turbo engines combined with ERS, considering the extra weight they are definetly pulling more power then with the V8s, 800-850hp is around whats happening now.

100 kilograms for race and 100kg/h peak. I think it is fairly easy to calculate how much hp on average per lap you get out of 100 litres of fuel in 1 hour 40 minute race.

So I did a fast calculation with these numbers:
- fuel efficiency of the engine: 0,35
- fuel energy 46MJ/kg
- duration of race 100 minutes out of which 60% is on full throttle

I get about 600hp (1,34hp=1kW). That's without ers, kers and derps.

Quote from Mustafur :

FIA really under estimated the power of whats possible from the turbo engines combined with ERS, considering the extra weight they are definetly pulling more power then with the V8s, 800-850hp is around whats happening now.

No.

Around 600 hp peak + the ERS(160hp). What is happening is instead of having a pointy air restricted V8 power peak, you have a maybe 3500-4000 rpm wide flat fuel flow restricted boosted V6 power peak.

From 10500 to 15000 rpm the fuel flow limit is the same. You have peak boost at 10 500 rpm and then the boost HAS to go down with increasing rpms.

You can have that fuel limited maximum power over a wide range of rpm and that makes the car incredibly quick but that is in Q trim...the word at the moment is they will have to manage fuel to get to the end of a race.

Quote from Hyperactive :

100 kilograms for race and 100kg/h peak. I think it is fairly easy to calculate how much hp on average per lap you get out of 100 litres of fuel in 1 hour 40 minute race.

So I did a fast calculation with these numbers:
- fuel efficiency of the engine: 0,35
- fuel energy 46MJ/kg
- duration of race 100 minutes out of which 60% is on full throttle

I get about 600hp (1,34hp=1kW). That's without ers, kers and derps.

That assumes Fuel efficiency stays static, which it ludicrous.

Qualifying times are the only thing worthy of comparing now and its easily around 800-850hp(Combined with ERS as it stands now).

Ludicrous all you want, his numbers are about right.

BTW Go and check last year's pole, 312 kph top speed. The car was on the revlimiter for a full 2 seconds and don't worry it was still massively accelerating when it got there. That's where you got your 850 bph from ? Start over.

Quote from PhilS13 :

That's where you got your 850 bph from ? Start over.

Quote :

Mercedes have indicated their engine is producing close to 700bhp before the extra 160bhp-plus from the energy recovery systems is taken into account.

Source

edit: Original article (German language).

Quote from amp88 :

Source

This is THE ultimate source of that bullshit, the rest is just poor journalism repeated over and over until it is made the truth.

http://www.auto-motor-und-spor ... -wie-frueher-8032979.html

Question from Automotorundsport

Let us dare to following calculation: 30 years ago there were from 1.5 liters in five bar and 200 kg of fuel per hour peak performance of up to 1,400 hp. As would at half as much gasoline per hour without the contribution of the electric motor 700 hp but be in it?

Answer from Mercedes dude:

Cowell: Correct. So you can expect.

There you go. If you accept that sort of question and answer as a proof that they have 700 bhp without ERS. I can't help you.

Shady numbers(of a kleenex Q engine btw) divided by 2 = more shady numbers. Not the truth, sorry.


Edit : you already had the original...I really can't help you.

Quote from PhilS13 :

There you go. If you accept that sort of question and answer as a proof that they have 700 bhp without ERS. I can't help you.

Shady numbers(of a kleenex Q engine btw) divided by 2 = more shady numbers. Not the truth, sorry.


Edit : you already had the original...I really can't help you.

Close to the top speeds in the first Bahrain test of the season as at Monza in qualifying last year. Obviously this alone doesn't prove that in 2014 the engines will definitely be producing more power than last year (during most of the full-throttle running of the race), but I see it as a positive sign.

Apart from nay-saying, can you provide any sources or evidence to support your belief?

Quote from amp88 :

Close to the top speeds in the first Bahrain test of the season as at Monza in qualifying last year. Obviously this alone doesn't prove that in 2014 the engines will definitely be producing more power than last year (during most of the full-throttle running of the race), but I see it as a positive sign.

Apart from nay-saying, can you provide any sources or evidence to support your belief?

Oh hell yeah the power they are producing is amazing and it's good news...but spreading that 850 bhp has been acheived is bad info. I think so far I've done ok debunking that with only basic common sense nay-saying but I can work out some numbers.

http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Egs_69_70_71_Honda.pdf

1988 honda limited at 2.5 bar race trim

611 bhp @ 12500 rpm
Specific fuel consumption at peak power : 0.467 lb/(BHP*hr) -> 129 kg/hr

Bring that to 2014 at 100 kg/hr considering the fuel efficiency is the same

611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp

-Engines have to last multiple races vs one in 1988
+Better technology

Does the improvement in technology in the last 30 years in an F1 internal combustion engine warrant an increase from 473 bhp peak to 700 bhp peak. (+40%)

You think what you want. I think the impressive speed is coming first from the wide flat powerband and the use of KERS for most of the straight instead of only the first 2 seconds. Not from 850 bhp peak.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Oh hell yeah the power they are producing is amazing and it's good news...but spreading that 850 bhp has been acheived is bad info. I think so far I've done ok debunking that with only basic common sense nay-saying but I can work out some numbers.

http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Egs_69_70_71_Honda.pdf

1988 honda limited at 2.5 bar race trim

611 bhp @ 12500 rpm
Specific fuel consumption at peak power : 0.467 lb/(BHP*hr) -> 129 kg/hr

Bring that to 2014 at 100 kg/hr considering the fuel efficiency is the same

611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp

-Engines have to last multiple races vs one in 1988
+Better technology

Does the improvement in technology in the last 30 years in an F1 internal combustion engine warrant an increase from 473 bhp peak to 700 bhp peak. (+40%)

You think what you want. I think the impressive speed is coming first from the wide flat powerband and the use of KERS for most of the straight instead of only the first 2 seconds. Not from 850 bhp peak.

Considering the turbos were using significantly more fuel than the N/As of the era 40% sounds about right if not more.

Considering these engines are 30% more efficient then the V8s which give or take at the worst would be around the same figure as those at that period.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Oh hell yeah the power they are producing is amazing and it's good news...but spreading that 850 bhp has been acheived is bad info. I think so far I've done ok debunking that with only basic common sense nay-saying but I can work out some numbers.

http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Egs_69_70_71_Honda.pdf

1988 honda limited at 2.5 bar race trim

611 bhp @ 12500 rpm
Specific fuel consumption at peak power : 0.467 lb/(BHP*hr) -> 129 kg/hr

Bring that to 2014 at 100 kg/hr considering the fuel efficiency is the same

611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp

-Engines have to last multiple races vs one in 1988
+Better technology

Does the improvement in technology in the last 30 years in an F1 internal combustion engine warrant an increase from 473 bhp peak to 700 bhp peak. (+40%)

You think what you want. I think the impressive speed is coming first from the wide flat powerband and the use of KERS for most of the straight instead of only the first 2 seconds. Not from 850 bhp peak.

but that's speculation as we don't have the data on where the ERS is being used, besides wouldn't the KERS boost of the old engines equal around 800hp?

Quote from Intrepid :

Nope, the ERS system (not KERS as the energy recovery now includes energy recovery fitted to the turbo) will not be deployed via a button. The deployment well be via engine management systems.

I am sure the early races will be chaotic but it won't be long before everyone figures out the new systems and it'll be pretty much as we were.

My bad. I thought TERS was ECU controlled and KERS was driver controlled still. Haven't had time to read the rules (of many websites with vaguely detailed technical summaries that mentioned this).

So that's a shame then. If they are going to have "planet saving" gimmicks on the cars, I would like them to add to the spectacle and not just individual laptimes.

Quote from Mustafur :

Considering the turbos were using significantly more fuel than the N/As of the era 40% sounds about right if not more.

Considering these engines are 30% more efficient then the V8s which give or take at the worst would be around the same figure as those at that period.

When the engineers are saying that the 2014 engines are 30%-35% more efficient than the V8s they are talking over a full lap with both ERS included in the calculation. With that the 30-35% makes sense.

I'm talking pure burning fuel efficiency.

In order for a 2014 engine to output 700 bhp, it needs to be 40% better at extracting power from a certain amount of fuel than a 1988 engine was able to do.

If you want to compare 1988 N/A vs 2013 N/A you will not find a 40% increase in fuel burning efficiency. Most of the increase in power in the last 30 years came from unlocking revs which enables you to pump more fuel in, not burn it "better".

Edit : btw my calculation is the same as what the interviewer did to get 700 bhp and everyone accepted that as "proof" for 700 bhp. I just used more credible number from two years later on an engine that was lasting more than 6 laps. Quite different results...

Quote from tristancliffe :

My bad. I thought TERS was ECU controlled and KERS was driver controlled still. Haven't had time to read the rules (of many websites with vaguely detailed technical summaries that mentioned this).

So that's a shame then. If they are going to have "planet saving" gimmicks on the cars, I would like them to add to the spectacle and not just individual laptimes.

If you have half an hour free, watch this Ted's Notebook for a good explanation of the new 'power units'.

http://www1.skysports.com/watc ... st-day-1-ted%27s-notebook

Quote from PhilS13 :

I've done ok debunking that with only basic common sense nay-saying but I can work out some numbers.

Your analysis is particularly naive in a number of ways, both discounting key pieces of information and making assumptions which I believe are without merit:

• 2014 max boost levels are likely to be higher than 2.5 bar (Renault suggests 3.5 bar as a maximum).
  
• Aerodynamic changes in the last ~25 years mean you can't assume the overall drag and drag/lift ratios of the 1988 and 2014 cars will be close enough to be comparable. Obviously the drag level plays a large role in fuel consumption.
  
• Cylinder deactivation/cut was not employed in the 1988 Honda engine (AFAIK). In 2014 cylinder cut will be used even more aggressively than it has been in previous years, due to the reduced requirement for exhaust blowing.
  
• The 2014 engines use direct fuel injection (fuel efficiency improvement).
  
• The 2014 power units will use the MGU-H to spool the turbo, reducing the need to waste fuel spooling it as was done with the twin Honda turbos.
  
• You have assumed that fuel flow rate has a perfectly linear relationship with maximum output power ("611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp").
  
• Rather than having a wastegate as a means of dumping excess boost pressure this will be recovered by power unit.
  
• We don't know enough about the properties of the tyres (e.g. rolling resistance) to compare them like for like.
  
• There have, of course, been improvements in manufacturing (better precision in engine parts, better tolerances), lubricants and fuel in the last 25+ years.
  

I think I get why you don't see my point...you think that when you hear 100 kg/hr max it means 100 kgs of fuel max during an hour of racing ?

It's not. It's the maximum fuel flow that can go in the engine at any given moment. kg/hr is just the unit. Could be kg/seconds kg/milliseconds if you like.

Peak power of the 2014 engines IS limited by constantly monitored fuel flow. Not fuel flow over a race. Instant fuel flow.

"Racing" power of the engines will then be also limited(not physically limited but by management) by 100L max fuel tank and that's a completely different thing.

Most of the bullets in your last post are irrelevant considering that all I've been trying to show is that no one is pulling 850bhp peak at the moment.

Quote from PhilS13 :

I think I get why you don't see my point...you think that when you hear 100 kg/hr max it means 100 kgs of fuel max during an hour of racing ?

No, I fully understand the distinction between instantaneous fuel flow and overall fuel limit.

Quote from PhilS13 :

"Racing" power of the engines will then be also limited(not physically limited but by management) by 100L max fuel tank and that's a completely different thing.

You mean 100kg maximum fuel (not litres), and I do understand this.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Most of the bullets in your last post are irrelevant considering that all I've been trying to show is that no one is pulling 850bhp peak at the moment.

You are the one who's trying to use unsound (IMHO) simple calculations to draw direct conclusions between engines with approximately 25 years between them, without considering a number of factors. I fail to see how these are irrelevant. Also, you've repeated this assertion that no-one is running with 850bhp peak at the moment, but you've again failed to show why you believe this is true to any reasonable standard.

Incidentally, here is another interesting piece of information. It comes from the start of the 2011 season, so I'm not suggesting it's directly related to exhaust blowing fuel usage in 2012 or 2013.

Quote from Renault Sport :

Simply put, the more fuel burned, the more exhaust is produced and potentially more downforce. Since the RS27's fuel consumption rate is extremely good, the Renault-equipped teams were able to burn 10 percent more fuel than normal during the Australian Grand Prix without running out of fuel, therefore giving more exhaust flow to its partners using the blown diffuser.

That is to say that at that time the Renault-powered teams were burning 10% more fuel just to blow the diffuser and produce more downforce.

• 2014 max boost levels are likely to be higher than 2.5 bar (Renault suggests 3.5 bar as a maximum)
  

Once you're in boost territory, those kind of gaps have very little impact on fuel efficiency

• Aerodynamic changes in the last ~25 years mean you can't assume the overall drag and drag/lift ratios of the 1988 and 2014 cars will be close enough to be comparable. Obviously the drag level plays a large role in fuel consumption.
  

Eh. No. The engine has NO idea it's even in a car. The drag level has zero impact on the peak power output of an engine. Irrelevant

• Cylinder deactivation/cut was not employed in the 1988 Honda engine (AFAIK). In 2014 cylinder cut will be used even more aggressively than it has been in previous years, due to the reduced requirement for exhaust blowing.
  

Those things never happen at full load. Never happen at peak power. Irrelevant.

• The 2014 engines use direct fuel injection (fuel efficiency improvement).
  

Yes. major improvement. 40%? Not so sure. I can look more into it

• The 2014 power units will use the MGU-H to spool the turbo, reducing the need to waste fuel spooling it as was done with the twin Honda turbos.
  

At peak power you are not "wasting fuel to spool the turbo". You are at peak power the turbine is spinning well enough already

• You have assumed that fuel flow rate has a perfectly linear relationship with maximum output power ("611 / 1.29 = 473 bhp")
  

You don't get the equation. I was reporting the 129 kg/hr at peak power from 1988 to the 100 kg/hr of 2014. No linearity involved here.

• Rather than having a wastegate as a means of dumping excess boost pressure this will be recovered by power unit.
  

zero impact on peak power output. Irrelevant

• We don't know enough about the properties of the tyres (e.g. rolling resistance) to compare them like for like.
  

Tyres really ? zero impact on peak power. Irrelevant.

• There have, of course, been improvements in manufacturing (better precision in engine parts, better tolerances), lubricants and fuel in the last 25+ years.
  

Yes. Fuel probably has a bit more energy per kg. Better lubricants, better parts less friction and all, yes. 40%? Not so sure.


You took a bunch of things that will affect fuel consumption over a race and tried to break apart my peak power comparison. None of these things affect the peak power output of an engine. Two of your bullets make sense, the rest makes me think you have no idea what I'm trying to show here

Quote from amp88 :

Incidentally, here is another interesting piece of information. It comes from the start of the 2011 season, so I'm not suggesting it's directly related to exhaust blowing fuel usage in 2012 or 2013.



That is to say that at that time the Renault-powered teams were burning 10% more fuel just to blow the diffuser and produce more downforce.

That is interesting and would seem to hurt my "unsound" calculations at first sight.

BUT, it is widely accepted that the Renault engine was down on power vs his rivals at that time. How much down and how much of that "less hp" played part in that 10% better economy ?

It's easy to burn less fuel when you produce less hp. Doesn't mean your fuel efficiency is better than anyone. At all.

Quote from PhilS13 :

You took a bunch of things that will affect fuel consumption over a race and tried to break apart my peak power comparison. None of these things affect the peak power output of an engine. Two of your bullets make sense, the rest makes me think you have no idea what I'm trying to show here

I'm trying to explain where the improved fuel efficiency and where the greater peak power output come from.

BTW, you do realise that the Mercedes 700 horsepower peak output is at around 10,500rpm, don't you (as opposed to the ~12,500rpm of the RA-168E). What do your calculations say about 3.5 bar of boost @ 10,500rpm compared to 2.5 bar @ 12,500rpm with respect to peak power output and instantaneous fuel flow rate?

So in short, which car is faster?