Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[F1NAC]

Unlimited upgraded for reliability reasons are allowed. Rivals cannot stop them, only FIA decides. Leclerc used fully upgrades PU 2 in Miami and for 20 laps in Spain. In Baku Leclerc was using PU 1. In 5 days after Baku FERRARI needs to declare whether the failed Baku PU 1 can be repaired. If not Leclerc will be issued with PU 3. The problem is the Turbo. If the turbo used in Baku cannot be used Leclerc will have incur a grid penalty.

Where did you get that info? If that was indeed PU1, which started with lower power than PU2, that is then surprisingly good from a performance point of view, given how quick they were on the straights.

That information is obviously not correct. All press is reporting that the reliability upgrade from Ferrari didn't work, and that was in the PU2. Ferrari isn't going to run PU1 on a track like Baku, the last track it did was Monaco.

Just now watched Sam Collins on F1TV, he mentioned that PU1 was used after Spain failure in Monaco and Baku. I don't think he is right regarding Baku.

[codetower]

Unlimited upgraded for reliability reasons are allowed. Rivals cannot stop them, only FIA decides. Leclerc used fully upgrades PU 2 in Miami and for 20 laps in Spain. In Baku Leclerc was using PU 1. In 5 days after Baku FERRARI needs to declare whether the failed Baku PU 1 can be repaired. If not Leclerc will be issued with PU 3. The problem is the Turbo. If the turbo used in Baku cannot be used Leclerc will have incur a grid penalty.

Where did you get that info? If that was indeed PU1, which started with lower power than PU2, that is then surprisingly good from a performance point of view, given how quick they were on the straights.

That information is obviously not correct. All press is reporting that the reliability upgrade from Ferrari didn't work, and that was in the PU2. Ferrari isn't going to run PU1 on a track like Baku, the last track it did was Monaco.

Marc Gene was quoted yesterday saying it was the second unit with the same spec as the first, no reliability upgrades.

“It’s the second engine unit but it’s exactly the same spec as the first one. So it’s not that we brought any reliability updates – the engine is exactly the same.”

https://scuderiafans.com/marc-gene-conf ... y-updates/

[Sevach]

Where did you get that info? If that was indeed PU1, which started with lower power than PU2, that is then surprisingly good from a performance point of view, given how quick they were on the straights.

That information is obviously not correct. All press is reporting that the reliability upgrade from Ferrari didn't work, and that was in the PU2. Ferrari isn't going to run PU1 on a track like Baku, the last track it did was Monaco.

Just now watched Sam Collins on F1TV, he mentioned that PU1 was used after Spain failure in Monaco and Baku. I don't think he is right regarding Baku.

It wouldn't make sense, Ferrari took a 3rd turbo for Baku, why would they get a new turbo and attach it to ICE1 when ICE1 is doing just fine with it's old turbo.
You know who needed a new turbo after it's first unit went caputz? ICE2.

[saviour stivala]

The formula 1 rules/regulations can sometimes be confusing. Some followers even swear that they are intentionally confusing. Add a lot of people all pushing out their opinion and they sure gets confusing.
According to the rules there is no limit to the number of reliability upgrades as long as they are approved by the FIA. Also an engine upgrade cannot be ‘retrospectively’ fitted to an engine already in use. Were it starts to get confusing is engines can be repaired by ‘standard parts’. Which means that does not constitutes an upgrade. Anyhow. Sainz’s PU-1 is said to have been repaired by standard parts (no upgrade). And returned to his pool from race 4 in Imola were he took PU-2, this PU was only partially upgraded. Leclerc took a fully upgraded PU-2 in Maimi, this full upgrade PU-2 was said to have been total loss in Spain apart from the loss of TC and ‘H’. Leclerc is said to have raced PU-1 in standard form in Monaco. Leclerc is shown as having left Baku with 2 ICE. 3 TC. 2 H. 2 K. to his list. If as has been reported in some media Leclerc PU-2 was also totaled in Spain, apart from his TC, what ICE have he raced in Baku?.

[FDD]

"The cursed six-cylinder arrived in Maranello at the beginning of the morning for what can now be considered an ... autopsy, since the head failure caused damage that also extended to the turbo.
As Mattia Binotto said already on Sunday evening, Ferrari will go to Canada with engine 3, while it could still use the supercharging system of unit 1 (as in Monaco) to avoid going into penalties."
So Leclerc used PU2 in Baku.

[Sieper]

So in spain Charles lost a turbo, in Baku another (and the ICE itself) so he will revert to turbo 1, but that means he has to do all FPs and several more races with a turbo that has already been used quite a bit. Is that sensible?

It does ofcourse prevent a 10 place grid penalty for just a turbo, then better (at some point in the future) take 1 big penalty and get everything fresh (ICE, mgu turbo etc) and have 2 of all in the pool.

[etusch]

So in spain Charles lost a turbo, in Baku another (and the ICE itself) so he will revert to turbo 1, but that means he has to do all FPs and several more races with a turbo that has already been used quite a bit. Is that sensible?

It does ofcourse prevent a 10 place grid penalty for just a turbo, then better take 1 big penalty and get everything fresh (ICE, mgu turbo etc) and have 2 of all in the pool.

If the Turbo1 is in good condition enough to finish race, it is ok. But if there is a small question mark on it, 10 place penalty is far better. He will finish 4th at worst far better than not finishing.

[ryaan2904]

What I dont understand is how all of a sudden Lec's engine parts started failing just after he took an ICE 2. As far as I know, ferrari havent introduced any upgrades in Lec's 2nd engine. Also, sainz took the engine before him and he didnt have any engine failures as far as i know.
Could this just be a case of bad luck for Lec, in the sense that he just got faulty parts with his new engine?

[Big Tea]

So in spain Charles lost a turbo, in Baku another (and the ICE itself) so he will revert to turbo 1, but that means he has to do all FPs and several more races with a turbo that has already been used quite a bit. Is that sensible?

It does ofcourse prevent a 10 place grid penalty for just a turbo, then better take 1 big penalty and get everything fresh (ICE, mgu turbo etc) and have 2 of all in the pool.

If the Turbo1 is in good condition enough to finish race, it is ok. But if there is a small question mark on it, 10 place penalty is far better. He will finish 4th at worst far better than not finishing.

I think it better to bite the bullet now, while there is a higher chance of DNF than later when the engine is (hopefully) sorted. A visual target is also better than a stream of figures +- when looking what they need to do later in the year.
TBH, I thing RBR are out of sight this year, possibly Chas could sneak the title due to 'unforseen circumstance', but manufacturers title is gone.

[Big Tea]

What I dont understand is how all of a sudden Lec's engine parts started failing just after he took an ICE 2. As far as I know, ferrari havent introduced any upgrades in Lec's 2nd engine. Also, sainz took the engine before him and he didnt have any engine failures as far as i know.
Could this just be a case of bad luck for Lec, in the sense that he just got faulty parts with his new engine?

Or miscalculation of what conditions will be at the tracks. There have been some unexpected highs this year combined with a totally new car that may or may not have airflows exactly as planned.

[saviour stivala]

Sainz used PU-2 at race 4 in Imola, with only certain components being updated. (not a full update).
Leclerc used a fully updated PU-2 in Miami.

[PlatinumZealot]

So in spain Charles lost a turbo, in Baku another (and the ICE itself) so he will revert to turbo 1, but that means he has to do all FPs and several more races with a turbo that has already been used quite a bit. Is that sensible?

It does ofcourse prevent a 10 place grid penalty for just a turbo, then better (at some point in the future) take 1 big penalty and get everything fresh (ICE, mgu turbo etc) and have 2 of all in the pool.

The Turbo technically can last a "million miles." When they fail it's usually some foreign matter or something cracking or the like. Aggressive wear is not inherent in it like say an engine with sliding surfaces in mixed boundary lubrication - it's mostly hydrodynamic. I guess it should be fine to go some more.

[gruntguru]

I would assume the turbo life in these engines is governed mostly by heat cycling and stress cycling (fatigue).

[johnny comelately]

So in spain Charles lost a turbo, in Baku another (and the ICE itself) so he will revert to turbo 1, but that means he has to do all FPs and several more races with a turbo that has already been used quite a bit. Is that sensible?

It does ofcourse prevent a 10 place grid penalty for just a turbo, then better (at some point in the future) take 1 big penalty and get everything fresh (ICE, mgu turbo etc) and have 2 of all in the pool.

The Turbo technically can last a "million miles." When they fail it's usually some foreign matter or something cracking or the like. Aggressive wear is not inherent in it like say an engine with sliding surfaces in mixed boundary lubrication - it's mostly hydrodynamic. I guess it should be fine to go some more.

I had a native valve go through one once

[DR30]

I would assume the turbo life in these engines is governed mostly by heat cycling and stress cycling (fatigue).

Also, if they have adopted split architecture, it is likely, combined with extreme bouncing that they could be suffering with shaft stability issues as Honda had early on. From memory the engine let go right as it bottomed out?