Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Hoffman900]

When the FIA froze the FI power unit design and development from 2022 they did so because they were sure that out of the four power unit manufacturers nobody had a significant advantage.

Not necessarily. Merc's big advantage in 2014 was because the rules were frozen, and the other teams couldn't change their designs even though they had better stuff on the dynos.

[GhostF1]

When the FIA froze the FI power unit design and development from 2022 they did so because they were sure that out of the four power unit manufacturers nobody had a significant advantage.

Not necessarily. Merc's big advantage in 2014 was because the rules were frozen, and the other teams couldn't change their designs even though they had better stuff on the dynos.

And the FIA are basing parity on a crude 3% margin which is roughly a 30hp swing either way which can make a difference. It's a pretty agricultural measuring stick to be honest. Especially if one engine can maintain this output for an entire lap and another cannot (as an example). Not to mention I'm not sure how they could of pre-empted how each manufacturer would of responded to the new fuel or how two new engine designs (Renault/Ferrari) performed.

But in saying this, I think it's fair to say all four are the closest they've been as a collective since 2014. The biggest issues I see are two seem to have pretty average reliability to maintain this proximity. And it's the two who have introduced new architectures (go figure).

[AR3-GP]

When the FIA froze the FI power unit design and development from 2022 they did so because they were sure that out of the four power unit manufacturers nobody had a significant advantage.

Not necessarily. Merc's big advantage in 2014 was because the rules were frozen, and the other teams couldn't change their designs even though they had better stuff on the dynos.

People talk about the engine freeze hurting the others and completely neglect to mention that if the regs weren't frozen, Mercedes would have simply pulled further ahead such was the amount of resource and expertise they had in the project.

Merc's big advantage really didn't have to do with the regs being frozen. The other manufacturers were simply "way out of their depth" resource wise (Renault), and ability wise (Honda, Ferrari, Renault). Even when the engine rules were a free for all since 2018, it took until 2022 for the Mercedes PU to finally be dethroned.

[PlatinumZealot]

Correct there were engines tokens to spend.
In 2015 Ferrari actually made huge leap after using a larger turbocharger and TJI.

[wuzak]

Merc's big advantage really didn't have to do with the regs being frozen. The other manufacturers were simply "way out of their depth" resource wise (Renault), and ability wise (Honda, Ferrari, Renault). Even when the engine rules were a free for all since 2018, it took until 2022 for the Mercedes PU to finally be dethroned.

Mercedes also had a head start for those regulations.

[Hoffman900]

Merc's big advantage really didn't have to do with the regs being frozen. The other manufacturers were simply "way out of their depth" resource wise (Renault), and ability wise (Honda, Ferrari, Renault). Even when the engine rules were a free for all since 2018, it took until 2022 for the Mercedes PU to finally be dethroned.

Mercedes also had a head start for those regulations.

To quote Luca Marmorini from Race Engine Technology Issue 100, Feb 2017:

"In the first year of the regulations, to have such a new concept of car, with the powertrain frozen, that was not good", "of course we had a lot of frustation being behind Mercedes, both us and Renault were struggling. If we had a chance to introduce some performance modifications during the year, Mercedes would have still won anyway, but we could have made their lives a bit harder".... "but we couldn't introduce anything for performance. It was very frustrating already having an engine that was much better on the dyno but not being able to use it because of the regulations. So it was very good that the FIA accepted the change of regulations at the end of 2014, allowing teams to use tokens for performance during the race season".

...

"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong".

...

"I remember that at the time, some decisions had to be based on the taking the safer route. We thought reliability would have played a major role in the season, but in the end that was not the case. By the time we got to Bahrain we realized the deficit, but there was not time to react because we were already building engines for the first race".

...

about Ferrari being a smaller company:

"So we were struggling to handle a racing season where the company was expecting you to succeed, while at the same time you were using the dynos to run the new concept. We paid the price for that in 2013, as we developed the new engine on just one dyno and a single-cylinder engine. The V8 and the new engine could not share the same dyno. It was only at the end of 2013 that were were able to use all our facilities for the new powertrain"... "the overlapping period needed to be done with more redundancy". "This was the approaching taken by Mercedes, which by mid-2013 had a skeleton team working on its V8 program."

He mentioned the infusion of capital feom Fiat / Chrysler helped a bunch, but that came later.


He also revealed without getting into any details, that they were working on different combustion concepts as early as 2013. The Audi and Peugot diesels were showing everyone how to do with with the fuel flow limited regime as they were rapid combustion Miller Cycle engines before F1 made the switch.

[johnny comelately]

[etusch]

"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong".

These kind of words look like an axplanation of something but when you look carefully it is said for decepting people. They are true (this is why they are decepting people) but not whole of truth and unsaid parts are more important to understand the fact than said ones. Many manufacturer paticipated during rule making. Ok. but which manufacturer's suggestions accepted which one's not. especially in key areas?
I really liked this formula and sad because it will change. Just there are many wrong things there too.

[Hoffman900]

"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong".

These kind of words look like an axplanation of something but when you look carefully it is said for decepting people. They are true (this is why they are decepting people) but not whole of truth and unsaid parts are more important to understand the fact than said ones. Many manufacturer paticipated during rule making. Ok. but which manufacturer's suggestions accepted which one's not. especially in key areas?
I really liked this formula and sad because it will change. Just there are many wrong things there too.

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe to suit their narrative, despite nothing backing it up but suspicion and rumors.

[etusch]

"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong".

These kind of words look like an axplanation of something but when you look carefully it is said for decepting people. They are true (this is why they are decepting people) but not whole of truth and unsaid parts are more important to understand the fact than said ones. Many manufacturer paticipated during rule making. Ok. but which manufacturer's suggestions accepted which one's not. especially in key areas?
I really liked this formula and sad because it will change. Just there are many wrong things there too.

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe to suit their narrative, despite nothing backing it up but suspicion and rumors.

Correct but not only for me.

[Hoffman900]

These kind of words look like an axplanation of something but when you look carefully it is said for decepting people. They are true (this is why they are decepting people) but not whole of truth and unsaid parts are more important to understand the fact than said ones. Many manufacturer paticipated during rule making. Ok. but which manufacturer's suggestions accepted which one's not. especially in key areas?
I really liked this formula and sad because it will change. Just there are many wrong things there too.

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe to suit their narrative, despite nothing backing it up but suspicion and rumors.

Correct but not only for me.

You do realize I took quotes out of an interview. The conversation was much more natural sounding.

That said, he was involved in the making of the rules from the get-go. I know it doesn’t support a lot of people’s narratives but it doesn’t get more boots on the ground than that.

[pursue_one's]

Power Unit 2023: what are manufacturers allowed to change?

We need to focus on building a fast and reliable [2023] car." Mattia Binotto had made it known in the post Abu Dhabi GP. In Maranello there is a lot of pressure on the engineers because a large part of the performance of the 2023 car will depend on their corrections. Next year's PU, which Binotto defined as a "bomb" in a conversation with Steiner, will in fact have many changes in the name of reliability even if officially the units are frozen from the beginning of 2022.

It is therefore interesting to understand what the engineers can change in this era of frozen engines, something that does not only concern Ferrari, although it was the most afflicted engineer.

Mercedes is also working to solve some limitations encountered last season, after the last unit had made concessions to solve some problems in terms of crankshaft reliability. Basically, defined minor changes can be made in homologation time windows.

This means you can't constantly introduce updates. The modifications that can be made concern the materials as long as the layout, the wiring and the exhaust system are not modified, provided that the key parameters that define the system, i.e. diameters, lengths, etc. remain substantially unchanged, the position of the turbocharger (within 20 mm of the original position with respect to the endothermic part), the clocking and the supports of the turbo, as well as the position of the wastegate with housings and pipes, as well as the position of the pop-off valve with its housing, tubing and air inlet system.

It should be remembered that each homologation is subject to the formal approval of the FIA, after having examined the modification projects and any further requested documentation, informing the other engine manufacturers of the request.

source: https://www.formu1a.uno/ferrari-vasseur ... ne-estate/

[AR3-GP]

Being able to change material is quite a loophole. Materials researchers and engine manufacturers will continue to play with chemistry to develop stiffer, lighter, more heat resistant, more fatigue proof, and more resilient metal alloys which in turn allows for a lighter crankshaft, lighter pistons, less rotational mass, and more engine power.

If the FIA is actually interested in freezing the engines, then they should set a performance target and let the manufacturers develop until they all hit it. Otherwise this pointless shadow development under the guise of reliability just makes a mockery of the freeze.

[saviour stivala]

Power unit - "what are manufacturers allowed to change?''. Once the power unit was homologated the manufacturer is allowed to change nothing. Any changes requested for reliability can only be made after they have been approved. Materials and dimensions as laid down by regulations will still have to be respected.

[chrisc90]

Being able to change material is quite a loophole. Materials researchers and engine manufacturers will continue to play with chemistry to develop stiffer, lighter, more heat resistant, more fatigue proof, and more resilient metal alloys which in turn allows for a lighter crankshaft, lighter pistons, less rotational mass, and more engine power.

If the FIA is actually interested in freezing the engines, then they should set a performance target and let the manufacturers develop until they all hit it. Otherwise this pointless shadow development under the guise of reliability just makes a mockery of the freeze.

Agreed. It does seem silly that there can be 'reliability upgrades' which can increase power or as you say, material changes.

Once the engine is homologated then they shouldnt be allowed to change ANY part of the design or material spec in my opinion.