Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

No (RETRO-EDIT - yes they did !! use Be/Al liners as well as pistons - see marc post later this page)

but they did use an approx 50/50 beryllium/aluminium 'alloy' material for their pistons
super strong/light, and super conductive of heat (as well as super stiff)
(my guess) worth another 1000 rpm, but lacking durability by recent F1 standards

in fatigue terms it can be plausible, but impact performance is poor- it seems to be used only in 'one shot' (eg aerospace) devices

a substantial use of beryllium is at 1-2 % alloyed with copper, for top quality electrical relays etc or IC valve seats

my post to the thread 'Let's build an engine' in the Engineering Projects section contains 2 links relating to these materials

[OO7]

Cheers TC.

[Brian Coat]

Here are some specs for the material probably (?) used.

http://materion.com/~/media/Files/PDFs/ ... yDataSheet

On the web you can also find Charpy impact data on an older Beryllium/Aluminium MMC (it has been around since the 1960/70s).

It doesn't look like an impact resistance disaster to me.

But it is banned.

[PlatinumZealot]

Cannot wait till 2022 to see the pistons in this engine lol

[Tommy Cookers]

Here are some specs for the material probably (?) used.
http://materion.com/~/media/Files/PDFs/ ... yDataSheet
On the web you can also find Charpy impact data on an older Beryllium/Aluminium MMC (it has been around since the 1960/70s).
It doesn't look like an impact resistance disaster to me.
But it is banned.

yes, I seem to have said elsewhere that impact performance at low temperatures was the problem
AlBeMet is the new name for Lockalloy, notch sensitivity etc is now much improved due to better production methods for the Beryllium
(p50 in 'Space Vehicle Mechanisms' by Peter L Conley is one reference for this)
and of course it is strictly not an alloy, and if now classified as an MMC, is so banned in F1
while an AlBe structure will tend to be weaker than a similar Al alloy structure (though stiffer and lighter)
its engineering properties are priceless for missile guidance systems whose deflections are due to self-mass under acceleration
it being up to 500% stiffer relative to mass than any other metal (and much stiffer than any other isotropic engineering material ?)

an Al/Be piston is no stronger than the conventional, but lighter, supported by its thermal conductivity allowing a thinner crown etc
so allowing higher rpm (ie higher piston accelerations) without needing more strength
(like iirc Mag alloy pistons in the 1920s GP dominating Delage - but Mag alloy is quite weak and quite poor in thermal conductivity)
I think Merc (Ilmor?) used 5050 (5000 series Al alloy with 50% Be)

but it (Al/Be) seems to offer nothing to the current high pressure, lower rpm engines
whose pistons were predicted by Gilles Simon to be diesel-style part-steel or steel insert type for strength at high temperature

[markc]

I wonder how it compares with beryllium.

These are two different "technologies". Beryllium is an element with outstanding stiffness and low density. The supposed "nanoslide" is a coating for the bore.

I understand, but didn't Mercedes/Ilmor use beryllium or a beryllium alloy to line bore of some of their V10s, before it was banned?

As I recall it, it was the Be used in the pistons which provided more power due to the elasticity of the alloy allowing for a longer stroke...

McLaren and Mercedes invested heavily in time and money to get that advantage at the end of the 90's, for it to be banned on cost grounds.

Timings wise the then Ferrari's Ross Brawn commented that it was clear that Mercedes were able to get more power at the same RPM as they, and he couldn't fathom how they did it. Which was code for: "I know what you're doing and please look into this FIA as this is another spiralling cost issue". There's also the fact that its carcinogenic, but then most things are in dust form.

McLaren and Ferrari were at each other both on and off the track with getting this and that banned / clarified / looked into / tweaked etc. Marginal gains meant ANY advantage and conversely removing said advantage was beneficial.

[SiLo]

I thought it was banned for health and safety. Because coming into contact with the material was hazardous.

[Tommy Cookers]

As I recall it, it was the Be used in the pistons which provided more power due to the elasticity of the alloy allowing for a longer stroke...
Timings wise the then Ferrari's Ross Brawn commented that it was clear that Mercedes were able to get more power at the same RPM as they, and he couldn't fathom how they did it. Which was code for: "I know what you're doing and please look into this FIA as this is another spiralling cost issue". There's also the fact that its carcinogenic, but then most things are in dust form.

it will be a much lighter piston, and so would tend allow a longer stroke engine to rev as fast as a shorter stroke engine

can anyone tell us what were the strokes of the Ferrari and the Merc/Ilmor engine at this time ?

(fwiw my guess would be that the Merc stroke was the shortest, and the benefit was more power from more revs than Ferrari)

[markc]

From here: http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablersn.htm
Ferrari V10 1998:

Code: Select all

Bore   Stroke
91.5   45.6

and from here: http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/3rd_N ... Part_2.pdf
Ilmor/Merc V10 1998:

Code: Select all

Bore   Stroke
93.5   43.67

Also from there:

Beryllium/Aluminium parts
The FO110G raced from the start with Be/Al-alloy in its pistons and also in its wet cylinder
liners. The latter were 35% lighter than the preceding Al-alloy parts and – with thinner barrels –
permitted closer cylinder spacing to reduce overall weight.
The Ilmor use of Be/Al-alloy was then ahead of Ferrari (700). It continued in Ilmor specifications
in 2000, after which it fell under an FIA ban on the grounds of excessive cost of any engine
metallic part with an Elasticity/Density ratio above 40 GPa/(gm/cc). Illien then disclosed that it
had not been a costly solution because the Be/Al parts had lasted longer (700). Of course, in the
nature of racing, development would very soon have used thinner sections to reduce piston
mass and so raise RPM, taking parts life back to one race!

[kooleracer]

http://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/news/20 ... article-2/

The 1.6 turbo engine produces 98% percent of the power of the old 2.4 V8. This means that the current engine produces atleast 900bhp. 740bhp 1.6 turbo + 160hp E-power. Crazy figures. TE of the overall PU is around 50%! The TE of the ICE is less than 40%.

[markc]

That's whats really annoying about the Bernie/Todd power play versus the engine manufacturers.
F1 should be shouting about how great these engines are from a TE perspective. Instead they moan about costs and lack of noise... </end rant>

[Tommy Cookers]

Beryllium/Aluminium parts
The FO110G raced from the start with Be/Al-alloy in its pistons and also in its wet cylinder
liners. The latter were 35% lighter than the preceding Al-alloy parts and – with thinner barrels –
permitted closer cylinder spacing to reduce overall weight.
The Ilmor use of Be/Al-alloy was then ahead of Ferrari (700). It continued in Ilmor specifications
in 2000, after which it fell under an FIA ban on the grounds of excessive cost of any engine
metallic part with an Elasticity/Density ratio above 40 GPa/(gm/cc). Illien then disclosed that it
had not been a costly solution because the Be/Al parts had lasted longer (700). Of course, in the
nature of racing, development would very soon have used thinner sections to reduce piston
mass and so raise RPM, taking parts life back to one race!

very interesting ! (and useful - it explains why there were different views on this)

the high thermal conductivity (and high specific heat capacity) and low coefficient of thermal expansion .....
are useful to the liner as well as to the piston

@ kooleracer
the current PU cannot produce 740 hp + 160 hp sustainably or even whenever the driver wants it in the race
and some of what power it appears able to produce sustainably is not actually being produced - it is recycled energy
that is energy that is part of what has already been delivered to the car ie energy that is being counted twice
energy that would not be available in road car driving or in propelling a boat or plane or chaffcutter

so if 740 hp + 160 hp is what gives an apparent TE of 50% (say), then the true TE is less than that apparent %
in this regard Mercedes publicity material appears to be disseminating falsehoods
and the benefits to those who don't spend 65% of their motoring time at WOT and 20% at max-'g' braking will be far less

[gruntguru]

50% TE is about 820 hp. That would require 740 crankshaft plus 80 from the MGUH. Not too fanciful IMO.

The Mercedes link states "An overall efficiency of around 50 percent can be achieved by the Power Unit’s internal combustion engine due to its high thermal efficiency." so they are not claiming exactly 50% - yet!

[ringo]

What i find weird about this power unit is that they have a thermal efficiency less than 40% but yet it is producing more than 740hp.
I have conceded early that they are stronger than i thought, however i would imaging efficiencies over 40%. So seeing that its less than 40, then we can see that their power levels are heavily dependent on their fuel.
I think they have a right to speak about overall thermal efficiency of the power unit. But they need to state it as break thermal efficiency since it goes beyond combustion.

[flat out]

Wrong. Read the article correctly. It clearly says that TODAY'S CONVENTIONEL ENGINES HAVE LESS THAN 40% efficiency (the ones used in road cars, not the ICE used in F1)