Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[PlatinumZealot]

I really hate the Oil burning discussion in the engine threads. It's just speculating over the mundane and really adds no
real technical value to the engine topic.
There is nothing interesting talking about who was burning oil in the past. That belongs in general chat or something.

[AnotherAlex]

There is nothing interesting talking about who was burning oil in the past. That belongs in general chat or something.

I don't disagree with you but, according to Christian Horner, Mercedes and Ferrari continue to burn what he considers to be an excessive quantity of oil so this is going to rumble on. (I believe the claim is that Ferrari and Mercedes use the permitted 0.6l per 100km where as Renault use only 0.1l.)

[senja]

Only ""oil burning" is mentioned and related to Ferrari. Maybe all manufacturers are using water and or gasoline vapors to increase C-pressure or add more fuel.
On large stationary Diesel engines we had separators of water vapor on charge coolers, because of lower fuel consumption.

I didn't read techn. regulations related to this, but it wouldn't be big problem to reuse vapors.

BTW.I still can't believe that Mercedes still has such huge engine performance advantage after 4 years (acc. to what is presented in media).

Mercedes has been burning oil....PERIOD....
I'm even more amazed that there are people still thinking otherwise.
Why would Wolff try to convince fans and the media last year that Mercedes introducing an engine early to keep taking advantage of the higher oil burn allowance wouldn't matter because Mercedes was going to BURN LESS OIL to adhere to the new rule even though they did not have to? ...
What am I missing here? Why are there still F1 fans convinced that Mercedes didn't burn oil since 2014?....
Is it because SKY sports choses to pretend that Ferrari will be the only team affected by the new oil burn limits?
IMHO Mercedes designed their engine from conception to burn oil and no other team could figure out where the extra power came from and when they did there was absolutely nothing they could do about it because of the draconian engine rules.
Those rules were abolished for the 2017 season and Ferrari took advantage of them and joined the oil burning club....Renault not so much.
Ferrari took it one step further and fitted a separate oil tank which in theory would allow them to burn more oil or whatever fluid they chose since that fluid would in theory not be needed to lubricate the engine and was completely separate .
Mercedes who I believe was reintroducing oil through the air intake system from their regular oil tank saw the massive potential in the Ferrari design and requested clarification which pretty much shut that down.

All of this falls flat on its ass by the mercedes engine being the strongest despite not being able to burn oil. So much for the talk about how everyone but you are incredibly stupid and gullible.

Really? Who recommend this post? Oil burning is not prohibited. It is reduced from 1.2 l to 0.8 l. And Mercedes was still able to burn same amount of oil (1.2 l) because they introduced last engine before new rule applied. It's a known fact from last season.
Does these people even watch F1?

[Sieper]

0.9 liter per 100km.

[ringo]

Ok enough about oil burning guys. Time for a filter change!
(oil burning should have its own thread imo, very boring and overly speculative)

Back to the engine..


Now how is the charge air piping into what appears to be the intercoolers, and how is that then fed to the intake trumpets?

[PlatinumZealot]

There are what looks to be sensors plugged into the top of it.

[bill shoe]

There are what looks to be sensors plugged into the top of it.

Maybe homologated sensors to comply with the new FIA regs that limit how cold the intake air can be?

As far as boring oil-burning discussions, hey it was winter and we have to discuss whatever's available. In two days I would agree oil burning will become boring to discuss .

[aleks_ader]

Its seems they made small redesign of the intake pipings.

Possibly small tweak in VLIM rearrangement. Step toward what they had in 2015/2016 units. In 2017 they reverted back onto h2o intercooler between V engine banks. so they need to redesign the header in intake pipings. Let me explain; in 2015/2016 they try to make narrower top assembly of PU (plenum, intake plenum, longer intercoling). I think the goal was reduce engine cover size presumably to aid aerodynamics.


In 2017 they add bulkiness in that area, because they return to the intercooler between engine banks. So they made wider dual Y ducting toward compressor intake. Sacrificing of higher CofG. But made main charge air ducting shorter and presumably more efficient. But harder to package. To make life easier they sacrifice the engine cover bulkiness and also swallow some mechanical penalty on already mentioned rised CofG.

If we look on pic below in 2017 they had more flat "circular" ducting. Maybe they change ducting angle of attack. Maybe beacuse:
1) to made some more space to sit intercooler little deeper into ice to lower CofG of total unit.
2)Or made just more efficient ducting just like they had in 2014-2016. I mean it is apparent that they prefered more "space" for piping&plenum above header before.

It is interesting all those decisions aimed for maximum PU performance. Even for sacrificing chasis performance. You increse CofG, bulkier cover. In this fuel limited formula, gained kJ of recovered energy really pays off.

a) It seems shorter ducting really made some savings of ERS boost kJ. Especially in hard transitional driver demands, lets say twisty partial to full throttle stop%go tracks. I think to much lag is wasted energy or even ducting resistance it is worth some saved kJ and even maybe some kW of peak power. But maybe not so big deal?

b) Maybe they gain more just from shorter packaging of total PU (reducing polar inertia). You don't have intercooler inside the tank and you could putt engine bay further ahead closer to ideal "cofG" centerline. Hmm all about compromise it seems.

[dren]

Sounds like the Ferrari got a boost of around 10kw for this year from redesigning the turbo and other things.

[godlameroso]

Makes sense on year 4 of this formula the concept teams are working with is well developed, all the gains come from optimizing the concepts. The ones with the most potential will see the most regular gains.

[Mr.G]

Did they changed the intake air filter? It was almost perpendicular last year now it look like it's under quite an angle...

[ScrewCaptain27]

2018 Ferrari packaging:

Compared to 2017:

[PlatinumZealot]

Just a little slimmer on the sides to allow better air flow?

[ferkan]

Variable intake manifolds now take a bit more space up top it seems. They also went with standard radiator shape unlike V style last year. Back of the car does not look better packaged tbh.

[LM10]

Variable intake manifolds now take a bit more space up top it seems. They also went with standard radiator shape unlike V style last year. Back of the car does not look better packaged tbh.

I also noticed that the back of the SF71H looks not better packaged than last year. But there is one interesting thing: If you look at for example Spa 2017 you can see that the rear end looked much bigger there on the SF70H than it was in pre season testing 2017 and also bigger than it is now. I don't know after which race the engine cover changed last year. Was it maybe because of an engine change which made them need to change the packaging and they weren't able to package as slim as before?

Maybe I've confused you. In short:

SF70H: Barcelona pre season -> Slim packaging
SF70H: Spa 2017 -> Wider packaging
SF71H: Now -> Wider than SF70H in pre season, but slimmer than Spa 2017, so somewhere in the middle of both

Any thoughts?