Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[saviour stivala]

When FERRARI wins they have to be cheating. When Mercedes wins they have designed a superior car.

[saviour stivala]

unlimited this and unlimited that, bypassing this and bypassing that. a maximum power flow of 4mj for 33.33 seconds per lap can be returned to the MGU-K, and from there to the drivetrain.

[Craigy]

unlimited this and unlimited that, bypassing this and bypassing that. a maximum power flow of 4mj for 33.33 seconds per lap can be returned to the MGU-K, and from there to the drivetrain.

And from the es to the mguh, and then from the inertia in the mguh, how is that limited?

[henry]

unlimited this and unlimited that, bypassing this and bypassing that. a maximum power flow of 4mj for 33.33 seconds per lap can be returned to the MGU-K, and from there to the drivetrain.

The 33.333 second number is not correct. It was used in the early days of the formula to help people “understand” the energy flow but it assumes that the MGU-K may ONLY be driven from the ES. It’s still being used by people like Martin Brundle on SKY UK. He should know better.

In reality the MGU-K may be driven by BOTH the ES and the MGU-H at the same time, a “bypass” that you referred to. The MGU-H makes around 60 kW* at full throttle, which is when the MGU-K gets used. This means the power drain from the ES is only 60 kW and the MGU-K can be driven for 66.666 seconds.

Using the K for this full time is not likely to be lap-time efficient. So the another “bypass” comes into play. Sometimes the MGU-H is driven by the ES (which also drives the MGU-K at the same time) , giving a supercharge effect and more power to the road. This mode is used in conjunction with open wastegate and is thought to increase power by 30 hp, which I believe is the added power in the allegations.

I think this supercharge mode is possibly what is being referred to when the allegation about Ferrari being able to deploy an extra 0.2 MJ to the MGU-K. If they could they would be able to use that extra 30 hp for an extra 1.66 seconds, which may make a difference in qualifying.

Whether or not Ferrari is doing such a thing and if so whether or not they do so illegally is up for grabs. @Craigy’s mention of inertia may be one such legal method with a potentially heavy but short duty cycle on the MGU-H.

* Andy Cowell mentioned this number, indirectly, in a recent press conference.

[McHonda]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

[AnotherAlex]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I just asked the same question on the Spanish GP thread.
The rumours are getting pathetic - if the people behind these 'paddock rumours' had any decency (or evidence), they should put their reputations on the line and talk publicly.

[McHonda]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I just asked the same question on the Spanish GP thread.
The rumours are getting pathetic - if the people behind these 'paddock rumours' had any decency (or evidence), they should put their reputations on the line and talk publicly.

Yeah it's a weird one. Same with the whole extra oil tank fiasco last year which became widely accepted fact thanks to AMuS and Sky pushing it as such around Baku because it suited their agenda.

That's in spite of all teams having an auxiliary tank and the FIA and Ferrari denying they asked Ferrari to remove theirs but it's still, as nicely demonstrated in here, a "fact" that Ferrari had theirs removed.

That's down to how much airtime that rumour got and how it's reported. Meanwhile Mercedes having something removed before the season starts barely makes it into the rumour mill.

[saviour stivala]

No matter one’s imagination stretches/twists-it/pushes-it, Max electric power contribution to the drivetrain (contribution to ICE power) permitted is 4mj for 33.33 seconds per lap. And please don’t contaminate this site with what those at SKY feeds their sheep like followers and that includes their side kick/advisor the number one speculator/conspirator MH.
People tend to believe conspiracy theories in order to be in the know/to have some access to hidden knowledge that can give them a sense of control. It is unbelievable that some go as far as to believe that the rule makers will police/measure what is permitted (electrical power) anywhere other than at the MGU-H which is the final point of electrical power flow to the drivetrain.

[saviour stivala]

A correction/my bad, final line on my last post should read "MGU-K" and not MGU-H

[LM10]

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I just asked the same question on the Spanish GP thread.
The rumours are getting pathetic - if the people behind these 'paddock rumours' had any decency (or evidence), they should put their reputations on the line and talk publicly.

Yeah it's a weird one. Same with the whole extra oil tank fiasco last year which became widely accepted fact thanks to AMuS and Sky pushing it as such around Baku because it suited their agenda.

That's in spite of all teams having an auxiliary tank and the FIA and Ferrari denying they asked Ferrari to remove theirs but it's still, as nicely demonstrated in here, a "fact" that Ferrari had theirs removed.

That's down to how much airtime that rumour got and how it's reported. Meanwhile Mercedes having something removed before the season starts barely makes it into the rumour mill.

That's what I also don't understand. It's like the rule makers and officials seem to look at Mercedes as the "good boy" team or something like that.

[bonjon1979]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

Ferrari still has its special veto of rule changes if they don’t like so regardless of the vote being lost they could still have stopped it. That’s my understanding anyway.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

[McHonda]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

Ferrari still has its special veto of rule changes if they don’t like so regardless of the vote being lost they could still have stopped it. That’s my understanding anyway.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I don't see why Ferrari would start throwing their veto around all of a sudden for technical and sporting regs. They usually save it for cost changes being proposed, I don't think I've ever heard of them using it to veto changes such as the aero regs.

Seems a weak connection.

[giantfan10]

If (and I stress IF) the rumours are true that Ferrari gave in on the rule changes because of the FIA's findings about the ES, that suggests that Ferrari weren't "being clever", they were cheating and were caught. The FIA then said "give in on the rule changes or we'll take this public". Ferrari said ok to the rule changes. Enough said.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I just asked the same question on the Spanish GP thread.
The rumours are getting pathetic - if the people behind these 'paddock rumours' had any decency (or evidence), they should put their reputations on the line and talk publicly.

Iwill clarify it for you...the media wing of mercedes AMUS....seems to be the source of neverending finger pointing at Ferrari

[bonjon1979]

Ferrari still has its special veto of rule changes if they don’t like so regardless of the vote being lost they could still have stopped it. That’s my understanding anyway.

What rule changes? They voted against the 2019 aero rule changes recently but it got enough votes to pass anyway.

I don't see why Ferrari would start throwing their veto around all of a sudden for technical and sporting regs. They usually save it for cost changes being proposed, I don't think I've ever heard of them using it to veto changes such as the aero regs.

Seems a weak connection.

Yeh, I don’t buy it either, just explaining the context.

[henry]

No matter one’s imagination stretches/twists-it/pushes-it, Max electric power contribution to the drivetrain (contribution to ICE power) permitted is 4mj for 33.33 seconds per lap. And please don’t contaminate this site with what those at SKY feeds their sheep like followers and that includes their side kick/advisor the number one speculator/conspirator MH.
People tend to believe conspiracy theories in order to be in the know/to have some access to hidden knowledge that can give them a sense of control. It is unbelievable that some go as far as to believe that the rule makers will police/measure what is permitted (electrical power) anywhere other than at the MGU-H which is the final point of electrical power flow to the drivetrain.

You are right the rule makers do police energy flow, this is what the regs say on the ERS power unit flow diagram :


Control of Energy Management:
- One sensor is connected to measure all electrical energy into and out of the Energy Store
- One sensor is connected to measure all electrical energy into and out of the MGU-K

But the flow diagram shows two connections to the MGU-K, one from the ES and one from the MGU-H, and similarly 2 connections to the ES, one from the MGU-K and one from the MGU-H. Given the two measurement points and 4 connections their must be some process that discriminates between the energy flow that is constrained, between the the ES and MGU-K ( 4 MJ in the case we are discussing) and the energy flow that is unconstrained, which is anything passing through the MGU-H.

This means the energy flow isn’t measured directly, it is an indirect process, it somehow has to ignore the flows to and from the MGU-H, and in that case there is possibly an opportunity to exploit that process to exceed the limits envisioned. Perhaps Ferrari, and others, are able to do just that. We don’t, and can’t, know because the regs don’t say how the measurement process works.

I think that the 33 second figure was based on the assumption that all energy to the MGU-K would come from the ES. It is believed that when Honda first started they did just that and as a consequence could deploy for much less of the lap than their rivals.

As for your reference to SKY. It is you who is repeating the misunderstanding about MGU-K operation time not I.

I have not down voted your post. I hope you will reconsider and correct it.