Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Phil]

Has anyone thought about that 3rd paddle on the back of the steering wheel and if it is related to the power surge? If yes, it is perhaps something that is driver controlled. If yes, what in the chain of the PU could be linked to something that needs to be triggered by the driver?

[Big Tea]

Has anyone thought about that 3rd paddle on the back of the steering wheel and if it is related to the power surge? If yes, it is perhaps something that is driver controlled. If yes, what in the chain of the PU could be linked to something that needs to be triggered by the driver?

Is it correct that Kimi does not have it? It would not seem to be sensible to only enable one car. Unless Kimi prefers some other way of activating it?

[bill shoe]

Sequence of events?--

1. Early in season, Merc notices unusual Ferrari power boost and asks FIA for clarification. Up to this point Ferrari has been keeping the trick a bit under wraps and obfuscating, assuming it's a gray area that could be taken away by the FIA in full light of day. Please notice "trick" not necessarily same as "cheat".

2. FIA rolls up sleeves, demands clarity and additional sensors on the Ferrari system. Ferrari provides additional sensors, rolls back trick, and cringes. FIA looks at this new sensor data, maybe understands underlying trick or maybe does not, but either way declares Ferrari legal on basis of clear readings from new sensors.

3. As result of this FIA investigation, Ferrari is delighted to realize that the FIA has effectively OK'd use of the trick. Ferrari power-unit people quickly rush back to the drawing board and suppress giddy laughter long enough to come up with trick 2.0 that maxes out performance according to new black & white FIA feedback. No more need to compromise trick to keep it partially obfuscated from FIA or competitors.

This sequence of events perfectly fits the season-long ups and downs of the Ferrari PU performance.

[subcritical71]

Sequence of events?--

1. Early in season, Merc notices unusual Ferrari power boost and asks FIA for clarification. Up to this point Ferrari has been keeping the trick a bit under wraps and obfuscating, assuming it's a gray area that could be taken away by the FIA in full light of day. Please notice "trick" not necessarily same as "cheat".

2. FIA rolls up sleeves, demands clarity and additional sensors on the Ferrari system. Ferrari provides additional sensors, rolls back trick, and cringes. FIA looks at this new sensor data, maybe understands underlying trick or maybe does not, but either way declares Ferrari legal on basis of clear readings from new sensors.

3. As result of this FIA investigation, Ferrari is delighted to realize that the FIA has effectively OK'd use of the trick. Ferrari power-unit people quickly rush back to the drawing board and suppress giddy laughter long enough to come up with trick 2.0 that maxes out performance according to new black & white FIA feedback. No more need to compromise trick to keep it partially obfuscated from FIA or competitors.

This sequence of events perfectly fits the season-long ups and downs of the Ferrari PU performance.

I was thinking along these same lines. Once they were deemed legal there was no longer any reason to be cautious. My other thinking was that Ferrari, knowing the complexity of the trick (maybe it can’t be done easily in season), themselves allowed the trick to be leaked to cause a distraction in the pit lane while they finalize their design. Once it was green lighted by the FIA it was implemented. Can’t wait for v3.0.

What are the chances Merc, with their ex-Ferrari engineers, are already aware of the solution but can’t implement it fast enough. That would explain the resignation Toto expressed after Germany.

[Big Tea]

I would just love to see the FIA book where things are entered as 'not allowed' and the little paragraph after explaining why not. I bet some are so close to being accepted the originator would head bang the wall if they knew what they could have got away with.

[saviour stivala]

Fully agree henry. Would like to add the following. These two sensors are to FIA specification and placed at FIA specified measuring positions, their measured readings are recorded by the car data logger with the FIA having access to the data logger at all time, all this is per FIA rules and regulations. The sensor that measure everything that goes in and out of the ES is mandated because regardless that some of what is thrown at the ES or out of ES to other ERS components might be UNLIMITTED, what goes in and out of ES is limited. The sensor that measures everything that goes in and out of the MGU-K is mandated because regardless that some of what is thrown at the MGU-K or out of MGU-K (from or to) might be UNLIMITTED, what goes in and out of MGU-K is limited. Those other components of the ERS that their in and out of them is listed as being unlimited does not need any FIA measuring sensor.
"There are TWO sensors. One measures everything in and out of the ES, the other everything in and out of the MGU-K".

Which seams to suggest they have developed a method of producing power and feeding it directly, without troubling the ES at all. It has to be from the H.

Doubt that is the difference between Ferrari and the other teams since in the rule it states: "An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K.", if your guess would be true then all other non-Ferrari teams would have overlooked that, which they obviously haven't. Sure, the effectiveness can be different but not this much that some say is equivalent of 2 years engine development (maybe the 2 years is just media sensationalism but still)

My point was, the only two energy flow measuring sensors mandated by the rules/regulations to measure energy flow in and out of the ERS components are Placed on the only two ERS components (ES and MGU-K) whose in and out flow is limited regardless of what is thrown at them.
As far as i know any developed electrical power can only be transfared to the power train by the MGU-K and anything that goes in or out of the MGU-K is measured because it is limitted by the rules.

[saviour stivala]

Didn't Vettel have a weird acceleration boost on the China straight in quali?

He was behind Kimi and had the worse corner exit but at some point accelerated like crazy to get pole.

That was called a slipstream.

There was no one in front of Vettel while on his pole lap..... moreover Vettel was pressing the 3rd paddle while on the straight at that point, could that point to some.extra deployment From ERS ?

And where does any deployment being extra or not go through from to the powertrain? And isn’t deployment being extra or not being measured right at that final despatcher (anything that goes in and anything that goes out of it?.

[subcritical71]

Which seams to suggest they have developed a method of producing power and feeding it directly, without troubling the ES at all. It has to be from the H.

Doubt that is the difference between Ferrari and the other teams since in the rule it states: "An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K.", if your guess would be true then all other non-Ferrari teams would have overlooked that, which they obviously haven't. Sure, the effectiveness can be different but not this much that some say is equivalent of 2 years engine development (maybe the 2 years is just media sensationalism but still)

It may just be one of those things no one has thought of, or looked at a rule that way. Just because it has not been done, does not mean it is not simple. That it appeared to be more effective at the higher end rather than low end suggests to me (no expert) that it gets its benefit from higher RPM, but equally, as was suggested by someone else here, it may be a misdirect and is not even engine/pu related at all, but hints just to keep the opposition wasting their time in the wrong place.

Honda already have shown how to switch the H between motoring and generating at a rate of 20 to 40hz. Maybe there is some optimization or new ideas in this regard. Since the size of the H is not limited you could use the change in moment of inertia to optimize the setup(?)

[roon]

Doubt that is the difference between Ferrari and the other teams since in the rule it states: "An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K.", if your guess would be true then all other non-Ferrari teams would have overlooked that, which they obviously haven't. Sure, the effectiveness can be different but not this much that some say is equivalent of 2 years engine development (maybe the 2 years is just media sensationalism but still)

It may just be one of those things no one has thought of, or looked at a rule that way. Just because it has not been done, does not mean it is not simple. That it appeared to be more effective at the higher end rather than low end suggests to me (no expert) that it gets its benefit from higher RPM, but equally, as was suggested by someone else here, it may be a misdirect and is not even engine/pu related at all, but hints just to keep the opposition wasting their time in the wrong place.

Honda already have shown how to switch the H between motoring and generating at a rate of 20 to 40hz. Maybe there is some optimization or new ideas in this regard. Since the size of the H is not limited you could use the change in moment of inertia to optimize the setup(?)

You're correct that the H is not limited in output, but it may be worth mentioning that it cannot be lighter than 4kg. Regarding optimization of the so-called 'extra harvest' mode: the clutch allowance for the MGUH may be helpful. Decoupling the rotating mass of the turbocharger from the MGUH should permit higher frequency, or more aggressive, cycling. This could be done under braking.

[Big Tea]

It may just be one of those things no one has thought of, or looked at a rule that way. Just because it has not been done, does not mean it is not simple. That it appeared to be more effective at the higher end rather than low end suggests to me (no expert) that it gets its benefit from higher RPM, but equally, as was suggested by someone else here, it may be a misdirect and is not even engine/pu related at all, but hints just to keep the opposition wasting their time in the wrong place.

Honda already have shown how to switch the H between motoring and generating at a rate of 20 to 40hz. Maybe there is some optimization or new ideas in this regard. Since the size of the H is not limited you could use the change in moment of inertia to optimize the setup(?)

You're correct that the H is not limited in output, but it may be worth mentioning that it cannot be lighter than 4kg. Regarding optimization of the so-called 'extra harvest' mode: the clutch allowance for the MGUH may be helpful. Decoupling the rotating mass of the turbocharger from the MGUH should permit higher frequency, or more aggressive, cycling. This could be done under braking.

(don't know that its relevant, just interest) You say can not be lighter than 4kg, but what is inclusive in this?
Is it the rotating part or housing and mounts too? they could easily 'lose' .5kg by making the mount from cast or thickening a web.
Would reducing the weight help? it is electrically assisted so would be no lag.

Does anyone know if there is a picture of (a modern) one? Is it wound like an alternator or is the 'moving part' permanent magnet or some other system to make the most of it

[subcritical71]

Honda already have shown how to switch the H between motoring and generating at a rate of 20 to 40hz. Maybe there is some optimization or new ideas in this regard. Since the size of the H is not limited you could use the change in moment of inertia to optimize the setup(?)

You're correct that the H is not limited in output, but it may be worth mentioning that it cannot be lighter than 4kg. Regarding optimization of the so-called 'extra harvest' mode: the clutch allowance for the MGUH may be helpful. Decoupling the rotating mass of the turbocharger from the MGUH should permit higher frequency, or more aggressive, cycling. This could be done under braking.

(don't know that its relevant, just interest) You say can not be lighter than 4kg, but what is inclusive in this?
Is it the rotating part or housing and mounts too? they could easily 'lose' .5kg by making the mount from cast or thickening a web.
Would reducing the weight help? it is electrically assisted so would be no lag.

Does anyone know if there is a picture of (a modern) one? Is it wound like an alternator or is the 'moving part' permanent magnet or some other system to make the most of it

I was actually thinking the other way on weight. By increasing it you get a bit more inertia which may help in the change from generating > harvest > generating > etc. cycles. I know weight is an evil word, but there may be a balance where you can use the H as a type of flywheel storage system which then bypasses the ES and H storage requirements. Are we talking grams or kilograms I don't know...

[roon]

A perhaps more historical question: I don't believe Ferrari or Renault ever used log manifolds for their exhaust, within this formula. Both Merc and Honda ran log manifolds in their first year. What could this tell us about development paths or philosophy?

I was actually thinking the other way on weight. By increasing it you get a bit more inertia which may help in the change from generating > harvest > generating > etc. cycles. I know weight is an evil word, but there may be a balance where you can use the H as a type of flywheel storage system which then bypasses the ES and H storage requirements. Are we talking grams or kilograms I don't know...

Good point on mass, but consider that pumping losses (correct term?) will be incurred through operation of the compressor and turbine. I don't think compressor nor turbine wheels would make good flywheels for energy storage considering their air resistance is so high. The MGUH rotor could conceivably be operated in partial vacuum.

You say can not be lighter than 4kg, but what is inclusive in this?
Is it the rotating part or housing and mounts too? they could easily 'lose' .5kg by making the mount from cast or thickening a web. Would reducing the weight help? it is electrically assisted so would be no lag.

No individual components mentioned in 5.2.4. Presumably this means total weight of the assembled MGUH. This specification was added for the 2017 season.

[gruntguru]

This whole engine situation just keeps getting weirder.. In the recent episode of Formel Schmidt (AMuS) Michael Schmidt said the following things after talking with Andy Cowell:
- the jump in performance (supposedly 38hp) came in Austria
- Only Ferrari gained this much performance not Sauber and Haas
- Merc's data analysis shows that they are equal on power until 250km/h with Ferrari, after that Ferrari pulls away drastically

I've heard different interview with Toto of Merc, and he said Merc and Ferrari are even on the straights up to the point where accel stops being traction-limited, and from then on Ferrari easily pulls away. Traction-limited stops at ~ 150 kph. This is a very different scenario than the cars separating at 250 kph like the Andy Cowell interview.

A difference that started at 150 kph would imply higher peak power. A difference that started at 250 kph would imply either less aero drag or a longer sustaining of existing peak power enabled by, um, well, mechanism unclear as has been discussed in this thread extensively.

Longer sustain of peak power could come from a couple of things.
More SOC to play with. So all the ways that harvest come in to play, plus any ability to maximise the use of the batteries.
Lower MGU-H power demand. Perhaps the turbine makes more power from blowdown. Perhaps the compressor is more efficient.
If they have found a way to get more from the MGU-H, that would likely affect both of these and allow longer deployment(s).
I don’t think we can discount chassis and aero either. If the customer teams don’t show this behaviour it’s possible that their deployment schedules are different, not because of default programming but because of behaviours learned during practise. And those behaviours will be dependent on chassis and aero performance.

If you have a Merc and a Ferrari accelerating through 150 km and exceeding the traction limited speed, both cars will be deploying the maximum 120 kW to the K. If the Ferrari has an additional 40 hp available it has to be either a crankshaft power advantage or electric supercharger deployment (which also ends up at the crankshaft). Electric supercharger mode is worth less than 3 bar in BMEP terms (exhaust stroke pumping work reduction). 40 hp is about 1 bar BMEP at 11,000 rpm which is approximately the gain I would expect from electric supercharging.

[cheeRS]

I've heard different interview with Toto of Merc, and he said Merc and Ferrari are even on the straights up to the point where accel stops being traction-limited, and from then on Ferrari easily pulls away. Traction-limited stops at ~ 150 kph. This is a very different scenario than the cars separating at 250 kph like the Andy Cowell interview.

A difference that started at 150 kph would imply higher peak power. A difference that started at 250 kph would imply either less aero drag or a longer sustaining of existing peak power enabled by, um, well, mechanism unclear as has been discussed in this thread extensively.

Longer sustain of peak power could come from a couple of things.
More SOC to play with. So all the ways that harvest come in to play, plus any ability to maximise the use of the batteries.
Lower MGU-H power demand. Perhaps the turbine makes more power from blowdown. Perhaps the compressor is more efficient.
If they have found a way to get more from the MGU-H, that would likely affect both of these and allow longer deployment(s).
I don’t think we can discount chassis and aero either. If the customer teams don’t show this behaviour it’s possible that their deployment schedules are different, not because of default programming but because of behaviours learned during practise. And those behaviours will be dependent on chassis and aero performance.

If you have a Merc and a Ferrari accelerating through 150 km and exceeding the traction limited speed, both cars will be deploying the maximum 120 kW to the K. If the Ferrari has an additional 40 hp available it has to be either a crankshaft power advantage or electric supercharger deployment (which also ends up at the crankshaft). Electric supercharger mode is worth less than 3 bar in BMEP terms (exhaust stroke pumping work reduction). 40 hp is about 1 bar BMEP at 11,000 rpm which is approximately the gain I would expect from electric supercharging.

I wonder if Ferrari have found something extra if the electric S/C mode is the differentiator. The one unorthodox thing about the electric SC mode is that the turbine is still linked (whereas a 'normal' electric SC wouldn't have a turbine at all), and thus becomes a fan/vacuum pump for the exhaust. This would ostensibly remove any backpressure and maybe even create a more ideal vacuum for the combustion chamber?

[roon]

Something I've been wondering is: at what speed does the turbine become a centrifugal compressor?

Somewhat related: Wastegates open, turbine-dependent, all exhaust gases could be forced through the wastegate pipe(s). If an over-spun sufficiently sized electro-turbine can fend off exhaust backpressure on its own. This would be for aero benefit; a way to force more gases through the small pipe(s) to influence the RW.