Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[saviour stivala]

The FERRARI special fuel is as special as all other fuels used in F1, no more special and no less special, this because it like all other fuels used in F1 have to conform with the FIA regulations (special and rear plus extremely difficult to produce molecules or not, just imagine a company the caliber of SHELL pushing out a fuel to FERRARI that they cannot produce in quantity needed), that doesn’t mean that it, the fuel used by FERRARI is not better than others. The actual specialty attached to it is the speculation by the same source that actually pushed out no less than half-a-dozen different speculated about means of why, how and by what means FERRARI gained a power advantage. When a source of information fires and pushes out at least half-a-dozen different technical items as being the possibility of speculated power gain and then a loss of power it goes to prove how speculative the source is.

[turbof1]

When a source of information fires and pushes out at least half-a-dozen different technical items as being the possibility of speculated power gain and then a loss of power it goes to prove how speculative the source is.

I agree. Yesterday, I visited an F1 news outlet. They took the article from AMuS, and based solely on the information from AMuS, which I deem questionable, wrote a "technical analysis". What I got to read was frankly insane:

Uiteindelijk was er het vermoeden dat Ferrari een systeem had ontwikkeld. Het was een systeem die een geheime opslag van energie had, waardoor de injectie op korte termijn de motor van meer brandstof vermengd met olie kon voorzien. Technische spotters vermoeden dat Ferrari de brandstof in de injectoren zou afkoelen. Anderen waren van mening dat de olie uit het koelcircuit in het verbrandingsproces zou zijn geïntroduceerd. Dit was in feite een geniale uitvinding. De olie die hiervoor gebruikt kon worden, is namelijk niet beperkt in haar verbruik.

Translation of that is:

In the end there was the suspicion that Ferrari developed a system. It was a system with a secret storage of energy, which made that on the short term the injection of the engine mixed more oil and fuel. People who were looking for technical elements, suspect that Ferrari cools down the fuel inside the injectors. Other people think Ferrari used oil from the cooling system for burning. This was actual a genius move. The oil being used for this,does not count towards the maximum regulatory oil burning.

Frankly, this is what you get when AMuS throws together rumors and suspicion like a madman. Safe to say the above is FAR from a technical analysis, but written by someone who has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about. The very first sentence is an abomination where they try to link the whole battery saga to oil burning. So supposedly stored energy on a supposedly secret battery, which Whiting confirmed is not a secret battery to begin with, is somehow, SOMEHOW, being used to "mix more oil and fuel". I guess I have to start to believe that a perpetual engine exists, because in this case b*llsh*t creates more b*llsh*t.

This is all due because Ferrari suddenly lost performance relative to Mercedes. I HOPE I can safeguard this place from the kind of nonesense like F1today wrote.

(To be clear Stivala: all the above is written to lament what AMuS has done)

[saviour stivala]

“To be clear Stivala: All the above is written to lament what AMuS has done”. Thanks turbo. It is a well-known fact that AMuS and their one particular person is one of the prime source of speculation and opinion fomenters in formula one circles, it is also a well-known fact that others, not only jumps on what AMuS pushes out but in most cases they make what is pushed-out as theirs in a frantic race between themselves (friends) for pole position of being first out with technical findings, and here I can declare through experience that highly rated and respected people are involved in all this, these people will not ‘vote you dawn’ like is done on here if you don’t agree with what they say, they just shuts you-out, that’s the only way for them to keep their popularity with their followers.

[subcritical71]

Any source on that special molecule? I can't shake the feeling that it is an urban legend.

The source is as stated, AMuS, which I agree can be sketchy. We could say the same thing of HP figures, ERS strategy, or practically anything that comes out in the F1 ‘news’. That doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion on it without somebody getting butt hurt about it, does it? Otherwise, how do we disprove or prove things from any source technically, personal opinion ?

[GrandAxe]

When a source of information fires and pushes out at least half-a-dozen different technical items as being the possibility of speculated power gain and then a loss of power it goes to prove how speculative the source is.

I agree. Yesterday, I visited an F1 news outlet. They took the article from AMuS, and based solely on the information from AMuS, which I deem questionable, wrote a "technical analysis". What I got to read was frankly insane:

Uiteindelijk was er het vermoeden dat Ferrari een systeem had ontwikkeld. Het was een systeem die een geheime opslag van energie had, waardoor de injectie op korte termijn de motor van meer brandstof vermengd met olie kon voorzien. Technische spotters vermoeden dat Ferrari de brandstof in de injectoren zou afkoelen. Anderen waren van mening dat de olie uit het koelcircuit in het verbrandingsproces zou zijn geïntroduceerd. Dit was in feite een geniale uitvinding. De olie die hiervoor gebruikt kon worden, is namelijk niet beperkt in haar verbruik.

Translation of that is:

In the end there was the suspicion that Ferrari developed a system. It was a system with a secret storage of energy, which made that on the short term the injection of the engine mixed more oil and fuel. People who were looking for technical elements, suspect that Ferrari cools down the fuel inside the injectors. Other people think Ferrari used oil from the cooling system for burning. This was actual a genius move. The oil being used for this,does not count towards the maximum regulatory oil burning.

Frankly, this is what you get when AMuS throws together rumors and suspicion like a madman. Safe to say the above is FAR from a technical analysis, but written by someone who has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about. The very first sentence is an abomination where they try to link the whole battery saga to oil burning. So supposedly stored energy on a supposedly secret battery, which Whiting confirmed is not a secret battery to begin with, is somehow, SOMEHOW, being used to "mix more oil and fuel". I guess I have to start to believe that a perpetual engine exists, because in this case b*llsh*t creates more b*llsh*t.

This is all due because Ferrari suddenly lost performance relative to Mercedes. I HOPE I can safeguard this place from the kind of nonesense like F1today wrote.

(To be clear Stivala: all the above is written to lament what AMuS has done)

I guess AMuS reasoning is similar Mercedes and Renault's. The Ferrari power boost was coming at a speed range where drag effects would be more pronounced.

All energy (including electrical) available to an F1 car comes from the 100Kg fuel it carries. Therefore, if expected energy use doesn't fit after fitting weights and drag coefficients into their equations, then they might conclude that the 100Kg fuel limit is being breached somehow and speculate by what mechanism the extra energy is coming in.

In such a situation, Merc and Renault might speculate on oil burning and the storage of the resulting energy in the electric system for a torque boost at high drag speeds (the term, ERS has been deliberately avoided). Why the electrical system? As suggested earlier in this thread, sophisticated algorithms in the MGU Control Unit (particularly AI algorithms) can be used to obfuscate and switch the functions of electronic circuits and energy path ways. Magic can happen.

Any storage that can be reached only via algorithm would indeed be secret, even if in plain sight. An outsider searching through such obfuscation might well be vainly searching the Sahara for a particular grain of sand.

The only way to detect such an outlay would be to place a sensor at the last possible point on the MGU-K before electricity is converted to mechanical power. This might be what the FIA has done based on the advice of rival teams - most likely Mercedes or Renault (or both). If there is truth to AMuS claims, then it would be interesting indeed to find out where exactly the second sensor has been fixed.

In any event, it would be best to wait out the weekend to see if any analysts can get definite word from the FIA and the teams about what has (or hasn't) gone on. Its too early to take a hard position either way.

[turbof1]

Any source on that special molecule? I can't shake the feeling that it is an urban legend.

The source is as stated, AMuS, which I agree can be sketchy. We could say the same thing of HP figures, ERS strategy, or practically anything that comes out in the F1 ‘news’. That doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion on it without somebody getting butt hurt about it, does it? Otherwise, how do we disprove or prove things from any source technically, personal opinion ?

No, but we do agree me asking for a source (for which I thank you of providing) is quite reasonable, isn't it? There are a few members around here who know quite a lot about fuel chemistry. I'll see if they can chip in.

[turbof1]

All energy (including electrical) available to an F1 car comes from the 100Kg fuel it carries. Therefore, if expected energy use doesn't fit after fitting weights and drag coefficients into their equations, then they might conclude that the 100Kg fuel limit is being breached somehow and speculate by what mechanism the extra energy is coming in.

I did think about that. Of course that reasoning is correct. However, nobody usually calls it "energy" in that general sense. Usually we call it oil, fuel or (electric) energy. I find it more than reasonable to assume in the case of what F1today wrote, they actually meant electric energy with "energy". Usually we all do when discussing this.

Like for instance when Honda in 2005 had a secret fuel compartment, everybody called it a secret fuel tank. Nobody called a it a "secret energy compartment". Or when I eat my apple this morning: I call it eating an apple, not a fruitious energy intake.

[subcritical71]

just imagine a company the caliber of SHELL pushing out a fuel to FERRARI that they cannot produce in quantity needed

This is not all that uncommon when you are on the bleeding edge of your technology and using ‘rare’ anything. Look at things like nuclear programs, uranium at its infancy was very difficult to get in quantities needed for a weapons test of just one bomb. And that was a government throwing what seemed like infinite resources at it. When carbon fiber was first developed, there wasn’t an endless supply for the demand that was created. Some piezoelectric crystals have gone virtually extinct and new solutions needed. Shell or any company, no matter their caliber, are going to be immune to these supply vs demand situations, if they have indeed found rare molecule that works in their application it is not unfathomable that they need to be deployed strategically to meet their supply.

[Big Tea]

just imagine a company the caliber of SHELL pushing out a fuel to FERRARI that they cannot produce in quantity needed

This is not all that uncommon when you are on the bleeding edge of your technology and using ‘rare’ anything. Look at things like nuclear programs, uranium at its infancy was very difficult to get in quantities needed for a weapons test of just one bomb. And that was a government throwing what seemed like infinite resources at it. When carbon fiber was first developed, there wasn’t an endless supply for the demand that was created. Some piezoelectric crystals have gone virtually extinct and new solutions needed. Shell or any company, no matter their caliber, are going to be immune to these supply vs demand situations, if they have indeed found rare molecule that works in their application it is not unfathomable that they need to be deployed strategically to meet their supply.

It's the 0.001% distillation of unobtainium that is the problem, they just cannot get enough of it

[Phil]

Frankly, this is what you get when AMuS throws together rumors and suspicion like a madman.

It's a bit like an onion. You have the F1 teams, the engineers, the insiders who are right in the middle. Then, in an outer layer, you have predominantly people of the press or others, who have connections to those inside. They might be friends, relatives, ex-employees, former drivers, members of the press or business associates or some other connection. Most of them follow the F1 circus around the globe, making a living off reporting it. In another layer outside around this layer, you have other publications. Some of them are run by people who have no connection to F1 (other than passion) whatsoever. They don't know anyone from the inside, they don't attend the F1 events, they simply report/copy of what they read from others. Sometimes, they do a poor job at passing on this information, perhaps as a result of their lack of technical knowledge and what turns out is a story that is very different from the original source. It gets worse, as sites copy copied material and the information gets diluted even more to the point it either makes little sense and is not accurate at all. Or they add more stuff that makes us wonder if they actually are the most reliable source.

Lets say we have 3 layers:

A - Insiders
B - Press, ex-employees etc, people with connections to those inside
C - Publications with no links/sources. They mainly report what others already reported

From those, I would definitely put what is usually reported on AMuS to be in layer B. They are clearly not insiders, but they report a lot of stuff that can not be found elsewhere. They [at least Michael Schmid] seem to be a genuine well informed member of the press, who attend these races, network with people who either worked for teams or still do.

They post a lot of pictures from the actual events, they pick out details about the cars and illustrate them on their website and they also report on things they hear from inside the paddock. Is everything they report factually correct? No, of course not. But where there is smoke, well, sometimes there is fire too. Joe Saward is also one individual who posts a lot of inside information and he is clearly someone who is very close to the inside.

At the very least, we should be happy that we do get these rumors and technical bits and pieces because the more we have and read, the better we can try to analyze, discuss and dissect here at F1T. Is there any truth to the FIA 2nd sensor? Who knows. I do believe that when AMuS report it, they heard someone inside the paddock talk about it. At the very least, there's merit to discussing it. If not that, what else is left to discuss without any information available? Quite similar to the Honda-topic with Wazari. If you believe he is who he says he is, is beyond the point. With his input, it generated hundredths of pages of ideas and technical analysis that in the end gave us a much better understanding.

The way some here are slamming what some publications report as being rumors (even when they are clearly labeled as such) makes me think they are simply out to damage the credibility of the source in order to defend their team from any perceived wrong doing. I'd much rather be discussing the possibilities on how credible certain rumors are and sometimes, assume they are correct to see what theories can be explored, rather than automatically assuming everything is a lie and part of an agenda to... well, I haven't quite figured out what the agenda of such a large publication would be for spreading incorrect information to that extent.

[subcritical71]

Frankly, this is what you get when AMuS throws together rumors and suspicion like a madman.

It's a bit like an onion. You have the F1 teams, the engineers, the insiders who are right in the middle. Then, in an outer layer, you have predominantly people of the press or others, who have connections to those inside. They might be friends, relatives, ex-employees, former drivers, members of the press or business associates or some other connection. Most of them follow the F1 circus around the globe, making a living off reporting it. In another layer outside around this layer, you have other publications. Some of them are run by people who have no connection to F1 (other than passion) whatsoever. They don't know anyone from the inside, they don't attend the F1 events, they simply report/copy of what they read from others. Sometimes, they do a poor job at passing on this information, perhaps as a result of their lack of technical knowledge and what turns out is a story that is very different from the original source. It gets worse, as sites copy copied material and the information gets diluted even more to the point it either makes little sense and is not accurate at all. Or they add more stuff that makes us wonder if they actually are the most reliable source.

Lets say we have 3 layers:

A - Insiders
B - Press, ex-employees etc, people with connections to those inside
C - Publications with no links/sources. They mainly report what others already reported

From those, I would definitely put what is usually reported on AMuS to be in layer B. They are clearly not insiders, but they report a lot of stuff that can not be found elsewhere. They [at least Michael Schmid] seem to be a genuine well informed member of the press, who attend these races, network with people who either worked for teams or still do.

They post a lot of pictures from the actual events, they pick out details about the cars and illustrate them on their website and they also report on things they hear from inside the paddock. Is everything they report factually correct? No, of course not. But where there is smoke, well, sometimes there is fire too. Joe Saward is also one individual who posts a lot of inside information and he is clearly someone who is very close to the inside.

At the very least, we should be happy that we do get these rumors and technical bits and pieces because the more we have and read, the better we can try to analyze, discuss and dissect here at F1T. Is there any truth to the FIA 2nd sensor? Who knows. I do believe that when AMuS report it, they heard someone inside the paddock talk about it. At the very least, there's merit to discussing it. If not that, what else is left to discuss without any information available? Quite similar to the Honda-topic with Wazari. If you believe he is who he says he is, is beyond the point. With his input, it generated hundredths of pages of ideas and technical analysis that in the end gave us a much better understanding.

The way some here are slamming what some publications report as being rumors (even when they are clearly labeled as such) makes me think they are simply out to damage the credibility of the source in order to defend their team from any perceived wrong doing. I'd much rather be discussing the possibilities on how credible certain rumors are and sometimes, assume they are correct to see what theories can be explored, rather than automatically assuming everything is a lie and part of an agenda to... well, I haven't quite figured out what the agenda of such a large publication would be for spreading incorrect information to that extent.

Yes, much better and elaborately said than I can do. Thanks for that summary.

To be clear, I'm not married to any of my speculations I put out on this forum but I do base them on my learning and experiences I've gained in the real world. I can drop them just as fast as I posted them, but not just because someone says so or doesn't trust a source. Lets have some thought and discussion, maybe even some relevant research source. Some items I post to see what others think about the idea, if it has merit the topic continues, if not it dies. I'm happy either way (but obviously happier to be have more pluses than minuses in the merit column).

This, to me, is what a technical discussion is about. I don't really care which manufacturer or team it is.

I actually wonder if the teams scan these forums. There are alot of good ideas presented that they may not have considered.

Apologies for the off-topic, back to on-topic posts.

[turbof1]

Let's not make it a debate about credibility either, Phil. I'm not questioning the media in general. I'm questioning in this very case what AMuS has done: frankly they made a bit of a Frankenstein articles, throwing bits here and there together which no other source has yet confirmed. Especially the latter concerns me. Nobody else is confirming this. F1 Media digging out dirty secrets is a blessing, but you have to stay and keep thinking critical. Where's smoke, there's someone making a fire. Would not be the first time a media outlet is making the fire.

[Phil]

Fair enough. To be honest, I think half of the times things get quoted from AMuS here, they are either not translated to reflect the contents accurately (e.g. by machine/google) or only small bits and pieces. This makes it sometimes extremely difficult to properly assess the quality of the article/rumor, because those that rely on accurate information and don't speak German, don't get it. It's not critic, I've just seen it happen, which is why I've put in some effort into translating some of the articles myself in an effort to at least make sure the articles are accurately reflected. I think AMuS has mostly been on the money or at the forefront of things being revelaed. I don't always agree with their opinion pieces, but especially last year, I think they covered many things well and were pretty much the first to cover the oil burning saga, the 2nd oil tank etc.

In regards to the last article regarding the 2nd sensor, it did seem off at first, since we were led to believe earlier (I think around Baku) that the FIA were already looking into what Ferrari was doing and then a race later came out and said that everything was legal. Now reading again about a 2nd sensor seems weird, but as I translated, I think the relevant piece of information is not the 2nd sensor per se, but that opposing teams have been actively continue pursuing the case despite what the FIA said earlier and that this has supposedly resulted in a change in how the FIA are measuring the data/energy flow on the Ferrari PUs.

True or false? No clue. Michael Schmid (AMuS) in the video I linked above, said the FIA are not disclosing much information. They are not saying when they changed their method or since when they are officially using a 2nd sensor.

In my opinion, if (<-- IF) Ferrari had found a loophole in by-passing the FIA sensors to give them some gain, then we could be obviously on the limits of legality. If this is indeed true, I think there are plenty of reasons on why the FIA and everyone involved would want to keep quiet about it. As long as it goes away quietly (e.g. Ferrari stop doing it), everyone can hide behind the excuse that it can't be proven that they used this earlier because there is no sensor data to prove either way and with the sensors in the correct place now, it can be assured they're not using it now. Everyone happy. No scandal, no negative publicity. In the end, whatever gain there was, just vanished. And in my opinion - even before AMuS posted their article, after seeing how Ferrari went from being almost dominant on the straights back to seeing Mercedes matching them and in places ahead again, it just seemed a bit weird and unexpected. The next races will show if this is true indeed or not.

Anyway, I apologize for the off-topic discussion and will just leave this as it is.

[dans79]

Let's not make it a debate about credibility either, Phil. I'm not questioning the media in general. I'm questioning in this very case what AMuS has done: frankly they made a bit of a Frankenstein articles, throwing bits here and there together which no other source has yet confirmed. Especially the latter concerns me. Nobody else is confirming this. F1 Media digging out dirty secrets is a blessing, but you have to stay and keep thinking critical. Where's smoke, there's someone making a fire. Would not be the first time a media outlet is making the fire.

To be fare, Ferrari is doing themselves no favors by not denying it.

Usually when a high profile individual or company is called out in the press for doing something inappropriate that isn't true, they make a public statement or send out a press release denying the accusations. Depending on the type of accusations, even legal action might be initiated.

[turbof1]

Let's not make it a debate about credibility either, Phil. I'm not questioning the media in general. I'm questioning in this very case what AMuS has done: frankly they made a bit of a Frankenstein articles, throwing bits here and there together which no other source has yet confirmed. Especially the latter concerns me. Nobody else is confirming this. F1 Media digging out dirty secrets is a blessing, but you have to stay and keep thinking critical. Where's smoke, there's someone making a fire. Would not be the first time a media outlet is making the fire.

To be fare, Ferrari is doing themselves no favors by not denying it.

Usually when a high profile individual or company is called out in the press for doing something inappropriate that isn't true, they make a public statement or send out a press release denying the accusations. Depending on the type of accusations, even legal action might be initiated.

We'll get comments on this rolling; that is what I am waiting for.