Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Sierra117]

[Right-click view to see original sizes]

Unlikely to have new engine's shots, but they are at least up until 2018's:













Stitched some of them to get a larger overall picture:



From the following video:

[Juzh]

Why are exhaust manifolds removed on 15 and 16 units?

[MtthsMlw]

via f1i.fr

[OO7]

Perhaps this should be posted in the general engine thread, but I thought about it when looking at the packaging of the Mercedes side pods and thinking about the exhaust system:

Now the regulations stipulate that the engine/PU must fit within a regulated box, but I'm not sure what components are associated with this dimensional/location regulation. Looking at the exhaust manifolds, in 2014 Mercedes used a log/unequal length system which provided exceptional packaging benefits, but hindered PU performance. I've been wondering, considering the space available in the gearbox casing, would it be possible to use that void (behind the ICE) as the area to equalise the length of the exhaust manifolds, rather than doing so on the sides of the ICE?

[roon]

Looks like the intake manifold covers are further shrink wrapped.

Perhaps this should be posted in the general engine thread, but I thought about it when looking at the packaging of the Mercedes side pods and thinking about the exhaust system:

Now the regulations stipulate that the engine/PU must fit within a regulated box, but I'm not sure what components are associated with this dimensional/location regulation. Looking at the exhaust manifolds, in 2014 Mercedes used a log/unequal length system which provided exceptional packaging benefits, but hindered PU performance. I've been wondering, considering the space available in the gearbox casing, would it be possible to use that void (behind the ICE) as the area to equalise the length of the exhaust manifolds, rather than doing so on the sides of the ICE?

Still you'd need to route three pipes back there per side, so the cross sectional area won't be reduced much at the sides of the engine. The pipes would end up being longer, and the drivetrain assembly longer to fit the spaghetti inside the GB.

[OO7]

Looks like the intake manifold covers are further shrink wrapped.

Perhaps this should be posted in the general engine thread, but I thought about it when looking at the packaging of the Mercedes side pods and thinking about the exhaust system:

Now the regulations stipulate that the engine/PU must fit within a regulated box, but I'm not sure what components are associated with this dimensional/location regulation. Looking at the exhaust manifolds, in 2014 Mercedes used a log/unequal length system which provided exceptional packaging benefits, but hindered PU performance. I've been wondering, considering the space available in the gearbox casing, would it be possible to use that void (behind the ICE) as the area to equalise the length of the exhaust manifolds, rather than doing so on the sides of the ICE?

Still you'd need to route three pipes back there per side, so the cross sectional area won't be reduced much at the sides of the engine. The pipes would end up being longer, and the drivetrain assembly longer to fit the spaghetti inside the GB.

The loops are quite a hindrance I think, as demonstrated in this image of the Force India/Racing Point installation, highlighting how much bodywork/aero the upper loop sacrifices:


As you say, space within the confines of the gearbox casing may prove to be a problem.

[roon]

Looks like the intake manifold covers are further shrink wrapped.

Perhaps this should be posted in the general engine thread, but I thought about it when looking at the packaging of the Mercedes side pods and thinking about the exhaust system:

Now the regulations stipulate that the engine/PU must fit within a regulated box, but I'm not sure what components are associated with this dimensional/location regulation. Looking at the exhaust manifolds, in 2014 Mercedes used a log/unequal length system which provided exceptional packaging benefits, but hindered PU performance. I've been wondering, considering the space available in the gearbox casing, would it be possible to use that void (behind the ICE) as the area to equalise the length of the exhaust manifolds, rather than doing so on the sides of the ICE?

Still you'd need to route three pipes back there per side, so the cross sectional area won't be reduced much at the sides of the engine. The pipes would end up being longer, and the drivetrain assembly longer to fit the spaghetti inside the GB.

The loops are quite a hindrance I think, as demonstrated in this image of the Force India/Racing Point installation, highlighting how much bodywork/aero the upper loop sacrifices:
https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/S ... 425074.jpg

As you say, space within the confines of the gearbox casing may prove to be a problem.

I think the most compact (frontal cross-section) non-log arrangement may be Ferrari's former approach (pictured below). It kept the rear two headers in the shadow of the first.

[roon]

No one else yet to follow merc's lead with putting the intercooler in the fuel tank area. Fuel tank shape less critical than all the plumbing atop the engine. Seems like a no brainer, but what do I know. Water cooling efficiency, combined with half the system being in the monocoque, not even in the engine bay... Further aided by split-turbo's plumbing advantages. People still wonder how they can get the sidepods so small.

[OO7]

No one else yet to follow merc's lead with putting the intercooler in the fuel tank area. Fuel tank shape less critical than all the plumbing atop the engine. Seems like a no brainer, but what do I know. Water cooling efficiency, combined with half the system being in the monocoque, not even in the engine bay... Further aided by split-turbo's plumbing advantages. People still wonder how they can get the sidepods so small.

Haas' Ferrari PU:

[roon]

That's true. Actually posted after seeing that image in the other threads. It's still sharing space with the intake manifolds though. Halfway there.

[aleks_ader]

No one else yet to follow merc's lead with putting the intercooler in the fuel tank area. Fuel tank shape less critical than all the plumbing atop the engine. Seems like a no brainer, but what do I know. Water cooling efficiency, combined with half the system being in the monocoque, not even in the engine bay... Further aided by split-turbo's plumbing advantages. People still wonder how they can get the sidepods so small.

Not true Ferrari had intercooler infront ICE also in 2016. Look into my post in Ferrari thread if you dont believe me

[roon]

That's true. Was thinking of their older units. The '19 location looks pushed back partially into the vee again. Halfway there in terms of engine bay compactness. Merc get to stow compressor, intercooler, and all charge piping inside the monocoque, uniquely for six seasons. Space above engine consumed by intake manifold, MGUH, and cooling ducts only. That same region for Ferrari and Renault also needs fit charge pipes & compressor inlet ducting. Honda almost there save for bulkier twin air to air intercoolers and associated piping.

[JordanMugen]

I think the most compact (frontal cross-section) non-log arrangement may be Ferrari's former approach (pictured below). It kept the rear two headers in the shadow of the first.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... maruuu.jpg

Intuition suggests that such a 3-1 collector design is not quite optimal.

A conventional 3-1 collector has the pipes distributed axially:


The old Ferrari design (below) is rather bizarre... A bit like the space-limited compromised manifold used on the Ford Mustang road car (2nd below).

[Eryngii]

Source: https://www.racefans.net/2019/06/09/mer ... nadian-gp/

[Javert]

Their engine needs to improve, especially considering that the 2021 regs are starting to be likely transferred to 2022, so 2020 and 2021 will be 'stable' seasons maybe