Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Brake Horse Power]

Why is extra cooling needed when you have a very efficient system? High efficiency equals low cooling demand because only little heat is generated..

[MarcJ]

Not "per lap". The 4 MJ (ES SOC) can be discharged and recharged as many times as you want. There is a limit on energy sent to the K from the ES however but that is a separate issue.

Yes, the 4 MJ SOC can be discharged and recharged as may time as they can, and yes, there is a limit on energy (4 MJ per lap) that can be sent to the 'K' from the ES. Also Yes 4 MJ is 120KW for 33.33 seconds per lap (ES-to-MGU-K). But, the MGU-H can put ‘unlimited’ generated energy onto/into the MGU-K for deployment which results in a longer period of 120KW of deployment. By 2018 about 60%of energy used was coming from the MGU-H. If 60% was coming from MGU-H, and assuming the permitted 2 MJ could be harvest by the MGU-K, this was leaving 5 MJ per lap.
I suspect that by today the best out there can produce 6 MJ deployment in a lap in qualifying mode

This is a dejavù.. how many times have u been explained the energy flow and all the limitation of the rules?.. not many enough it seems!

Wow, checking in after 6 months+ to find this 'per lap' fiction still a thing.

On a ES issue supercaps would take too much volume limiting aerodynamics packaging.

Unless you somehow integrated supercaps into the anode electrode material they can both be graphene and the higher surface area of porous substrate will increase the interface with electrolyte increasing power density over a traditional 2 dimensional surface.

[MarcJ]

I really don’t understand all the fuss hereabouts as Ferrari’s speed has nothing to do with the engine/pu. Ferrari have merely perfected their version of Party Mode, which in a sense, has to have ended up exactly as merc’s.
The impressive thing about it for me, is how well they’ve managed to engineer into it all another hero, whilst not-so-much the hero engineers.

If Ferrari speed has nothing to do with the power unit they can remove it and save the mass and all the fuss with engineering it.

[henry]

Yes, the 4 MJ SOC can be discharged and recharged as may time as they can, and yes, there is a limit on energy (4 MJ per lap) that can be sent to the 'K' from the ES. Also Yes 4 MJ is 120KW for 33.33 seconds per lap (ES-to-MGU-K). But, the MGU-H can put ‘unlimited’ generated energy onto/into the MGU-K for deployment which results in a longer period of 120KW of deployment. By 2018 about 60%of energy used was coming from the MGU-H. If 60% was coming from MGU-H, and assuming the permitted 2 MJ could be harvest by the MGU-K, this was leaving 5 MJ per lap.
I suspect that by today the best out there can produce 6 MJ deployment in a lap in qualifying mode

This is a dejavù.. how many times have u been explained the energy flow and all the limitation of the rules?.. not many enough it seems!

Wow, checking in after 6 months+ to find this 'per lap' fiction still a thing.

On a ES issue supercaps would take too much volume limiting aerodynamics packaging.

Unless you somehow integrated supercaps into the anode electrode material they can both be graphene and the higher surface area of porous substrate will increase the interface with electrolyte increasing power density over a traditional 2 dimensional surface.

The ES has to live in the safety cell, so no effect on aerodynamics. There is a fixed minimum volume for all the ERS electronics as well as a minimum weight.

[Dr. Acula]

Why is extra cooling needed when you have a very efficient system? High efficiency equals low cooling demand because only little heat is generated..

Not exactly. what determinds the needed size of the radiator (cooling surface) in the end is the amount of heat and the temperature difference you need to achieve from hot side to cold side. It's much easier to cool down for instance 5kW of average waste heat at 100°C then to cool away the same amount of waste heat at 40°C because the ambient air which you use as a the heatdump is already 30°C warm when it enters the radiator.

[Brake Horse Power]

You have a point there. In supercap case the performance is very steady in a wide temperature range from 30-70°C it will only affect lifetime and thereby also some degradation over time. However I doubt you will have any lifetime issues since the low amount of running hours of an F1 car.

[sosic2121]

For instance at the start you discharge cell 1,2,3 and 4. let them cool down but now for charging the system can only use cell 1,2 and 4 for instance cell 3 hasn't cool down enough, so the system removes cell 3 from the group and adds cell 5 which is already cool enough to be used again.
Atleast that's how i imagine the system could work.

But wouldn't having 5 batteries all the time lower individual amperage by 20%, and by conscience reduce temperature and increase efficiency of whole system.

Also voltage drop would be lower, so IMO this would lead to higher efficiency later in the system which would lead to lower demand on the battery which would lead to even higher efficiency.

So there are cumulative penalties for not using all cells, or at least I see it that way.

Yes, but in reality they have way more cells anyway, i used that just as a simplified example.
The rules limit the Voltage to 1000V. Now to reach 1000V just with Li-ion cells, you need to have atleast about 270 cells connected. But the battery probably has even way more cells than that. Let's say the battery has 500 cells. All that matters is that about 270 cells are always ready to be used and that overall you don't go over the 4MJ delta which is specified in the rules. Because the battery problably not only has more cells than necessary to reach the desired voltage, it probably also has way more capacity than 4MJ.

As you said, I don't think teams are energy limited with these batteries.
20kg battery pack can have 15MJ+ capacity. On the other hand, they could be power limited.
Let's say battery pack has 480 cells (18650) arranged as 240S 2P.

So at 120kw and 1000V(more probably around 900V) battery pack needs to "push" 120A, so each cell needs to push 60amps!
At 200kw, which is believed to consumption during e-boost mode, each cell should push 100A!?!

I understand that F1 teams probably don't use off the shelf batteries, but still these numbers are huge.

[Phil]

Putting two things together that i have garhered from this thread;

Holus:
The battery/water bottle anology. It’s about the size of the bottle, not how much you can sip from it (by refilling it during usage).

Another one:
The Ferrari seems to be more fuel hungry.

So my line of thinking is; could they be using the fuel (energy) or ICE to recharge the batteries faster? Some kind of special mode?

Obviously, the fuel flow limit makes this tricky - but maybe they could be using it places where they’d ordinarily would not be maxing the fuel flow limit?

Just throwing some ideas in there...

[sosic2121]

Putting two things together that i have garhered from this thread;

Holus:
The battery/water bottle anology. It’s about the size of the bottle, not how much you can sip from it (by refilling it during usage).

Another one:
The Ferrari seems to be more fuel hungry.

So my line of thinking is; could they be using the fuel (energy) or ICE to recharge the batteries faster? Some kind of special mode?

Obviously, the fuel flow limit makes this tricky - but maybe they could be using it places where they’d ordinarily would not be maxing the fuel flow limit?

Just throwing some ideas in there...

Like hot-blowing the turbo in order to produce more energy by MGU-H while breaking and/or cornering?

[gruntguru]

Fuel "hunger" is an interesting topic. There are broadly two characteristics that influence the rate of fuel use (given there is a max flow rate dictated by the rules.)
1. What % of a lap is the PU able to efficiently utilise the max flow rate?
2. What is the conversion efficiency across all flow rates?

Either of these characteristics will result in a faster car. Big difference however - the first produces higher "fuel consumption", the second produces lower fuel consumption. The first is a function of the energy management system and its limits. The second is a result of the combined conversion efficiencies of each and every component associated with energy conversion and storage.

What I am trying to say is "fuel hunger" is not necessarily a negative characteristic of a PU. Every team would love to be able to efficiently utilise every drop of fuel in the race allocation ie maximise point 1.

Chances are Ferrari and Mercedes are equal in terms of self-sustaining power ie put the engine on a dyno with no ES and measure the maximum continuous power at 100 kg/hr fuel flow. Self-sustaining power is entirely determined by conversion efficiency at max fuel flow.

Mercedes may have a slight edge under part load conditions ie they use a little less fuel at lower engine demand eg cornering. This is only a marginal advantage (saving fuel weight) if they are unable to convert the saved fuel into motive energy at the tyres.

Ferrari almost certainly has an advantage on point 1. The have found a way to store more energy per lap and send more energy to the tyres - probably via the MGUH in electric supercharge mode since it is likely both teams are able to motor the MGUH to its limits within the rules.

[gokarter]

I hope the FIA are fair to all engine manufactures. its dissappointing when you read this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2 ... advantage/

[SmallSoldier]

I hope the FIA are fair to all engine manufactures. its dissappointing when you read this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2 ... advantage/

So a 2 year old story, showcasing the comments of a disgruntled Bernie, who has always created drama and intrigue and was sacked by Liberty Media, told not to show up is proof of what exactly?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Polite]

I hope the FIA are fair to all engine manufactures. its dissappointing when you read this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2 ... advantage/

for what we know, mercedes had a 2 years advantage on the pu regulation in 2014, not Ferrari

Ferrari has maybe the best know how on engines in the world so is not impossible for them to have the best pu: every engine regulation change in the old years began with someone be the first on a technology and ended with the best engine by Ferrari (also the old turbo era was like this.. first Renault but the best at the end was the turbo engine of the Gill's car! Same for V10 and V8 era..)

[Slo Poke]

I really don’t understand all the fuss hereabouts as Ferrari’s speed has nothing to do with the engine/pu. Ferrari have merely perfected their version of Party Mode, which in a sense, has to have ended up exactly as merc’s.
The impressive thing about it for me, is how well they’ve managed to engineer into it all another hero, whilst not-so-much the hero engineers.

If Ferrari speed has nothing to do with the power unit they can remove it and save the mass and all the fuss with engineering it.

Don’t be silly MarcJ, Party Mode resides within the differential. Locked diff’ an’ all that, see! From turn in to straight ahead steering.

[Big Tea]

Fuel "hunger" is an interesting topic. There are broadly two characteristics that influence the rate of fuel use (given there is a max flow rate dictated by the rules.)
1. What % of a lap is the PU able to efficiently utilise the max flow rate?
2. What is the conversion efficiency across all flow rates?

Either of these characteristics will result in a faster car. Big difference however - the first produces higher "fuel consumption", the second produces lower fuel consumption. The first is a function of the energy management system and its limits. The second is a result of the combined conversion efficiencies of each and every component associated with energy conversion and storage.

What I am trying to say is "fuel hunger" is not necessarily a negative characteristic of a PU. Every team would love to be able to efficiently utilise every drop of fuel in the race allocation ie maximise point 1.

Chances are Ferrari and Mercedes are equal in terms of self-sustaining power ie put the engine on a dyno with no ES and measure the maximum continuous power at 100 kg/hr fuel flow. Self-sustaining power is entirely determined by conversion efficiency at max fuel flow.

Mercedes may have a slight edge under part load conditions ie they use a little less fuel at lower engine demand eg cornering. This is only a marginal advantage (saving fuel weight) if they are unable to convert the saved fuel into motive energy at the tyres.

Ferrari almost certainly has an advantage on point 1. The have found a way to store more energy per lap and send more energy to the tyres - probably via the MGUH in electric supercharge mode since it is likely both teams are able to motor the MGUH to its limits within the rules.

Can I put an additional question here. Something that is not fully in my mind, but nagging at the boundaries and I dont know enough to solidify it.

It is actually a 2 part question of where is the fuel 'use' measured? Directly on leaving the tank? or as it enters the injection system? (or other) Is there any possible way the fuel can be used for anything other than being fed into the engine? That is, no way it can be catalsed or used in some chemical process to produce energy?

As the poster above (Phil), I am also 'fishing'