Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[henry]

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'

It’s measured leaving the tank. Red Bull tried to argue, Australia 2014, that their, non regulated, measurements at the injectors were more accurate. They lost.

Your second point is, I think, handled here, I’ve bolded it:

5.10.3 All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA. Furthermore, all fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through this homologated sensor, and must all be delivered to the combustion chambers by the fuel injectors described by Article 5.10.2.

[Big Tea]

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'

It’s measured leaving the tank. Red Bull tried to argue, Australia 2014, that their, non regulated, measurements at the injectors were more accurate. They lost.

Your second point is, I think, handled here, I’ve bolded it:

5.10.3 All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA. Furthermore, ~~From here on ~~all fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through this homologated sensor, and must all be delivered to the combustion chambers by the fuel injectors described by Article 5.10.2.

I mean if fuel is not designated as 'going to the engine' can it be tapped off for a specific other use?

I know it is a long shot, just sort of making my own CT

[MtthsMlw]

Comparison between Canada and Sochi
Gaining only at high speeds:


Gaining all the time..
You can see the end of straight drop off quite nicely here. On the pit straight and back straight (right before S2)

via f1analisitecnica.com

[mzso]

One possibility is the use of ultra-capacitors eg if one half of Ferrari's "battery" pack was actually a capacitor bank the charge/discharge rates of that section could easily be much higher than the maximum combined H + K input or output. Meanwhile energy flow into and out of the chemical battery section could be maintained at optimum rates.

One half is not realistic. Supercapacitors have much worse gravimetric and volumetric energy density.

Same with combining Li-cells with super-capacitors. One of those two will be inferior, so any combination of two would be inferior to "pure" battery.

Only reason for 2 virtual batteries (I can think of) would be voltage manipulation, and I'm not convinced this make much sense either.

One is great for one thing and the other is good for an other. Capacitors can handle power spikes (such as recharging heavily with the mgu-k on a brake distance) more easily and efficiently, and without damage.
Meanwhile batteries can store a lot of energy.

[NL_Fer]

Maybe we are making it all to complicated and it is all coming from combustion. What we must realize is, that gains found there, will result in multiple gains for the whole powerunit.

Since the fuel supply is limited to 100kg/hr, the challenge for engineers is to increase the amount of air. Figures of 1:40, instead of a classic 1:14,7 has been talked about. A leaner mixture, can increase the ICE efficiency.

Lets assume Ferrari can run a leaner mixture and increase the amount of air and they get 10kw more crankshaft power of it. The extra air, also increases the amount of exhaust gasses to drive the turbo and the MGU-H can harvest more energy. As a result, the ERS can deploy for a period.

Finally, because Ferrari can increase the size of the turbo and MGU-H, when running supercharger mode, more power is being fed to the turbo and this will result in more power to the crank also.

In my opinion, a small edge in combustion, will result in a decent advantage of power and combined with their lower drag chassis, we can see a much faster car on straigths.

[HPD]

Albert Fabrega said there is a rumor that Ferrari is using the refrigerant oil to produce more energy.
The refrigerant oil is not regulated, so it would be legal.
(speculation)

that was an old rumor from 2018..

Ferrari s Pu deploys more out of corners while harvests more at the and of the straits. Is Sw wise, Ers is the best in class from 2018. And i think the 2019 upgrade is more on the Ice.

I understand, but although the rumor is old, it does not mean it is false. I only say what is being talked about by the paddock these days.

Thanks to the information gathered by FUnoAT, the secret of the Ferrari engine derives from the endothermic intake system, which can only be used in the classification phase. The hypotheses, to which we can appeal to explain this advantage, refer mainly to the air intake manifold cooling, as well as to the use of cooling oil to increase performance.

Ferrari would use a pressurized oil-air intercooler, finding ways to bring part of the cooling oil directly into the combustion chamber, since, in this respect, there are no standards in this regard. A more powerful endothermic engine allows Ferrari drivers to start recovering energy earlier than other teams, being able to start this operation already in the final parts of the straights. This aspect would connect with the preview provided by FUnoAT towards the end of the past season (click here), when we talked about the innovative PU Ferrari cooling system already used on motorcycles (mixed air / cooling oil systems). The benefit, to put two numbers black on white, should be around 20cv in qualifying, falling to 10cv in the race.
https://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2019/1 ... sh_ce=6689

[sosic2121]

Same with combining Li-cells with super-capacitors. One of those two will be inferior, so any combination of two would be inferior to "pure" battery.

One is great for one thing and the other is good for an other. Capacitors can handle power spikes (such as recharging heavily with the mgu-k on a brake distance) more easily and efficiently, and without damage.
Meanwhile batteries can store a lot of energy.

I am aware of advantages and disadvantages of Li-bat and SC.

If we had big and short power demands fallowed by low or no demand for long period of time, then combining Li and SC would make sense.
But, IMHO, this is not the case in F1.

I believe ES has practically 100% duty cycle at 60kw or more.
This means that, for Li - SC combination to be viable, either SC has to be able to store significant amount of energy(otherwise is useless) or Li battery has to be able to dish out significant current, otherwise it's again useless.

So, if SC can store significant amount of energy, why not make ES with only SC!?

And vice versa, is Li battery is powerful, there is no need for SC.

I also believed hybrid ES is viable, but then I tried to do some numbers, and I simply couldn't find a working model.

[rscsr]

Maybe we are making it all to complicated and it is all coming from combustion. What we must realize is, that gains found there, will result in multiple gains for the whole powerunit.

Since the fuel supply is limited to 100kg/hr, the challenge for engineers is to increase the amount of air. Figures of 1:40, instead of a classic 1:14,7 has been talked about. A leaner mixture, can increase the ICE efficiency.

Lets assume Ferrari can run a leaner mixture and increase the amount of air and they get 10kw more crankshaft power of it. The extra air, also increases the amount of exhaust gasses to drive the turbo and the MGU-H can harvest more energy. As a result, the ERS can deploy for a period.

Finally, because Ferrari can increase the size of the turbo and MGU-H, when running supercharger mode, more power is being fed to the turbo and this will result in more power to the crank also.

In my opinion, a small edge in combustion, will result in a decent advantage of power and combined with their lower drag chassis, we can see a much faster car on straigths.

It is not true that more air means more energy to harvest. Only as a secondary effect.
If we assume that the combustion energy can only be transfered to the piston or to the exhaust gases, than a more efficient combustion leads to less energy in the exhaust gases. No matter how much air is present.
More air in the combustion can only lead to more energy in the exhaust, when less energy is transfered elsewhere. So it can only improve the total efficiency, if it leads to less heat transfer to the cooling.

[Tommy Cookers]

Maybe we are making it all to complicated and it is all coming from combustion. What we must realize is, that gains found there, will result in multiple gains for the whole powerunit.
Since the fuel supply is limited to 100kg/hr, the challenge for engineers is to increase the amount of air. Figures of 1:40, instead of a classic 1:14,7 has been talked about. A leaner mixture, can increase the ICE efficiency.
Lets assume Ferrari can run a leaner mixture and increase the amount of air and they get 10kw more crankshaft power of it. The extra air, also increases the amount of exhaust gasses to drive the turbo and the MGU-H can harvest more energy. As a result, the ERS can deploy for a period.
Finally, because Ferrari can increase the size of the turbo and MGU-H, when running supercharger mode, more power is being fed to the turbo and this will result in more power to the crank also.
In my opinion, a small edge in combustion, will result in a decent advantage of power and combined with their lower drag chassis, we can see a much faster car on straigths.

It is not true that more air means more energy to harvest. Only as a secondary effect.
If we assume that the combustion energy can only be transfered to the piston or to the exhaust gases, than a more efficient combustion leads to less energy in the exhaust gases. No matter how much air is present.
More air in the combustion can only lead to more energy in the exhaust, when less energy is transfered elsewhere. So it can only improve the total efficiency, if it leads to less heat transfer to the cooling.

afaik and otoh ....
1 Honda has said that more air gave them less H recovery
2 but the c.5% fuel unburned in the combustion chamber will anyway burn before the turbine
3 increased air beyond where F1 is doesn't increase % combustion in chamber - it reduces it
4 are they in thermal equilibrium (to coolant) ? - the response delay to changing coolant rate is c. 20 sec
5 AFRs exceeding 2 are impossible with liquid fuel for both main chamber and prechamber/TJI (and with single stage turbo)

[gruntguru]

One possibility is the use of ultra-capacitors eg if one half of Ferrari's "battery" pack was actually a capacitor bank the charge/discharge rates of that section could easily be much higher than the maximum combined H + K input or output. Meanwhile energy flow into and out of the chemical battery section could be maintained at optimum rates.

One half is not realistic. Supercapacitors have much worse gravimetric and volumetric energy density.

What if they had a big "half" and a little "half"?

[gruntguru]

Maybe we are making it all to complicated and it is all coming from combustion. What we must realize is, that gains found there, will result in multiple gains for the whole powerunit.

Since the fuel supply is limited to 100kg/hr, the challenge for engineers is to increase the amount of air. Figures of 1:40, instead of a classic 1:14,7 has been talked about. A leaner mixture, can increase the ICE efficiency.

Lets assume Ferrari can run a leaner mixture and increase the amount of air and they get 10kw more crankshaft power of it. The extra air, also increases the amount of exhaust gasses to drive the turbo and the MGU-H can harvest more energy. As a result, the ERS can deploy for a period.

Finally, because Ferrari can increase the size of the turbo and MGU-H, when running supercharger mode, more power is being fed to the turbo and this will result in more power to the crank also.

In my opinion, a small edge in combustion, will result in a decent advantage of power and combined with their lower drag chassis, we can see a much faster car on straigths.

Welcome aboard NL. I wish you had been here 5 years ago when we were discussing such things.

[saviour stivala]

“Maybe we are making it all to ‘complicated’ (no doubt about that) and it is all coming from combustion”.
In my opinion at least 50% of the gains/advantage is combustion related. Whit the rest being ERS related, (harvest/deploy-ability for lap after lap).

[NL_Fer]

I was practicing at Honda, lol.

I also know how Ferrari “tricks” the fuel limit btw. It is in the aerodynamics of the chassis.

The Ferrari is a low-drag chassis, so they are more efficient at the straights. Hamilton said Ferrari has a 0.6s advantage on the straights. This means, they run 0.6s less time to at full throttle, saving up to 1% of fuel there. Fuel which can be used during corner exits and other partial throttle moments, and used it for other “tricks” to charge the ERS.

Remember they started this low-drag Philosophy long time ago and now found the key how to prevent the downsides in slower corners.

[Polite]

I was practicing at Honda, lol.

I also know how Ferrari “tricks” the fuel limit btw. It is in the aerodynamics of the chassis.

The Ferrari is a low-drag chassis, so they are more efficient at the straights. Hamilton said Ferrari has a 0.6s advantage on the straights. This means, they run 0.6s less time to at full throttle, saving up to 1% of fuel there. Fuel which can be used during corner exits and other partial throttle moments, and used it for other “tricks” to charge the ERS.

Remember they started this low-drag Philosophy long time ago and now found the key how to prevent the downsides in slower corners.

True.. low drag philosophy is part of the answer.
I would say there are 2 main factors:
1. aerophilosophy for less fuel per lap
2. best ers to harvest at the end on the straits while deploing it more at the beginning where it affects more lap time

those mixed together can explain both the higher party mode and the higher race mode of the ferrari pu

[NL_Fer]

Have a longer period of supercharger mode at the begin of the straight, switch to powersave/harvest mode earlier.

It is the logical thing to do, with the lower drag, giving the most advantage at the end of the straight, when at high speed. Use the ERS to balance it out and move more energy from the end tot the begin of the straight.