Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[ENGINE TUNER]

It’s still not clear to me why not only Ferrari lost power, but their customers too? Does it mean that the engines for Alfa Romeo and Haas were illegal too? How is it possible that Ferrari deliberately and openly supplied illegal engines to two customers? Really the mechanics and engineers of their clients could not notice something strange / illegal?
And why in 2019 no one ever said that he had discovered abnormal accelerations of Alfa Romeo or Haas cars? After all, all the time it was believed that only the Ferrari motor was much more powerful, and the customers were on a par with the rest.

Also the Ferrari PU might not have only lost the fuel trick.

Yep, with less fuel, and probably less oil burning and the purported intercooler coolant burning trick all shut down they would have had to back way off on timing to avoid knock, all of this lowers exhaust energy which would lower the amount of energy the mguh could harvest.

With less pu power they would have taken off some downforce to lower drag, combined with aero correlation problems they are in deep doo doo.

And then less downforce means more sliding so worse tire life.

[falonso81]

We can only make assumptions. The only thing i have noticed from the first race is that the engine sounds weak. The mgu-k sound is not there as it was last year and as a whole it doesnt sound to be reaching maximum power. It's like they are racing with safe mode on.

[aleks_ader]

A) Yeah i think whole assembly was perfectly tuned for bigger fuel "trick" flow. Let say they could use K1Plus mode with 101 kg/h. So that puts all redesign on all moving parts of ICE and ESPECIALLY MGUH harvesting.

B) Also if FIA new ERS managment sensor prevent them use same effective "MGUH-MGUK" connection. Is even bigger whammy. Especially if we put into equation first A bullet point. Especially if they coul trick 4MJ rule via "Honda inertial trick".

C) Intercooler closed loophole could also be their demise as colleague above said. They could use oil intercooler as knock moderator. And that really lowers the power even further if they want to reach nice millage for example.

Solution:

1) I would imagine thermal engineering and TJI tech needs big rethinking.
It touches some things more. For example remapping of MGUK harvesting and software config for Qualify mode is different.
2) Also finding new loopholes that takes time. Maybe even they have ideas but would be naughty to do tricky busies already - especially some knock moderating fluids. There are so much possibilities to do intentional leaking into chamber (coolant, oil still, sump breather).
3) Fix electronics for ERS if there is advantange too be taken. They probably need rethinking the energy flows. Maybe put more load into inertial energy of MGUH assembly. Like Honda i think at least.
4MJ could be limiting factor for MAX performance per 1 lap.

Obstacles:

1) Rules obviously. Freezing of some componentry comes at wrong time . Timing is unfortunate for them.
2) Dyno runs are limited. So yeah they need rethinking and made research plan carefully. That would take time. No shortcuts there.
3) Time: Sadly this season is toss up from track testing standpoint. So yeah 2021 will cut throat for Pu performance because the 2022 (or in the future) clampdown will come soon.

[hape]

A question maybe not specifically for this thread alone but.... How does the FIA control the shut down periods of factories, design bureaus, the amount of test rigs hours etc.
What I’m saying is: How do we know Mercedes, Ferrari, RedBull etc don’t have a 2nd AVL test bench or something similar hidden deep down in their factories? Or testing for 40 hours but show only 20?

If we have to believe them what they tell us then good luck....
Does anybody know?

[Xwang]

A question maybe not specifically for this thread alone but.... How does the FIA control the shut down periods of factories, design bureaus, the amount of test rigs hours etc.
What I’m saying is: How do we know Mercedes, Ferrari, RedBull etc don’t have a 2nd AVL test bench or something similar hidden deep down in their factories? Or testing for 40 hours but show only 20?

If we have to believe them what they tell us then good luck....
Does anybody know?

IMHO they do not control at all (and they will not do or be able to police the budget cap either).

[hape]

Well we don’t know what they did exactly but some sort of voodoo power was in the engine that has gone now. I’m not going into the debate of legal or illegal voodoo.
But now their engine is tame and has probably the lowest output of any of the 4 engine manufacturers.

Could this be because they designed the engine for the high peak output of last year and now, without voodoo, it’s construction is heavier than necessary, things are oversized, simply not well designed for running without voodoo?
I can’t believe Ferrari are not able to do better than this, their voodoo being forbidden might have left them unable to build an engine optimized for this year. Or Shell with their fuel. Or both?
Furthermore, if we think back of Monza last year where Leclerc was being pushed by Hamilton and Bottas all race long, unable to overtake him out of the tow..... lap after lap the engine had its voodoo....how on earth did Ferrari manage to do that race with 110kg of fuel where now they are still able to burn 110kg of fuel in a race but without the magic power ?

In this fuel limited formula fuel usage is basically a function of time on throttle, so before they were using more fuel(probably more than the regs allowed) for a shorter amount of time(it took them less time to get down the straight), rather than less fuel for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, Ferrari were regularly using around 15kg more fuel than any of the other engines per race, which should have been a red flag to the regulators in of itself.

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

[Xwang]

Well we don’t know what they did exactly but some sort of voodoo power was in the engine that has gone now. I’m not going into the debate of legal or illegal voodoo.
But now their engine is tame and has probably the lowest output of any of the 4 engine manufacturers.

Could this be because they designed the engine for the high peak output of last year and now, without voodoo, it’s construction is heavier than necessary, things are oversized, simply not well designed for running without voodoo?
I can’t believe Ferrari are not able to do better than this, their voodoo being forbidden might have left them unable to build an engine optimized for this year. Or Shell with their fuel. Or both?
Furthermore, if we think back of Monza last year where Leclerc was being pushed by Hamilton and Bottas all race long, unable to overtake him out of the tow..... lap after lap the engine had its voodoo....how on earth did Ferrari manage to do that race with 110kg of fuel where now they are still able to burn 110kg of fuel in a race but without the magic power ?

In this fuel limited formula fuel usage is basically a function of time on throttle, so before they were using more fuel(probably more than the regs allowed) for a shorter amount of time(it took them less time to get down the straight), rather than less fuel for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, Ferrari were regularly using around 15kg more fuel than any of the other engines per race, which should have been a red flag to the regulators in of itself.

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

As they were inside the race allowed maximum fuel usage, I do not see why FIA should have watched at it.
Maybe it is more strange that the 2014-2020 dominant engine has never been investigated (last year they took Ferrari and Honda engines for deeper examination, but no investigation was ever made on Mercedes one).

[enri_the_red]

A question maybe not specifically for this thread alone but.... How does the FIA control the shut down periods of factories, design bureaus, the amount of test rigs hours etc.
What I’m saying is: How do we know Mercedes, Ferrari, RedBull etc don’t have a 2nd AVL test bench or something similar hidden deep down in their factories? Or testing for 40 hours but show only 20?

If we have to believe them what they tell us then good luck....
Does anybody know?

Whistleblowers

[Xwang]

A question maybe not specifically for this thread alone but.... How does the FIA control the shut down periods of factories, design bureaus, the amount of test rigs hours etc.
What I’m saying is: How do we know Mercedes, Ferrari, RedBull etc don’t have a 2nd AVL test bench or something similar hidden deep down in their factories? Or testing for 40 hours but show only 20?

If we have to believe them what they tell us then good luck....
Does anybody know?

Whistleblowers

If true, this means that the FIA plans to monitor these rules in a similar way to the GDR Stasi (but, perhaps, without torture for suspects).
It confirms my opinion that the only rules which can be effectively policed are the ones which can be checked during the GP events and not those which pretends to limit what a team can or cannot do at its base.

[ENGINE TUNER]

We can only make assumptions. The only thing i have noticed from the first race is that the engine sounds weak. The mgu-k sound is not there as it was last year and as a whole it doesnt sound to be reaching maximum power. It's like they are racing with safe mode on.

That means nothing, look at the difference in sounds between the 2 honda squads or the merc squads. It's too dependent on the mic placement to mean anything. The time sheets dont lie.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Well we don’t know what they did exactly but some sort of voodoo power was in the engine that has gone now. I’m not going into the debate of legal or illegal voodoo.
But now their engine is tame and has probably the lowest output of any of the 4 engine manufacturers.

Could this be because they designed the engine for the high peak output of last year and now, without voodoo, it’s construction is heavier than necessary, things are oversized, simply not well designed for running without voodoo?
I can’t believe Ferrari are not able to do better than this, their voodoo being forbidden might have left them unable to build an engine optimized for this year. Or Shell with their fuel. Or both?
Furthermore, if we think back of Monza last year where Leclerc was being pushed by Hamilton and Bottas all race long, unable to overtake him out of the tow..... lap after lap the engine had its voodoo....how on earth did Ferrari manage to do that race with 110kg of fuel where now they are still able to burn 110kg of fuel in a race but without the magic power ?

In this fuel limited formula fuel usage is basically a function of time on throttle, so before they were using more fuel(probably more than the regs allowed) for a shorter amount of time(it took them less time to get down the straight), rather than less fuel for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, Ferrari were regularly using around 15kg more fuel than any of the other engines per race, which should have been a red flag to the regulators in of itself.

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

Fuel limited formula, the engine burns the same amount of fuel at 10.5k rpm, 12k rpm or 15 k rpm(so obviously it makes sense to keep it running closer to 10.5k rpm)

Most of their advantage was in acceleration, not top speed so much.

Yes, it was perplexing why the FIA didn't notice that they were burning so much more fuel than the Mercs. I'm surprised Mercedes didn't point it out.

[ENGINE TUNER]

In this fuel limited formula fuel usage is basically a function of time on throttle, so before they were using more fuel(probably more than the regs allowed) for a shorter amount of time(it took them less time to get down the straight), rather than less fuel for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, Ferrari were regularly using around 15kg more fuel than any of the other engines per race, which should have been a red flag to the regulators in of itself.

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

As they were inside the race allowed maximum fuel usage, I do not see why FIA should have watched at it.
Maybe it is more strange that the 2014-2020 dominant engine has never been investigated (last year they took Ferrari and Honda engines for deeper examination, but no investigation was ever made on Mercedes one).

All the PUs are homologated and thoroughly inspected. [...]

[sosic2121]

Yep, with less fuel, and probably less oil burning and the purported intercooler coolant burning trick all shut down they would have had to back way off on timing to avoid knock, all of this lowers exhaust energy which would lower the amount of energy the mguh could harvest.

With less pu power they would have taken off some downforce to lower drag, combined with aero correlation problems they are in deep doo doo.

And then less downforce means more sliding so worse tire life.

I boldend the parts I find questionable.

[Jolle]

In this fuel limited formula fuel usage is basically a function of time on throttle, so before they were using more fuel(probably more than the regs allowed) for a shorter amount of time(it took them less time to get down the straight), rather than less fuel for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, Ferrari were regularly using around 15kg more fuel than any of the other engines per race, which should have been a red flag to the regulators in of itself.

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

Fuel limited formula, the engine burns the same amount of fuel at 10.5k rpm, 12k rpm or 15 k rpm(so obviously it makes sense to keep it running closer to 10.5k rpm)

Most of their advantage was in acceleration, not top speed so much.

Yes, it was perplexing why the FIA didn't notice that they were burning so much more fuel than the Mercs. I'm surprised Mercedes didn't point it out.

Remember when Leclerc got caught with the wrong amount of fuel in his car? does make more sense now...

[ENGINE TUNER]

While this of course is very true, the thing coming to my mind is: Running the engine faster, having more power to go faster down the straight thus much more air resistance to overcome...it would mean you burn more fuel.
But if they really burned about 15% more fuel in a race then FIA should have looked into it much earlier in my opinion.

Fuel limited formula, the engine burns the same amount of fuel at 10.5k rpm, 12k rpm or 15 k rpm(so obviously it makes sense to keep it running closer to 10.5k rpm)

Most of their advantage was in acceleration, not top speed so much.

Yes, it was perplexing why the FIA didn't notice that they were burning so much more fuel than the Mercs. I'm surprised Mercedes didn't point it out.

Remember when Leclerc got caught with the wrong amount of fuel in his car? does make more sense now...

It could have been an attempt to hide something, but it could have been an honest mistake as well. Was that a surprise inspection or is it something they check for every race? If they had done it multiple times then it definitely should have been a red flag.