Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[sosic2121]

only catch is there's a conversion loss. Electrical>kinetic>electrical.
I was thinking it might be more elegant to have a dual stator to avoid switching and simply design half the H as an electrical-kinetic-electrical link.

Your idea is much better.
Problem with extra deployment over MGU-H is that you can deploy K only half of the time, when H is generating. While H is motoring, they would have to compensate directly from ES.
Dual stator mitigates that problem!

[gruntguru]

If I understand correctly what you are saying you suggest that ferrari is using more than 4MJ from battery. This is not illegal .
State of charge of battery is limited to 4MJ, but you can charge and empty battery as many time you wish during one lap.
What is limited to 4MJ/lap is ES>MGU-K.
However, you energy can be sent energy via H.
ES>MGU-H>MGU-K this is also legal.
IF Ferrari is cheating, it's something else.

The question that begs here: can one circumvent the 4MJ pull from the battery by getting the energy flow from the ES to the MGU-H to the MGU-K? Energy exchange between the battery and the MGU-H on one hand is unlimited, and energy exchange between MGU-H and MGU-K is also unlimited on the other hand. Only the energy exchange between the MGU-K and the ES is capped at 4MJ.

Even if not allowed: the output of the MGU-K is 120kW. That is 0,12MJ/s. 4MJ will give you 33.33s of 120kW power, but you can also have 40s/50s/60s of 120 kW power, depending how much energy you can generate AND consume a the same time, from the mgu-h suplemented by the 4MJ from the battery. The energy generated does not have to be stored on ES, but can directly feed into the MGU-K deploy mode.

Usually, you are storing the MGU-K harvesting mode on the ES. Naturally, because you are braking so in no need for 'motion' energy. However, the MGU-H is generating the power when on the throttle, so you are going to spent that energy immediately instead of storing it on the ES because then you want enough 'motion' energy to sustain 120kW as long as possible.

To be pedantic the output of the MGU-K is specified as 120 kW but it is controlled/monitored by the output of the control unit that drives it. The FIA predict the conversion efficiency at 95% so the output of the CU-K is allowed to be 126.3 kW. With the prescribed 4 MJ from the ES to the MGU-K the time is 31.66 seconds.

You don't think the FIA might apply the same 95% factor to the 4 MJ limit, thus allowing the MGUK to operate at 120 kW (and the CU-K at 126.3 kW) for 33.33s ?

[henry]

...

Even if not allowed: the output of the MGU-K is 120kW. That is 0,12MJ/s. 4MJ will give you 33.33s of 120kW power, but you can also have 40s/50s/60s of 120 kW power, depending how much energy you can generate AND consume a the same time, from the mgu-h suplemented by the 4MJ from the battery. The energy generated does not have to be stored on ES, but can directly feed into the MGU-K deploy mode.
...

To be pedantic the output of the MGU-K is specified as 120 kW but it is controlled/monitored by the output of the control unit that drives it. The FIA predict the conversion efficiency at 95% so the output of the CU-K is allowed to be 126.3 kW. With the prescribed 4 MJ from the ES to the MGU-K the time is 31.66 seconds.

You don't think the FIA might apply the same 95% factor to the 4 MJ limit, thus allowing the MGUK to operate at 120 kW (and the CU-K at 126.3 kW) for 33.33s ?

I don’t.

The wording is:

A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.

So I think they are controlling the power, which is instantaneous, rather than consumption, which is over a lap.

But maybe other interpretations are equally valid. Who knows?

[henry]

A description from Isabellenhütte

The IVT series are intelligent, digital voltage and current sensors, which were developed for the precise measurement of DC currents.

As I understand it the input to the motor control units, CU-H , CU-K, is DC and their output is PWM voltage/current.

There are TWO of these sensors mandated, one measuring DC in and out of the ES and one D.C. in and out of the CU-K. There is no sensor on the CU-H, why would there be? It'sm not regulated.

So MGU-K power measurement and control is relatively straightforward, measure current and voltage into the CU-K and flag if it exceeds 120 kW. (I’ll ignore the 95% conversion correction because the numbers are ugly)

But measuring the energy flow is not as straightforward. The energy flow regulation system needs to discriminate which source supplied which quantity of electricity. To determine the legal flow you have to take the measured output of the ES and confirm what proportion of it arrives at the CU-K. After some or all of it might have been destined for the CU-H. The measurement flow needs to synchronise the two measurements. I would think there is an opportunity here for errors in synchronisation , particularly given the ERS can store 5kJ.

I’m not sure how having two batteries would play into this other than it would introduce another switching pattern into the mix.

[wuzak]

Surely the MGUK is 3 phase, and the sensor is used to measure power sent from ES to the CE for the MGUK?

[henry]

Surely the MGUK is 3 phase, and the sensor is used to measure power sent from ES to the CE for the MGUK?

The sensor measures ALL the DC energy entering the CU-K. It would appear the sensor does not know whether the energy came from the ES or the MGU-H.

[henry]

Another theory.

The 4 MJ figure referred may be the State of Charge number not the ES>MGU-K number.

If you can store more than 4 MJ in the ES you can potentially run Supercharge mode longer, than someone who can’t.

In Supercharge mode the power drain is 120 kW to the MGU-K and X kW to the MGU-H. If we suppose X is 60 kW then you need 6 MJ to run Supercharge mode for the full duration of the MGU-K restriction. So the task would be to manage 6 MJ without exceeding the 4 MJ SoC limit.

This would be usefull in qualifying. I believe that in qualifying cars cross the start line with SoC less than 4 MJ because they will have used some of the SoC from the previous lap to accelerate out of the last corner. Let’s say they use 200 kJ. That means that in order to run Supercharge mode for the full 30+ seconds they will need to harvest an extra 200 kJ during the qualifying lap.

Now suppose that a car can get to more than 4 MJ SoC on the lap previous to the qualifying lap. They can now cross the line with potentially the full 4 MJ (or more) and have more potential to use Supercharge mode for longer.

This fits with the “facts” that we know. The issue is with the ES. A 4 MJ limit is being exceeded. The result is an extra 20 hp for some seconds.

The questions then are: is it likely that by cycling between 2 batteries in the ES could the sensor that measures the flow of energy in and out of the ES be confused, or might the integration process that keeps an inventory of SoC miscalculate? I think the latter is more likely.

[johnny vee]

Brilliant Post Henry, thank you

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=sosic2121] ....... Dual stator mitigates that problem! [/quote]

dual stator seems to involve having 2 CU-Hs
is that within the rules ?
(the electrical-kinetic-electrical energy path is cleverly invisible because it uses 1 CU-H)

sosic's other suggestion (some current outside the cabling) would surely fail basic safety checks of isolation aka insulation ?

[CriXus]

Whiting: Nobody was thrown under the bus

Charlie Whiting has denied that members of the Mercedes team were thrown under the bus during the FIA's 'investigation' into the legality (or not) of Ferrari's energy recovery system.

Refusing to call it an investigation, the FIA sought to look into Ferrari's ERS - which it was claimed was delivering more than the permitted 120kw of power from its MGU-K - after the issue was brought to its attention by Mercedes.

At Mercedes, technical boss James Allison, had been alerted to a possible issue by former Ferrari engine man, Lorenzo Sassi, who had been recruited from Maranello. However, Toto Wolff was incensed that his team members had been identified, claiming that Whiting, and thereby the FIA, had effectively thrown them under the bus.

Not so, insists Whiting.

"I didn't think it was any secret," says Whiting, according to ESPN. "In fact when we had a little chat with the guys (journalists) yesterday, it was they who came up with the Ferrari man's name. I don't think it was any secret.

"The fact that James... it was wrong to say that he was a whistleblower or something like that. He just, as many engineers do, came up to us and said 'this guy started working for us and he says this team might be doing that', and we go and check, and it's not the case.

"This is a regular thing," he ad mitted. "It was just one of those normal conversations that you have with somebody: 'We think Ferrari may be doing this, this and this because of that', and we went and checked, and we thought 'actually they could be doing that, so let's have a check and make sure'.

"It's taken us a little while to get to that, but as I say, it's a pretty routine kind of thing for us, for people to come to us, especially when they've had staff members come from another team.

"Don't forget Lorenzo, his information is at least eight months old, which in Formula One terms is quite old," added Whiting, referring to the period that the Italian spent tending his garden after leaving Ferrari.

Asked to explain the delay in confirming the legality of Ferrari's DRS, Whiting said: "I prefer not to use the word investigate, we were really trying to get to the point where we would be entirely satisfied. But the power being delivered to the MGU-K is correct.

"It was difficult to explain exactly what we were seeing," he admits. "That's why we kept going through it with Ferrari, because it's a very complex and totally different system to everybody else's. In much the way we do with the other bits in the car, we have to understand these things and it took us a bit longer to understand what was going on.

"Their duty is to satisfy us that the car complies, as you know, but they've been finding it hard to satisfy us. But by the time we got to here and looking at data, software changes that were implemented, it becomes clearer exactly where we were and after the first day of running we were then able to say 'OK we're happy now. We understand it now'."

Asked if there would be further monitoring of Ferrari's system, he admitted: "I can't say that with complete certainty at the moment. We want them to put extra monitoring on, but at the moment we're having to do it in a rather painstaking way that takes a little longer than we would've liked.

"I think we will arrive at the same conclusion I would imagine but, in Canada they will be providing a change of software which will enable us to... I'm hesitating slightly simply because I'm not quite up to speed with the exact technicalities of this because I'm not an expert of this. But what we're trying to do is to monitor what the difference is between the two halves of the battery are, and that's the crux of the matter because other systems treat their battery as one. Ferrari, it's one battery, but they treat it as two. And that's really the fundamental difference between the two. I don't think it's a secret I'm giving away there."

I doubt Ferrari have been cheating because they have been using two batteries since 2014. What could be the purpose of the two batteries?

[saviour stivala]

Whiting: Nobody was thrown under the bus

Charlie Whiting has denied that members of the Mercedes team were thrown under the bus during the FIA's 'investigation' into the legality (or not) of Ferrari's energy recovery system.

Refusing to call it an investigation, the FIA sought to look into Ferrari's ERS - which it was claimed was delivering more than the permitted 120kw of power from its MGU-K - after the issue was brought to its attention by Mercedes.

At Mercedes, technical boss James Allison, had been alerted to a possible issue by former Ferrari engine man, Lorenzo Sassi, who had been recruited from Maranello. However, Toto Wolff was incensed that his team members had been identified, claiming that Whiting, and thereby the FIA, had effectively thrown them under the bus.

Not so, insists Whiting.

"I didn't think it was any secret," says Whiting, according to ESPN. "In fact when we had a little chat with the guys (journalists) yesterday, it was they who came up with the Ferrari man's name. I don't think it was any secret.

"The fact that James... it was wrong to say that he was a whistleblower or something like that. He just, as many engineers do, came up to us and said 'this guy started working for us and he says this team might be doing that', and we go and check, and it's not the case.

"This is a regular thing," he ad mitted. "It was just one of those normal conversations that you have with somebody: 'We think Ferrari may be doing this, this and this because of that', and we went and checked, and we thought 'actually they could be doing that, so let's have a check and make sure'.

"It's taken us a little while to get to that, but as I say, it's a pretty routine kind of thing for us, for people to come to us, especially when they've had staff members come from another team.

"Don't forget Lorenzo, his information is at least eight months old, which in Formula One terms is quite old," added Whiting, referring to the period that the Italian spent tending his garden after leaving Ferrari.

Asked to explain the delay in confirming the legality of Ferrari's DRS, Whiting said: "I prefer not to use the word investigate, we were really trying to get to the point where we would be entirely satisfied. But the power being delivered to the MGU-K is correct.

"It was difficult to explain exactly what we were seeing," he admits. "That's why we kept going through it with Ferrari, because it's a very complex and totally different system to everybody else's. In much the way we do with the other bits in the car, we have to understand these things and it took us a bit longer to understand what was going on.

"Their duty is to satisfy us that the car complies, as you know, but they've been finding it hard to satisfy us. But by the time we got to here and looking at data, software changes that were implemented, it becomes clearer exactly where we were and after the first day of running we were then able to say 'OK we're happy now. We understand it now'."

Asked if there would be further monitoring of Ferrari's system, he admitted: "I can't say that with complete certainty at the moment. We want them to put extra monitoring on, but at the moment we're having to do it in a rather painstaking way that takes a little longer than we would've liked.

"I think we will arrive at the same conclusion I would imagine but, in Canada they will be providing a change of software which will enable us to... I'm hesitating slightly simply because I'm not quite up to speed with the exact technicalities of this because I'm not an expert of this. But what we're trying to do is to monitor what the difference is between the two halves of the battery are, and that's the crux of the matter because other systems treat their battery as one. Ferrari, it's one battery, but they treat it as two. And that's really the fundamental difference between the two. I don't think it's a secret I'm giving away there."

I doubt Ferrari have been cheating because they have been using two batteries since 2014. What could be the purpose of the two batteries?

Opinion fomenters/conspirators of the first order that comes with a pedgree cirtificate and to gap it all Toto Wolff pretends that the would-be whistle blowers he hires should not be named.

[dans79]

Toto Wolff pretends that the would-be whistle blowers he hires should not be named.

It's not professional, but some members of the F1 paddock and it seems many fans have no idea what that even means. In a lot of places laws exist to protect whistle blowers.

[sosic2121]

Another theory.

The 4 MJ figure referred may be the State of Charge number not the ES>MGU-K number.

If you can store more than 4 MJ in the ES you can potentially run Supercharge mode longer, than someone who can’t.

In Supercharge mode the power drain is 120 kW to the MGU-K and X kW to the MGU-H. If we suppose X is 60 kW then you need 6 MJ to run Supercharge mode for the full duration of the MGU-K restriction. So the task would be to manage 6 MJ without exceeding the 4 MJ SoC limit.

This would be usefull in qualifying. I believe that in qualifying cars cross the start line with SoC less than 4 MJ because they will have used some of the SoC from the previous lap to accelerate out of the last corner. Let’s say they use 200 kJ. That means that in order to run Supercharge mode for the full 30+ seconds they will need to harvest an extra 200 kJ during the qualifying lap.

Now suppose that a car can get to more than 4 MJ SoC on the lap previous to the qualifying lap. They can now cross the line with potentially the full 4 MJ (or more) and have more potential to use Supercharge mode for longer.

This fits with the “facts” that we know. The issue is with the ES. A 4 MJ limit is being exceeded. The result is an extra 20 hp for some seconds.

The questions then are: is it likely that by cycling between 2 batteries in the ES could the sensor that measures the flow of energy in and out of the ES be confused, or might the integration process that keeps an inventory of SoC miscalculate? I think the latter is more likely.

I understand what you're saying, but I think there are bigger gains elsewhere. No need to cheat for such a small gain.
I think there is enough energy during Q for supercharging mode if they use motorgenereting + extra harvestand and also hot blowing.
I believe huge amount of energy is deployed during Q lap.

[henry]

Another theory.

....

I understand what you're saying, but I think there are bigger gains elsewhere. No need to cheat for such a small gain.
I think there is enough energy during Q for supercharging mode if they use motorgenereting + extra harvestand and also hot blowing.
I believe huge amount of energy is deployed during Q lap.

You may be right. Have you run any numbers on your theory?

What is hot blowing?

My aim was to try to make sense of the reports we are seeing. My use case may not be the only one in which an extension of the SoC would be useful.

[sosic2121]

Another theory.

....

I understand what you're saying, but I think there are bigger gains elsewhere. No need to cheat for such a small gain.
I think there is enough energy during Q for supercharging mode if they use motorgenereting + extra harvestand and also hot blowing.
I believe huge amount of energy is deployed during Q lap.

You may be right. Have you run any numbers on your theory?

What is hot blowing?

My aim was to try to make sense of the reports we are seeing. My use case may not be the only one in which an extension of the SoC would be useful.

I have not done any numbers, but if I had to make a guess, I would say 10MJ+ during Q3 lap deployed by K and H. (I can't remember what was estimated power consumption of compressor. 60kw?)

Hot blowing example, during corner run ICE at full throttle, but delay spark, so ICE makes very little power at the crank, but sends lots of energy to the turbine so it can be harvesters by MGU-H.

It was done before in F1 during eighties to keep the turbo spinning during corner,
and also during v8 engines to keep EBD diffuser "powered" also while cornering.