Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Skippon]

Surely this thread should be about understanding what the teams interpretation of MGU-K usage is (Ferrari in this instance) which isn't 120KW for 33 1/3 seconds!!!!

[apexcontrol]

[apexcontrol]

What costs more from a total energy budget? Running the compressor with a turbine, or through the electric motors? Probably depends on the circumstances, probably like it depends on whether you use the ICE or the ES to power those electric motors. Just like maybe the most efficient is a combination of all these different ways of harvesting and deploying energy.

P.S. I saw now where I was wrong about SOC, my bad.

the delivery of power direct at the crank is less power lost by other components you have, but when in a situation in excess of fuel. you can put max power at all components ...if you need to overtake and the moment to do it is coming and this will properly one the moment you get to overtake, then everything is to the max and not efficient any more.

but if you have to power to spare why not use everting you may not need in the race that's left

the F1 car when running maxed out is not best way to complete 60 laps. if you're not running out of fuel then you will be very fuel heavy, and will stressing allot of car-components out of there comfort zone.
but when there is no other option to overtake and everting is at stake or there is nothing to loose.
and you have the fuel for it.

well hahaha then blast the whole car to pieces and see where it gets you in the end victory or tears

[gruntguru]

A few general comments. Apologies if I repeat points already made by others.

If we assume that ES > H > K energy flow is possible (thus circumventing the 4 MJ/lap limit for K deployment).
1. If a driver has no electric power left to deploy, it can only mean the ES is at the bottom of the 4 MJ "any time on track" band.
2. Running "electric supercharger" is a less efficient use of ES energy than sending it to the K - therefore:
3. Motoring the H is only done when the K is already motoring at 120 kW and more power is desired - or - for anti-lag. (Or for ES > H > K energy flow, where the H is alternately motored and generating)
4. When it is desired to convert fuel into ES charge, the most efficient method is to motor the K. Regardless of the ICE load demand, this will convert energy at close to 50% efficiency. If the the ICE is at low load, the marginal efficiency attributable to the extra 120 kW demand will greater than 50% (and there will be extra harvest from the H at the higher load).

[gruntguru]

the delivery of power direct at the crank is less power lost by other components you have, but when in a situation in excess of fuel. you can put max power at all components ...if you need to overtake and the moment to do it is coming and this will properly one the moment you get to overtake, then everything is to the max and not efficient any more.

but if you have to power to spare why not use everting you may not need in the race that's left

the F1 car when running maxed out is not best way to complete 60 laps. if you're not running out of fuel then you will be very fuel heavy, and will stressing allot of car-components out of there comfort zone.
but when there is no other option to overtake and everting is at stake or there is nothing to loose.
and you have the fuel for it.

well hahaha then blast the whole car to pieces and see where it gets you in the end victory or tears

Are you quoting Max?

[PlatinumZealot]

Gentlemen. Any actual news on the development of the Ferrari engine. Other than this ERS trivia for the last umpteen pages?

[saviour stivala]

Gentlemen. Any actual news on the development of the Ferrari engine. Other than this ERS trivia for the last umpteen pages?

Word that was doing the round in Silverstone paddock by people in the know was that FERRARI progress with their power unit was due to combustion development progress made possible by SHELL updated fuel development (progress in octane rating numbers, numbers which are not restricted by the rules). This development was being refined and test bench validated as far back as the last quarter of last year, it was designated as 062-2. Anyhow, Ferrari started the 2018 season with power unit 062-1. On car number 5 it was replaced by 062-2 in Canada, but on car number 7 power unit 062-1 was replaced by 062-2 after 5 races in Spain. FERRARI went into Silverstone with number 7 car power unit 5 races old and car number 5 power unit 3 races old. Both FERRARI cars are still using power unit number 1 (062-1) in FP1 and 2.

[sosic2121]

Gentlemen. Any actual news on the development of the Ferrari engine. Other than this ERS trivia for the last umpteen pages?

Word that was doing the round in Silverstone paddock by people in the know was that FERRARI progress with their power unit was due to combustion development progress made possible by SHELL updated fuel development (progress in octane rating numbers, numbers which are not restricted by the rules). This development was being refined and test bench validated as far back as the last quarter of last year, it was designated as 062-2. Anyhow, Ferrari started the 2018 season with power unit 062-1. On car number 5 it was replaced by 062-2 in Canada, but on car number 7 power unit 062-1 was replaced by 062-2 after 5 races in Spain. FERRARI went into Silverstone with number 7 car power unit 5 races old and car number 5 power unit 3 races old. Both FERRARI cars are still using power unit number 1 (062-1) in FP1 and 2.

Is there any way to confirm that Kimi has spec 2 ICE and not spec 1?

I was under impression that Hass and Sauber used new 062-2 PU in Monte Carlo(and not in Canada) in order to test it on race track.

[henry]

2. Running "electric supercharger" is a less efficient use of ES energy than sending it to the K - therefore:

Whilst I agree driving the K from the ES is more efficient at converting energy to Tractive effort I don’t think it is necessarily more lap time or track position efficient.

In an earlier post I showed a simple per lap energy balance that suggested that with the MGU-K at 60kW it was not possible to run the K for consecutive full laps at Silverstone.

In my opinion if the MGU-H is generating at around 70kW they would, at Silverstone, be able to run the K all the time they are at WOT using less than energy from the ES than they can harvest. They would then have a choice, burn less fuel and harvest less or use electric supercharger at the beginning of straights. Or some mix of both.

So if the leading teams, Ferrari and Mercedes, have got to this level, or beyond, they would if they carried 105kg at the start, have enough fuel to deploy electric supercharger at the beginning of straights for the whole race.

I guess the question is, and you posted this in another thread, where have Ferrari and Mercedes got to with MGU-H power?

[turbof1]

I guess the question is, and you posted this in another thread, where have Ferrari and Mercedes got to with MGU-H power?

Quite possibly the 1 billion dollar question.

Ferrari powered cars are running a bigger structural air intake for the turbo this year. Since the turbo itself is limited to 125k rpm, it should indicate more power generated by the mgu-h.

Pure power numbers are something we aren't going to get unless an (ex-)employee leaks something out. But they definitely made a jump there. a bigger intake could imply a bigger turbo, which would by definition require more turbolag to overcome. Although spooling up the turbo through electric energy is less efficient use of electric use than just putting it down on the driveshaft, chances are very much that they can deploy more than 120kw and everything above 120kw goes from mgu-h to the turbine. Can they do this in full throughout Q? I think they absolutely can. Throughout the race? Maybe. I'm sure anybody with knowledge of mathematics concerning turbo size and associated lag can work out hypothetical models.

[henry]

I would like to share a theory about where Ferrari, and Mercedes, are likely to be focussing their efforts in PU development.

I’ll start with an assertion. In a fuel limited formula the most efficient way to make a lap time is at constant speed.

Any time spent below that speed is inefficient because you have to spend energy accelerating the car up to the lap time average speed. Any time spent above that speed is even more inefficient because the power required rises as the cube of the speed because of wind drag.

So when it comes to deploying energy you want to deploy as much as possible at low speeds and as little as possible at high speed.

In developing the PU there are two ways to get more energy from the fuel. Increase the crank power or increase the MGU-H power.

Increasing crank power is the most efficient if all you want to do is extract maximum power from the fuel. However increased crank power is deployed uniformly at every speed. At higher speeds increased crank power is simply eaten up by drag.

Increasing MGU-H power on the other hand allows you the ability to transfer energy to the ES when at high speed and use it at low speed. This is less efficient in absolute terms but more efficient in average speed and hence lap time.

So my guess would be that both Ferrari and Mercedes have a crank power level that they are content with and they focus their energies on MGU-H output.

There are many ways to do this: combustion ,through fuel, ignition and injection timings etc. Turbine efficiency, compressor efficiency, intake efficiency, reduced pressure requirements and so on.

Unfortunately we have virtually zero access to this sort of information. They don’t want us,or anyone else, to know. So they come out with statements like,” we’ve got better combustion, or a new fuel or whatever, and it’s given us more power”. By more power they mean can go faster. We all then look for evidence for this in increased top speeds, whereas we might be best looking for lower top speeds. (They can afford more downforce to help raise low speed performance)

I have scant evidence for this, it’s theoretical. However Honda have said more than once that they have increased crank power only to lose MGU-H capability, and both they and Renault seem most deficient in deployment.

P.S. I’m not saying they won’t take increased crank power if it comes, just that that is not where I think the bang for buck comes from.

[Big Mangalhit]

I would like to share a theory about where Ferrari, and Mercedes, are likely to be focussing their efforts in PU development.

I’ll start with an assertion. In a fuel limited formula the most efficient way to make a lap time is at constant speed.

Any time spent below that speed is inefficient because you have to spend energy accelerating the car up to the lap time average speed. Any time spent above that speed is even more inefficient because the power required rises as the cube of the speed because of wind drag.

So when it comes to deploying energy you want to deploy as much as possible at low speeds and as little as possible at high speed.

...

Great post. It's exactly the way a see it (albeit with more insight from you).

So do you think the teams are also using MGU-K harvest in the end of the straights to harvest by motoring the crankshaft to gain power for the early next straight?

I always thought this was the motive behind the famous Ferrari engine "clipping" that was happening two years ago (in which they would lose their top speed at the end of the straights even if they were still WOT). Even tho it seems that they are not doing it now. Maybe thanks to more efficient H harvesting??

[saviour stivala]

Gentlemen. Any actual news on the development of the Ferrari engine. Other than this ERS trivia for the last umpteen pages?

Word that was doing the round in Silverstone paddock by people in the know was that FERRARI progress with their power unit was due to combustion development progress made possible by SHELL updated fuel development (progress in octane rating numbers, numbers which are not restricted by the rules). This development was being refined and test bench validated as far back as the last quarter of last year, it was designated as 062-2. Anyhow, Ferrari started the 2018 season with power unit 062-1. On car number 5 it was replaced by 062-2 in Canada, but on car number 7 power unit 062-1 was replaced by 062-2 after 5 races in Spain. FERRARI went into Silverstone with number 7 car power unit 5 races old and car number 5 power unit 3 races old. Both FERRARI cars are still using power unit number 1 (062-1) in FP1 and 2.

Is there any way to confirm that Kimi has spec 2 ICE and not spec 1?

I was under impression that Hass and Sauber used new 062-2 PU in Monte Carlo(and not in Canada) in order to test it on race track.

Although during the race number 5 was controlling race pace from the front, number 7 on a 5 race old PU was actually the fastest car on track. Many believed, including me that when he took PU number 2 another 062-1 was forced on him, but Silverstone proved that was not the case. It looks like the spares they were carrying with them were all to O62-2 updated specification. This update consisted of ICE, TURBO and H combination. Another thing, when they replaced 062-1 on number 7 car in FP, the car did not finish the race, 062-2 lost power during the race and car was retired, ended up with only one cylinder bank able to fire. Kimi was told to switch-off on track, but he managed to drive back to the pits and the race was over for him. But it was found that the problem was caused by wiring and nothing was wrong with the engine, in the next race, Monaco he got pole with it. Yes both Haas cars took 062-2 in Monaco also before schedule.

[sosic2121]

I would like to share a theory about where Ferrari, and Mercedes, are likely to be focussing their efforts in PU development.

I’ll start with an assertion. In a fuel limited formula the most efficient way to make a lap time is at constant speed.

Any time spent below that speed is inefficient because you have to spend energy accelerating the car up to the lap time average speed. Any time spent above that speed is even more inefficient because the power required rises as the cube of the speed because of wind drag.

So when it comes to deploying energy you want to deploy as much as possible at low speeds and as little as possible at high speed.

...

Great post. It's exactly the way a see it (albeit with more insight from you).

So do you think the teams are also using MGU-K harvest in the end of the straights to harvest by motoring the crankshaft to gain power for the early next straight?

I always thought this was the motive behind the famous Ferrari engine "clipping" that was happening two years ago (in which they would lose their top speed at the end of the straights even if they were still WOT). Even tho it seems that they are not doing it now. Maybe thanks to more efficient H harvesting??

Yes, great post form Henry(as usual).

It seems that Ferrari PU can produce much more energy than 2 years ago.
Not only that clipping is gone, but it seems they can use e-charger even during race.
Any estimation about crank power gains and compressor power need during e-charger mode? 20kw and 60kw?

[saviour stivala]

2. Running "electric supercharger" is a less efficient use of ES energy than sending it to the K - therefore:

Whilst I agree driving the K from the ES is more efficient at converting energy to Tractive effort I don’t think it is necessarily more lap time or track position efficient.

In an earlier post I showed a simple per lap energy balance that suggested that with the MGU-K at 60kW it was not possible to run the K for consecutive full laps at Silverstone.

In my opinion if the MGU-H is generating at around 70kW they would, at Silverstone, be able to run the K all the time they are at WOT using less than energy from the ES than they can harvest. They would then have a choice, burn less fuel and harvest less or use electric supercharger at the beginning of straights. Or some mix of both.

So if the leading teams, Ferrari and Mercedes, have got to this level, or beyond, they would if they carried 105kg at the start, have enough fuel to deploy electric supercharger at the beginning of straights for the whole race.

I guess the question is, and you posted this in another thread, where have Ferrari and Mercedes got to with MGU-H power?

Running in electric supercharging mode is different from turbo electric assist and control (spooling-up and boost control) unning in electric supercharging mode is only done with waste gates open and ICE at full fuel flow, running in this mode the "H" consumes 60KW and is always sharing ES power with K. running in this mode (free load mode) produces the most possible power output, but it is also the most ineffecient mode.