Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[saviour stivala]

Why couldn't Leclerc reverse? Any info on that?

Same reason why Perez wouldn't reverse in Canada.

The F1-75 number 16 was not stuck into the crash barriers in a way that it could not extract itself backwards by its own power, in fact there was little damage to the front of the car. What happened was before the car came to a stop still in gear anti-stall kicked in as it should, the driver engaged revers while anti-stall was still on, because of that he had no control on throttle, so he could not add engine power (throttle) to revers. he actually then switched off the engine and restarted again, but by then the procedure to engage reverse had gone into safe mode. In short, the drivetrain fail-safe system mode was kicked in.

[danypons8]

Its a real posibility Ferrari use Haas to test a experimental energy system.
And dont need an aprobattion from Renault, Mercedes or Honda.
They can modify and test new versions until de homologation date.
The homologation date is in september.
This is one of the best advantages if you have clients.

Bad for Renault, is really difficult to improve the reability with only two engines.
But for totally changue the engine, and only two cars with the engine, is not bad season for us.

Remember when Honda was fitted with McLaren... no speed, no reability, only great sound.

[mzso]

Why couldn't Leclerc reverse? Any info on that?

Same reason why Perez wouldn't reverse in Canada.

Definitely not, Perez was hooked in the barrier, Leclerc wasn't.

[mzso]

Why couldn't Leclerc reverse? Any info on that?

Same reason why Perez wouldn't reverse in Canada.

The F1-75 number 16 was not stuck into the crash barriers in a way that it could not extract itself backwards by its own power, in fact there was little damage to the front of the car. What happened was before the car came to a stop still in gear anti-stall kicked in as it should, the driver engaged revers while anti-stall was still on, because of that he had no control on throttle, so he could not add engine power (throttle) to revers. he actually then switched off the engine and restarted again, but by then the procedure to engage reverse had gone into safe mode. In short, the drivetrain fail-safe system mode was kicked in.

...
So ultimately another Ferrari (design) defect caused Leclerc to lose a potential podium, even with the mistake.

[johnny comelately]

Why couldn't Leclerc reverse? Any info on that?

Same reason why Perez wouldn't reverse in Canada.

The F1-75 number 16 was not stuck into the crash barriers in a way that it could not extract itself backwards by its own power, in fact there was little damage to the front of the car. What happened was before the car came to a stop still in gear anti-stall kicked in as it should, the driver engaged revers while anti-stall was still on, because of that he had no control on throttle, so he could not add engine power (throttle) to revers. he actually then switched off the engine and restarted again, but by then the procedure to engage reverse had gone into safe mode. In short, the drivetrain fail-safe system mode was kicked in.

Is fail safe an oxymoron in this instance?
Seems a design mistake if this is the case: why have anti stall, which is just keeping the engine going, prevent engaging reverse

[saviour stivala]

A FERRARI design defect is only a conspiracy of FERRARI ‘lovers’.
On his first attempt the driver did engage revers gear but with the engine in anti-stall mode he had no control over the throttle. And with no control over the throttle the engine could not pull the car back. The more he closed the clutch to reverse but with no throttle the more anti-stall stayed on. And this is perfect anti-stall function. As otherwise the engine would have stalled. By the time he shut off and restarted the engine, the power train fail safe kicked in. it is useless to tell some FERRARI lovers that Binotto declared that there was nothing wrong with the car, revers gear selection or the throttle.

[dialtone]

Same reason why Perez wouldn't reverse in Canada.

The F1-75 number 16 was not stuck into the crash barriers in a way that it could not extract itself backwards by its own power, in fact there was little damage to the front of the car. What happened was before the car came to a stop still in gear anti-stall kicked in as it should, the driver engaged revers while anti-stall was still on, because of that he had no control on throttle, so he could not add engine power (throttle) to revers. he actually then switched off the engine and restarted again, but by then the procedure to engage reverse had gone into safe mode. In short, the drivetrain fail-safe system mode was kicked in.

Is fail safe an oxymoron in this instance?
Seems a design mistake if this is the case: why have anti stall, which is just keeping the engine going, prevent engaging reverse

Anti-stall is needed when spinning the car, unless the driver keeps the accelerator down, or you risk wrecking gearbox and engine due to the forces coming in from the tires that are opposed to the engine motion.

You can try spinning out with a real car, and forget to press the clutch, you can find yourself with needing a new engine immediately.

[Tommy Cookers]

Anti-stall is needed when spinning the car, unless the driver keeps the accelerator down, or you risk wrecking gearbox and engine due to the forces coming in from the tires that are opposed to the engine motion.
You can try spinning out with a real car, and forget to press the clutch, you can find yourself with needing a new engine immediately.

this seems a handy time to say that I don't believe that

off-design excursions are insignificant compared to designed operation eg the crankshaft torsionals (and transmission's)
plus there's compliance provided within the system

there's a similar myth whereby an aircraft prop strike demands dismantling to check eg 'for shock damage'

[dialtone]

Anti-stall is needed when spinning the car, unless the driver keeps the accelerator down, or you risk wrecking gearbox and engine due to the forces coming in from the tires that are opposed to the engine motion.
You can try spinning out with a real car, and forget to press the clutch, you can find yourself with needing a new engine immediately.

this seems a handy time to say that I don't believe that

off-design excursions will be insignificant compared to the designed operation eg the crankshaft torsionals
similarly with the transmission

similarly there's the myth whereby a prop strike in a plane demands dismantling to check eg 'for shock damage'

You don't believe that it's needed to engage the clutch or you don't believe it is engaged?

EDIT:


Just to keep it in topic, this is plenty of spins from Vettel and you can see that unless Vettel is actively braking, there are many times where he goes backwards where the clutch is engaged once the rear wheels receive force since the rear wheels start spinning normally. I doubt Vettel is so precise to engage the rear perfect without any wheel blockage every time he spins.

At the 152s mark roughly you can see the wheel blinking showing the engine is going into anti stall.

[johnny comelately]

The F1-75 number 16 was not stuck into the crash barriers in a way that it could not extract itself backwards by its own power, in fact there was little damage to the front of the car. What happened was before the car came to a stop still in gear anti-stall kicked in as it should, the driver engaged revers while anti-stall was still on, because of that he had no control on throttle, so he could not add engine power (throttle) to revers. he actually then switched off the engine and restarted again, but by then the procedure to engage reverse had gone into safe mode. In short, the drivetrain fail-safe system mode was kicked in.

Is fail safe an oxymoron in this instance?
Seems a design mistake if this is the case: why have anti stall, which is just keeping the engine going, prevent engaging reverse

Anti-stall is needed when spinning the car, unless the driver keeps the accelerator down, or you risk wrecking gearbox and engine due to the forces coming in from the tires that are opposed to the engine motion.

You can try spinning out with a real car, and forget to press the clutch, you can find yourself with needing a new engine immediately.

I think you have misread what I wrote. I apologise about not being clear.

[dialtone]

Is fail safe an oxymoron in this instance?
Seems a design mistake if this is the case: why have anti stall, which is just keeping the engine going, prevent engaging reverse

Anti-stall is needed when spinning the car, unless the driver keeps the accelerator down, or you risk wrecking gearbox and engine due to the forces coming in from the tires that are opposed to the engine motion.

You can try spinning out with a real car, and forget to press the clutch, you can find yourself with needing a new engine immediately.

I think you have misread what I wrote. I apologise about not being clear.

Sorry, what I was trying to highlight is that anti-stall disengages the engine from the wheels via clutch when a car spins. That's the case Charles was in, he needed to disable the anti-stall to allow the clutch to attach again to the gearbox. When anti-stall is engaged there's nothing you can do with throttle that will result in anything.

So anti-stall isn't prevent reverse from being engaged, it's preventing anything from the engine to be in contact with the wheels and gearbox.

[saviour stivala]

Anti-stall will not only not hinder revers being selected, but if anything it will facilitate reverse being selected as the clutch will be ‘open’ while anti-stall is on, but there is another function when anti-stall kicks-in that is not being considered. That is the anti-stall program will manipulate throttle (takes over throttle) to normally up engine revs above the point of engine stalling. When that happens, unless the driver deactivates anti-stall by manually activating the clutch paddle, the driver has no control on throttle pedal. (Leclerc to pits - ‘’I CANNOT GO ON THROTTLE’’. Which the usual FERRARI lover changed to ‘’I CANNOT GO OFF THROTTLE’’.

[mzso]

A FERRARI design defect is only a conspiracy of FERRARI ‘lovers’.
On his first attempt the driver did engage revers gear but with the engine in anti-stall mode he had no control over the throttle. And with no control over the throttle the engine could not pull the car back. The more he closed the clutch to reverse but with no throttle the more anti-stall stayed on. And this is perfect anti-stall function. As otherwise the engine would have stalled. By the time he shut off and restarted the engine, the power train fail safe kicked in. it is useless to tell some FERRARI lovers that Binotto declared that there was nothing wrong with the car, revers gear selection or the throttle.

So situation normal, all f*cked up. There's a reverse gear but it can't be used...

[dialtone]

Anti-stall will not only not hinder revers being selected, but if anything it will facilitate reverse being selected as the clutch will be ‘open’ while anti-stall is on, but there is another function when anti-stall kicks-in that is not being considered. That is the anti-stall program will manipulate throttle (takes over throttle) to normally up engine revs above the point of engine stalling. When that happens, unless the driver deactivates anti-stall by manually activating the clutch paddle, the driver has no control on throttle pedal. (Leclerc to pits - ‘’I CANNOT GO ON THROTTLE’’. Which the usual FERRARI lover changed to ‘’I CANNOT GO OFF THROTTLE’’.

You are probably more experienced than me in how the Ferrari engine works, not that hard, however I'll go back to what happened to Perez in quali in canada. It's visible on his onboard on F1TV at minute 35.

Right after the crash he tries to go in reverse 2 times (his race engineer asks him "Can you go in reverse?"), and both times as soon as he engages the gear and reverses the car drops the reverse gear without the wheels attempting any movement back. Perez then asks "Why isn't it going through?", his race engineer tells him: "Press and hold reverse... Select 1st and then back to Neutral... Select 1st gear, keep the clutch held, then Neutral then press and hold reverse" and now you can see him trying to reverse and the front wheels start moving backwards, but he's stuck anyway.

Perez engine was also in anti stall mode, after all he had just crashed and his procedure wasn't to just hold and release the clutch (in fact his race engineer made a mistake on the reverse procedure by not telling him to hold the clutch first), his reverse didn't get into gear with the anti-stall and so on. The whole operation to even attempt to reverse took 1 minute for Perez who was certainly sitting there more calm than Leclerc was, it wasn't going to work in the race to take 1 minute to get the car off the barrier for Leclerc.

[saviour stivala]

A FERRARI design defect is only a conspiracy of FERRARI ‘lovers’.
On his first attempt the driver did engage revers gear but with the engine in anti-stall mode he had no control over the throttle. And with no control over the throttle the engine could not pull the car back. The more he closed the clutch to reverse but with no throttle the more anti-stall stayed on. And this is perfect anti-stall function. As otherwise the engine would have stalled. By the time he shut off and restarted the engine, the power train fail safe kicked in. it is useless to tell some FERRARI lovers that Binotto declared that there was nothing wrong with the car, revers gear selection or the throttle.

So situation normal, as such things can happen all f*cked up. There's a reverse gear but it can't be used...

Yes. Situation is normal, as such things can and do happen. but as you put-it, ''all f*cked up''. Because yes, there is a revers gear, it was actually engaged, but it could not be used. a real pity that deprived us all of great show as both F1-75 were by far the fastest cars on track.