Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[RZS10]

^this

and what has been speculation so far has been confirmed: it was indeed Sassi (former Ferrari chief engine designer who joined Mercedes between China and Baku) who told Mercedes about 'it' and then Mercedes told the FIA about 'it' ... so 'it' was there, whatever it might have been ...
and if that information was "outdated" it would mean that Ferrari was doing something last year but for some reason stopped (?)
unless, and this is the only explanation which in my mind would mean ferrari never did anything 'special' with their ERS is that they a) thought about it in some brainstorming session but discarded the idea b) had something in their pipeline but never used it

[LionKing]

They used the word now because it took them a while to understand and complete the investigation due to the complexity of the engine.

Unless someone is challenged in reading Ferrari is not running anything different in terms of hardware. In the future FIA can ask to include additional sensor for easier verification.

"....
But Whiting stressed that there was no clear indication that Ferrari was doing anything illegal.

"If we had a hard case, we would have gone to see the stewards but because it is such a more complex matter, it was difficult to understand.

"It is no different to anything else we do, except it was more complex. It became a bit of an issue after Baku because word got around, but for us it was just a case of scrutineering and checking things -- like we do with bodywork and wings and it was not different to those things, as far as we were concerned.
the "It is different in that it took a little longer to get to the bottom of. In the past we have had issues with floors and it can take two or three races to chip away at it. With Ferrari, it is far more complex system than anybody else. We saw some things in the data we could not quite explain."

Although the governing body is now happy with the way Ferrari is running its ERS, Whiting said he may ask the team to run additional hardware in the future to make it easier to monitor the flow of energy.

"They are not running anything different here in terms of hardware, although we will probably do that in the future to make it easier,


"What we have worked out here is a method where we can establish it without having to use an additional sensor but it would be easier if they incorporated that in future designs." ...."

[JPBD1990]

The fact is, anything outside of the FIA’s official statement is heresay and, likely, riddled with bias. I did see Charlie’s interview with Sky, which ultimately is meaningless, and it only said they changed some software. The above post, I think, best sums up my point. The FIA are satisfied that the Ferrari car complies with the regulations, now that they have been able to confirm it.

I very much appreciated Jean Todt’s dig at Mercedes manipulating the media, and Charlie’s “Allison is a brilliant man, but he didn’t know what they were doing” (paraphrased)

Anyway, the point is - moving forward, if you choose to convince yourself that the Ferrari was illegal in previous races - that’s on you. The F1 circus, the FIA and hell even Mercedes have all moved on to the next thing now.

[henry]

The fact is, anything outside of the FIA’s official statement is heresay and, likely, riddled with bias. I did see Charlie’s interview with Sky, which ultimately is meaningless, and it only said they changed some software. The above post, I think, best sums up my point. The FIA are satisfied that the Ferrari car complies with the regulations, now that they have been able to confirm it

Which organisation are you referring to by “they”? FIA or Ferrari?

[Phil]

Edit: Sorry, posted too soon. (Hit the wrong button).

I hate to point out the obvious, but all teams go beyond the written rule to exploit advantages over their competitors. It's the name of the game. Ferrari are no better than Mercedes and Mercedes no better than Ferrari. Mercedes did it with oil burning. The FIA came up with rules to limit combustible energy and Mercedes circumvented it by forcing additives through the oil into the combustion chamber. They all do it. The art is getting away with it for as long as possible. Either your competitors catch up and do it too, or the FIA closes it down.

Assuming there is truth to Ferrari's battery exploit, it's inherently difficult to prove. Obviously, there is a sensor there by the FIA that all teams use that measures the amount of energy that passes through the sensor to make sure no more than 4MJ is used per lap. If there is truth to what the rumors say, there's a secondary circuit connecting to the battery that does not pass through the FIA's sensor. It may very well be a complex creative solution (with some actual benefit other than by-passing the FIA sensor) or it may only look that way to mask their real intentions. Either way, if Ferrari was using that secondary circuit to pull more than 4MJ from the battery per lap for very short bursts, it would probably be very difficult to prove after the fact. No sensor there, means there's no sensor there.

For all intends and purpose, this exploit apparently has only been used during QF. It's probably driver controlled or linked to a special engine map. This exploit is not something physical that is constantly there and on, like the oil burning, the rumored oil circuit through the turbo etc.

My take is that Ferrari has been using this exploit up to Baku but since other teams [mainly Mercedes and then the FIA] know about it, they've been careful not to use it since. The FIA has checked but as I said, its usage and benefit would be hard to prove. I'm sure the FIA knows and understands that it could have been used [to an advantage], but proving so weeks later is probably impossible. I guess the changes to the energy management system includes a secondary sensor to allow the FIA to be absolutely sure not more than 4MJ is being used. If the FIA had not done this [forced these changes], I'm assuming Mercedes (or one of their customer teams) would have indeed lodged an official protest.

@Turbo; Feel free to move these and other posts to other and better suited topics. I agree the cheating should not be discussed as it's a non-issue, but the tech behind it should.

[turbof1]

In all the publications so far, even the one linked above from motorsports.com, the only thing that is clear beyond any doubt is that the FIA are now (<-- keyword) satisfied everything is in order. This does not vindicate the team in any way for their usage prior and up to Baku.

Although it does? Look, I really want this debate on whether or not Ferrari breaching the rules to stop. Ferrari has been cleared. If they were deemed to do something illegal, they would have been penalized. Innocent until proven otherwise.

This neither is a topic on morals. It's a topic on hardware. you can discuss at will how the ferrari hardware made use of a loophole/greyzone in the regulations and what they had to change after the directive. But we are going to leave accusations, literally or implied, out of here.

Anybody trying to hammer on cheating, pro or contra ferrari, will receive warnings from here on out. The exception being: "this is hardware part X, here it contravenes this regulation"

[Big Tea]

I think Mercedes engineers looked at the data and said "there is a 20Kw spike in performance here" (as they have told us) but they have no idea where it had come from. They got around a table and took stabs at possible sources, and are probably working through a list of Prove/disprove for each possibility. Seems they can cross oil burn and extra battery off the list, so look for the next item.

[Phil]

As I said, I think the issue here is that it's a software exploit. In simplistic terms, imagine the battery: Every team hooks up the battery through one circuit with the FIA sensor measuring that circuit. A team can pull 4MJ from the battery per lap. The sensor makes sure that that limit is not breached.

Now Ferrari apparently have more than one circuit connecting to the battery, because Ferrari have split the battery. The big question and concern (obviously raised by Mercedes at Baku) here now is, can the FIA still monitor and ensure that the limit is not breached at all times?

AMuS at least is reporting that there were specific changes to the energy-management-system. Charlie Whiting said (quoted by motorsports.com) “[The rulebook] says that it is the duty of the competitor to satisfy the FIA that their car complies at all times and they were having difficulty satisfying us. Here, we are now satisfied.”

Obviously, they can't prove or disprove what happened in prior races, but they could have changed the energy-management-system to demonstrate that what ever they were accused of doing is no longer possible with the changes in place.

My hunch is that there was a loop-hole, a way for Ferrari to use more than the allowed 4MJ that was cleverly masked with their battery and the energy-management-system. They did use it sparingly, but others still picked up on it thanks to GPS data. With the spotlight on them, Ferrari stopped using it and had to explain to the FIA how their energy-management/deployment works and satisfy them that no breach was being committed. As quoted above, that obviously was difficult, but with the latest changes, the FIA are now satisfied.

A protest is a serious thing. I'm fairly certain if those changes were not made and the FIA could still not ensure/claim convincingly that Ferrari is abiding by those limits with their unique battery solution, that one would have been lodged. I'm also certain a protest would only be made or threatened if the accuser(s) did know with some certainty what was happening. I think this whole affair is a bit more than just poking around in thin air hoping something sticks.

The big question going forward is, if Ferrari will have lost (some) pace as a result, or if they will continue to be the team to beat in QF (where they seemed to have an advantage so far this year over Mercedes, with the exception of Melbourne and Barcelona). Obviously, Monaco is a unique track where engine power has the least impact, but I presume we will know a little more in Canada.

[henry]

Does anyone have any theories as to what advantage Ferrari are likely to have been seeking when they chose to have two batteries in their ES?

An obvious one is that they might have a higher probability of meeting the relability requirements. Assuming it is possible to run on just one battery then if one fails they can still use the other.

If they switch between batteries, alternately charging and discharging one or the other, might there be a benefit in efficiency, or temperature management, or longevity?

I suggest the answer “so they can cheat” might earn a rebuke from the mods.

[Tubas]

Having two battery packs and all the attendent extra that goes with two, intuitively would seem to incur a weight penalty...

[henry]

Having two battery packs and all the attendent extra that goes with two, intuitively would seem to incur a weight penalty...

There is a minimum weight, CU + ES = 30.6 kg. So if you can meet that then no weight penalty. There may be a slight CG penalty if a single battery is lighter.

[.poz]

Having two battery packs and all the attendent extra that goes with two, intuitively would seem to incur a weight penalty...

battery has a minimum weight by rules

[henry]

Can I make a plea for precision please?

There is no battery in the regulations, and the item for which there is a minimum weight, and a minimum volume is the ERS (Energy Recovery System) defined as:

5.12.7 The elements of the power unit that are considered for Article 5.12.6 are :
a) ES elements as defined in lines 16 and 17 of Appendix 2 to these regulations.
b) Any DC-DC converter connected to ES HV DC bus. Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
c) CU-K (MGU-K control unit). Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
d) CU-H (MGU-H control unit). Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
e) HV DC connections between ES and CU-K/CU-H/DC-DC converter. Includes all conductors, insulation, EMC screening, mechanical and thermal shielding.

We can’t discuss Ferrari having 2 batteries if we confuse a battery with the ERS, or ES.

[turbof1]

Can I make a plea for precision please?

There is no battery in the regulations, and the item for which there is a minimum weight, and a minimum volume is the ERS (Energy Recovery System) defined as:

5.12.7 The elements of the power unit that are considered for Article 5.12.6 are :
a) ES elements as defined in lines 16 and 17 of Appendix 2 to these regulations.
b) Any DC-DC converter connected to ES HV DC bus. Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
c) CU-K (MGU-K control unit). Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
d) CU-H (MGU-H control unit). Includes active parts, enclosure, brackets and supports.
e) HV DC connections between ES and CU-K/CU-H/DC-DC converter. Includes all conductors, insulation, EMC screening, mechanical and thermal shielding.

We can’t discuss Ferrari having 2 batteries if we confuse a battery with the ERS, or ES.

Just for completionist's sake, also quoting 5.4.3 to get a sense of what exactly is entitled to the minimum weight:

5.4.3 The total weight of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not exceed 25kg

And of course 5.3.7:

5.3.7 All elements of the power unit specified in the relevant column of the table in Appendix 2 of these regulations must be installed in the union of the volumes that exist between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line separated by 700mm and in a box 150mm long, 250mm wide and 800mm high which lies symmetrically about the car centre line immediately ahead of the front vertical plane.

And finally the minimum weight and CoG of the PU also has an indirect effect on the ES:

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

There's very little regulation actually on the energy story regarding shape and form. Yes, it has a minimum (and maximum) weight, yes it has to be positioned somewhere in a rather big box, and yes it is counted towards the weight and CoG of the PU. That being said, you can divide the Energy Store in 1,2, 20 or 200 battery packs. It will not matter. You can even use a flywheel to store the energy instead of the normal Lithium Ion batteries. You can even use both if you are that crazy !

So Ferrari is perfectly entitled to a dual battery set up for the Energy Store.

[henry]

This whole thing reminds me of the Red Bull flapping front wings. They were never found to be illegal but once the FiA changed the scruteneering testing methods the wings stopped flapping. The FiA is "NOW" confident that Ferrari's car is legal. Clearly they weren't before.

Now it can all be put to rest. Look forward to Canada where this extra 20hp from the ERS would have come in very handy if indeed it did exist.

If I understand it correctly, the system wasn't used in Baku. And Ferrari went quite well there.

And it was extra energy, not power, which they are accused of having.

Agreed it was extra energy that was at the centre of the accusations. However there were reports that by using this extra energy an extra 20 hp was available. Since there is a cap on MGU-K output at 120 kW this extra power must come from the ICE. This would be consistent with the estimates of the extra power from supercharge mode. An extra 200 KJ would give an extra 1.5 seconds in this mode.