Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Zynerji]

Fabulous!

Now the others must catch up!

[godlameroso]

There aren't many ways you can move energy to the K that doesn't involve the ES. An engine driven ancillary delivering 15hp to the K at all times could free up some ES energy which could allow more deployment on the straights.

[AJI]

...An engine driven ancillary delivering 15hp to the K at all times...

Would this be legal, and wouldn't the net result ultimately be less total power, what with neither system being 100% efficient?
Perhaps you could use that power transfer to improve drivability, but they'd have to carry more fuel.

[ripper]

Is it possible that this new qualy mode also has something to do with last TC spec used?

Raikkonen's 1st PU engine broke in Spain and they fitted a new engine (media said that was another spec1)
in Canada Ferrari changed again his TC (spec2), in the same GP they used a new PU for Vettel (spec2)

Dind't first rumors come after Canada?

[holeindalip]

I think competitors first noticed it in Baku...

[gruntguru]

As this is technical forum....please give technical details of how free load mode and full delpoyment of energy can be done on every single lap of the race?

Not saying that anyone can or does but a few ways to put send more energy to the ES:
1. Burn fuel to motor the K up to the full 2 MJ limit.
2. Burn fuel to motor the K and send it down the rumoured K>H>ES path
3. Burn fuel with an inefficient tune that generates a lot of exhaust heat then harvest that with the K.

[roon]

F1i.com

[gruntguru]

. . . . Competitors integrate each other's K-boost (120kW x time deployed) from the GPS data and see ~ 4 MJ per lap, per the nominal wording of the regulations. Except for Ferrari which by the same type of calculations is getting ~ 4.5 MJ per lap, maybe even more. . . .

So if teams are talking about 4.5MJ/lap vs 4MJ/lap of K motoring, surely that ends the speculation that "extra deployment" (ES>H>K) exists and therefore "extra harvest" (K>H>ES) also.

[saviour stivala]

AMuS article seems to show that the Ferrari advantage is an ability to deploy the 120 kW K-boost significantly longer than other powertrains. Ferrari continues this 120 kW boosting further along longer straights than competitors, but still has to back off toward the end and therefore has similar top speed at end of straight. So not really a increase in max power, but a boost in how long you can deploy your max power.

Competitors integrate each other's K-boost (120kW x time deployed) from the GPS data and see ~ 4 MJ per lap, per the nominal wording of the regulations. Except for Ferrari which by the same type of calculations is getting ~ 4.5 MJ per lap, maybe even more. Maybe it averages out to 38 hp over a lap or over a long straight, but when it (the trick) is on they get 120kW (160 hp) for a precious few extra seconds. OK.

Intuitive assumption when looking at the data is to assume the trick extends the time after the "normal" K-boost has finished. But there are two additional alternatives-

1). The trick is used at the beginning of the straight and the extra time at the end was actually the "normal" K-boost.

2). The trick is a small 15 kW addition the entire time, and Ferrari only uses the normal K-boost at the rate of ~ 105 kW. This effectively results in a total 120 kW boost but for a longer than normal time (15 kW trick plus 105 kW normal = 120 kW apparent total). This gives close to optimal speed while totally obfuscating what is really going on.

What are they supposed to be the "trick" or “obfuscating in all this?. When I tried to explain the possibilities of ERS-K deployment allowed by the rules I was opposed/lambasted and voted down. I explained how some may choose to deploy for the full lap senza braking and lifting times and still be within the ERS-K deployment times. Some of ERS-K deployment examples time/power I gave: 120KW for 33.33 seconds per lap. 60KW for 66.66 seconds per lap. 40KW for 99.99 seconds per lap. 30KW for 133.32 seconds per lap or any combination of power and time that falls within what is permitted. I also gave link to Andy Cowell of Mercedes explaining all this.

[henry]

When energy leaves the K it is recorded by the sensor at the K. When energy arrives at the ES the sensor there records it. If there is no delay between them the interpretation will be that the flow was K to ES and will be subject to the 2MJ limit.

Everything else could go from the K CU to the H CU, then onto the ES.

There is a limit of 5kJ on storage within the control units. Whether that would be sufficient to change the phase of leaving/arriving events in relation to the sensor sampling frequency I don’t know.

What would the sampling frequency be? Why would it not be constant?

The point is that they only have the two sensors. The question is how do they know that energy follows the path KCU > ES and not one of the unlimited routes. If they can’t then the two limits 2MJ and 4MJ are worthless and as you say they could simply send the flow via the HCU.

The Honda “extra harvest love example is the only one where we have data. They cycle the K at a frequency between 20hz and 40hz. Up to this point I have assumed they used the H assembly as a flywheel to cyclically store and release energy. However your view that it is done electrically is also probably feasible. At 20hz the K might motor for 25msec which is 3kJ. The CUs can have up to 5kJ storage so feasible within the regs.

From the sensor point of view my best guess is that the sensors are synchronised, so if 1kJ leaves the K and in the same sense period, or one with a slight delay, 1kJ arrives at the ES it gets added to the K>ES counter. If a suitable delay is introduced between the energy leaving the K and arriving at the ES the counter software will assume that the flow is not using the K>ES direct path.

This works whether the delay is in CU storage or flywheelnstorage.

I have no idea what the sampling frequency is, or what delays may be tolerated to allow for conversion etc. The teams will do however.

My feeling is that under this scheme there has to be a mark space form to the signal and consequently the power delivery would be less than 120kW.

[saviour stivala]

As this is technical forum....please give technical details of how free load mode and full delpoyment of energy can be done on every single lap of the race?

Not saying that anyone can or does but a few ways to put send more energy to the ES:
1. Burn fuel to motor the K up to the full 2 MJ limit.
2. Burn fuel to motor the K and send it down the rumoured K>H>ES path
3. Burn fuel with an inefficient tune that generates a lot of exhaust heat then harvest that with the K.

Example of “burning fuel to harvest” was given yesterday in FP1 by Vandoorne braking (which is when ERS-K is triggered into harvesting) while still on throttle (under power) but it backfired on him “braking a bit too hard” which triggered/kicked-in his brake-by-wire throttle fail safe system and ended up with/into an anti-stall situation.

[Cold Fussion]

What are they supposed to be the "trick" or “obfuscating in all this?. When I tried to explain the possibilities of ERS-K deployment allowed by the rules I was opposed/lambasted and voted down. I explained how some may choose to deploy for the full lap senza braking and lifting times and still be within the ERS-K deployment times. Some of ERS-K deployment examples time/power I gave: 120KW for 33.33 seconds per lap. 60KW for 66.66 seconds per lap. 40KW for 99.99 seconds per lap. 30KW for 133.32 seconds per lap or any combination of power and time that falls within what is permitted. I also gave link to Andy Cowell of Mercedes explaining all this.

You were lambasted because you steadfastly refuse to accept that you were wrong despite it being abundantly clear in technical regulations. You were voted down so much because you preach highly simplified Mercedes marketing material as gospel, while also spamming this thread with complete and utter nonsense. Furthermore your inability or refusal to use the post edit button and instead persistent multiple posts in a row is both highly irritating and against forum etiquette across all forums and of all of time on the internet.

[saviour stivala]

While I was "doing all that" and being lambasted and down voted for it, all that I was saying all along is still being argued on by others and popping up here and there from different sources, also all of mine was multiple posts complat and utter nonsense and spamming and so on, but others were not.

[MtthsMlw]

FormulaPassion.it

Spec 3 PU has an upgraded cylinder head, new combustion chambers and increased TC performance, in addition to more aggressive mapping.

Could this be the upgrade that was rumored for quite some time now?

I also think the recent boost in performance isn't reliant on spec 2 but was visible in pre-season testing, too.
I remember an AMuS article saying that Ferrari noticeable increased its performance in the second half of the acceleration phase.
Maybe it's mostly software related (loophole maybe) and they just have to make sure that they don't comprimise reliability and after the FIA said it's fine what they are doing they can use even more aggressive mapping (Austria).

[godlameroso]

...An engine driven ancillary delivering 15hp to the K at all times...

Would this be legal, and wouldn't the net result ultimately be less total power, what with neither system being 100% efficient?
Perhaps you could use that power transfer to improve drivability, but they'd have to carry more fuel.

It would be legal, and you can do it if you have a more efficient combustion process.