Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[saviour stivala]

I was wondering what RPM the MGU-K actually does, as for some reason I thought it was restricted to 200nm torque, but I cant find that in the technical regs.

edit:
doing some quick calcs 160hp is doable from under 6000 ice rpm at 1:1 ratio

MGU-K is geared to crankshaft at a ratio of 3.333:1. MGU-K max RPM 50K, crankshaft max RPM 15K.

[Tzk]

Iirc the only allowed „torque demand“ input to the engine is the accelerator pedal. It‘s not allowed to alter this by a traction control mechanism.

What you can do is:
Driver demands a torque of x Nm (part throttle), the engine still goes full throttle and you harvest the difference, resulting in the demanded torque at the wheels while still harvesting. This won‘t prevent wheelspin.

[gruntguru]

All energy used/harvested comes from the fuel and how the ICE combusts it. The improvements might be on the turbine side along with fuel/combustion?

There is only so much ES; they are constantly trying to optimize its use at each corner of a given track. More ES usage requires more ES store which then requires either burning more fuel or taking an ICE derate.

There is a third possibility - more "recycling" of kinetic energy. All the mechanical energy comes from burning fuel but some of it is used more than once.

[gruntguru]

The FERRARI horsepower gains are not electric horsepower gains but are produced by the ICE (combustion).

This! 100%!
The Electric horsepower is limited.
It acts through the MGUK and only develops in duration of usage.
The ICE is where Ferrari is doing the damage.

There is also the possibility that additional electric energy is allowing Ferrari to deploy electric supercharger more often.

[bill shoe]

Apologies if this has been discussed umpteen pages ago, but what about the possibility of running one cylinder bank open (via wastegate) and one cylinder bank thru the turbo?

This trick was used extensively during the later CART years, mostly during qualifying on ovals due to tradeoff of increased turbo lag. But we all know the MGU-H is a very effective lag-eliminator. If was something like a 15 or 20 hp gain in qualy on the CART ovals.

So maybe Ferrari can run only one bank thru the turbo, harvest enough H energy to put the K on its limit, and let the second bank run free?

This is also consistent with a recent poster's observation (from being at Hungary) that the Ferrari engine sounded very unmuffled on the straights.

[subcritical71]

Apologies if this has been discussed umpteen pages ago, but what about the possibility of running one cylinder bank open (via wastegate) and one cylinder bank thru the turbo?

This trick was used extensively during the later CART years, mostly during qualifying on ovals due to tradeoff of increased turbo lag. But we all know the MGU-H is a very effective lag-eliminator. If was something like a 15 or 20 hp gain in qualy on the CART ovals.

So maybe Ferrari can run only one bank thru the turbo, harvest enough H energy to put the K on its limit, and let the second bank run free?

This is also consistent with a recent poster's observation (from being at Hungary) that the Ferrari engine sounded very unmuffled on the straights.

Very interesting concept, do you have any links which detail it? I’m very curious how it was implemented.

[bill shoe]

F1T! Anyone with any memory of this CART v8 turbo fad, where they kept one exhaust bank open direct to atmosphere and the other exhaust bank piped normally into turbine? I think one or both Japanese engine manufacturers did it at Motegi qualifying one year.

It was regarded as a bit of a minor fad because everyone knew that in theory you could get more max power that way, but turbo lag was so severe it was a non-issue in most qualy sessions and all races. Wastegates were purely mechanical then, or at least much less sophisticated than current F1, so the engine couldn't just seamlessly switch in and out of this mode, it actually required a custom exhaust header setup. But still I think a bit innovative and clever.

[GrandAxe]

All energy used/harvested comes from the fuel and how the ICE combusts it. The improvements might be on the turbine side along with fuel/combustion?

There is only so much ES; they are constantly trying to optimize its use at each corner of a given track. More ES usage requires more ES store which then requires either burning more fuel or taking an ICE derate.

There is a third possibility - more "recycling" of kinetic energy. All the mechanical energy comes from burning fuel but some of it is used more than once.

You can't use more energy than the fuel burnt to propel the car to a given speed provides. The energy generated by the MGU-K is energy that would be lost when kinetic energy is reduced, so you can only gain more electrical energy than the expected ES capacity per lap by burning yet more fuel.

[gruntguru]

The Freevalve Quoros engine uses a very clever technique. One exhaust valve from each cylinder is plumbed to the turbine and the other to atmosphere. With total control over valve events, the ECU can send as much or as little exhaust gas as required to the turbine. The exhaust gas can also be released at the most appropriate time eg early opening to send blowdown energy to the turbine, both valves wide open during exhaust stroke to minimise pumping work.

[saviour stivala]

F1T! Anyone with any memory of this CART v8 turbo fad, where they kept one exhaust bank open direct to atmosphere and the other exhaust bank piped normally into turbine? I think one or both Japanese engine manufacturers did it at Motegi qualifying one year.

It was regarded as a bit of a minor fad because everyone knew that in theory you could get more max power that way, but turbo lag was so severe it was a non-issue in most qualy sessions and all races. Wastegates were purely mechanical then, or at least much less sophisticated than current F1, so the engine couldn't just seamlessly switch in and out of this mode, it actually required a custom exhaust header setup. But still I think a bit innovative and clever.

yes it was clever and innovative at the time. back than they was getting only 50% of their possible gains and couldn't do any better because they had no MGU-H to motor the compressor back than. this gives a clear picture of the gains possible with eliminating turbo turbine housing (scroll) back pressure.

[saviour stivala]

Iirc the only allowed „torque demand“ input to the engine is the accelerator pedal. It‘s not allowed to alter this by a traction control mechanism.

What you can do is:
Driver demands a torque of x Nm (part throttle), the engine still goes full throttle and you harvest the difference, resulting in the demanded torque at the wheels while still harvesting. This won‘t prevent wheelspin.

5.5: power unit torque control map. 5.5.1: the only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot accelerator pedal. 5.5.2: designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted. 5.5.3: the minimum and maximum accelerator pedal position must correspond to the minimum and maximum available torque with current selected power unit torque map.

[saviour stivala]

Circa 5 years ago but before the present hybrid power unit had even ran on track research has shown that the combined max electrical power allowed by the K plus the max power produced by the ICE can be improved by 30 BHP by running the hybrid power unit in electric supercharging mode, with waste gates open and with the H and K sharing ES power, in this mode it was estimated that the H will consume 60kw with the K consuming the other 60kw allowed from the ES. It was also estimated that with waste gates closed the H could generate 40kw. There is no doubt that these estimated numbers of 5 years ago has been vastly improved upon, but just for one, the fixed output by the K. for example it is said that nowadays the top two can generate past 60% by the H of ERS needs.

[ian_s]

Circa 5 years ago but before the present hybrid power unit had even ran on track research has shown that the combined max electrical power allowed by the K plus the max power produced by the ICE can be improved by 30 BHP by running the hybrid power unit in electric supercharging mode, with waste gates open and with the H and K sharing ES power, in this mode it was estimated that the H will consume 60kw with the K consuming the other 60kw allowed from the ES. It was also estimated that with waste gates closed the H could generate 40kw. There is no doubt that these estimated numbers of 5 years ago has been vastly improved upon, but just for one, the fixed output by the K. for example it is said that nowadays the top two can generate past 60% by the H of ERS needs.

why would the K only be run at 60Kw instead of the allowed 120? the Kw used by the H doesnt come under the 120 Kw limit.

[Big Tea]

Can one of our knowledgeable posters straighten me out please.
What exactly is the 'problem' here, and in other places where similar is discussed?

Is the issue that energy can not be found, which seems to have several solutions, or that this extra energy can not be stored or deployed within the rules?
There are of course other issues such as can it be produced efficiently, or is it worth wasting fuel so the energy can be used at a chosen time, but I suppose is that a storage issue?

Just when I think I have grasped it, it wriggles away.

( I hope there are others who want to ask, but don't like to show their lack of knowledge)

[saviour stivala]

Circa 5 years ago but before the present hybrid power unit had even ran on track research has shown that the combined max electrical power allowed by the K plus the max power produced by the ICE can be improved by 30 BHP by running the hybrid power unit in electric supercharging mode, with waste gates open and with the H and K sharing ES power, in this mode it was estimated that the H will consume 60kw with the K consuming the other 60kw allowed from the ES. It was also estimated that with waste gates closed the H could generate 40kw. There is no doubt that these estimated numbers of 5 years ago has been vastly improved upon, but just for one, the fixed output by the K. for example it is said that nowadays the top two can generate past 60% by the H of ERS needs.

why would the K only be run at 60Kw instead of the allowed 120? the Kw used by the H doesnt come under the 120 Kw limit.

it was back than calculated that the H would be consuming 60kw of ES power and that was whiler it was sharing ES power with the K.