Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[saviour stivala]

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.

I believe that such valve control system being it electrical or mechanical or both will be totally contrary to the valve timing/valve control rules. as would also be the pluming needed.

[dren]

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)

The amount of fuel in the tank is limited, the max fuel flow rate is limited. There is a set amount of energy in the fuel to best exploit.

The only way to get more energy is to get a more energy dense fuel. Burning oil was an option, but the regulations have clamped down on it.

PU efficiency gains allow you to either produce more power or to maintain power levels and carry less fuel.

There are clever ways to regen and deploy the energy over the MGUK <-> ES limits in the regulations through the ES <-unlimited-> MGUH route.

[Big Tea]

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)

The amount of fuel in the tank is limited, the max fuel flow rate is limited. There is a set amount of energy in the fuel to best exploit.

The only way to get more energy is to get a more energy dense fuel. Burning oil was an option, but the regulations have clamped down on it.

PU efficiency gains allow you to either produce more power or to maintain power levels and carry less fuel.

There are clever ways to regen and deploy the energy over the MGUK <-> ES limits in the regulations through the ES <-unlimited-> MGUH route.

But electrical energy produced at above the 4mj that can officially be stored is the part I am struggling with.
I understand the general part, but the claim Ferrari have 'found' this extra slice of power usable when thy want it is what is causing confusion.

They are using all the stored energy they are 'entitled to' (and refilling up to the limit) and using all the 'instantaneous' energy from the 'H', can store no more, but still are able to use it at a designated time, not when it is produced even though it can not be stored?

[saviour stivala]

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)

The amount of fuel in the tank is limited, the max fuel flow rate is limited. There is a set amount of energy in the fuel to best exploit.

The only way to get more energy is to get a more energy dense fuel. Burning oil was an option, but the regulations have clamped down on it.

PU efficiency gains allow you to either produce more power or to maintain power levels and carry less fuel.

There are clever ways to regen and deploy the energy over the MGUK <-> ES limits in the regulations through the ES <-unlimited-> MGUH route.

But electrical energy produced at above the 4mj that can officially be stored is the part I am struggling with.
I understand the general part, but the claim Ferrari have 'found' this extra slice of power usable when thy want it is what is causing confusion.

They are using all the stored energy they are 'entitled to' (and refilling up to the limit) and using all the 'instantaneous' energy from the 'H', can store no more, but still are able to use it at a designated time, not when it is produced even though it can not be stored?

As I have explained, in my opinion the FERRARI gains during the race is all ICE power produced, it is, I think, nothing that Mercedes doesn’t have being it electric power, electric harvest or ICE power, in fact I said that there is very little if any differences between the power they can produce. The difference is Mercedes is not in a position to deploy that sort of power during the race, but during qualifying they can, and that is where there is very little differences between the two.

[PlatinumZealot]

How do you explain the sudden increase with no change to kimi's ice then?

The engine could always do it. It's more reliable now so they can do it more often. Squeeze out more power using engine tuning, lubricants, fuel. The ICE is the big differentiator in qualifying.

I also do believe Ferrari has a "trick" chassis and "trick" aero that works the tyre better at certain tracks.

I understand your assumption. But it's not always been there so they aren't using it more often... they made a huge leap to find 40hp at a narrow window (lower - mid speed) with the exact same ICE from the start of the year. That's not performance from Fuel and lubricants. I could be wrong but I wouldn't say it's 100% ICE.

Of course it can be. Easily.

[dren]

But electrical energy produced at above the 4mj that can officially be stored is the part I am struggling with.
I understand the general part, but the claim Ferrari have 'found' this extra slice of power usable when thy want it is what is causing confusion.

They are using all the stored energy they are 'entitled to' (and refilling up to the limit) and using all the 'instantaneous' energy from the 'H', can store no more, but still are able to use it at a designated time, not when it is produced even though it can not be stored?

You can generate and store more than 4MJ over a lap, you just can't have over 4MJ of 'usable' energy stored on the ES at any given time.

Ferrari doesn't have extra energy in the battery to use whenever they want it. Ferrari may just be running an ERS strategy that focuses on straight line performance. I'd guess they did get a bump in ICE power through mapping and or fuel, too.

[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.

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.

that doesnt explain why you only use 60Kw for the K, the ES can push deliver enough to give the K 120Kw and the H 60 Kw at the same time.

[subcritical71]

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.

Here are the (f)actual 2018 F1 Technical Rules;

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
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 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

[turbof1]

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.

that doesnt explain why you only use 60Kw for the K, the ES can push deliver enough to give the K 120Kw and the H 60 Kw at the same time.

I think this really depends on the research. If the research came from the FIA, who vastly underestimated the holes in their rules and therefore had misconceptions on the realm of possibilities, then it could be possible.

@Saviour Stivala: could you clarify who did the research?

[turbof1]

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.

Here are the (f)actual 2018 F1 Technical Rules;

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
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 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

There seems to be a rule change involved in this area. Saviour Stivala, could you give us the document's date?

5.5.1's change looks more like a small clarification, 5.5.2 is unchanged, 5.5.3 is heavily changed and 5.5.4 is added. Seems like the previous 5.5.3 left the door wide open for anything not being the minimum or maximum pedal position.

[subcritical71]

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
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 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

Looking at the rules the accelerator pedal and torque demand are linked.

Is the K torque considered in the driver torque demand map? I'm conflicted because by the rules specifying PU it seems so, but in practice I don't see how it could be done.

For example: how can you have a derate or K harvesting scenario without driver input (by means of changing accelerator pedal position). I would think all these deploy / recovery scenarios are too much and too varied depending on track position for the driver to keep up -> Is it just because its a demand map and not a 'delivered map'? And if that's the case it still allows a PU map to protect the MGU-K from any sudden over acceleration events (ie. wheel spin), to increase reliability of the motor.

[turbof1]

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
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 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

Looking at the rules the accelerator pedal and torque demand are linked.

Is the K torque considered in the driver torque demand map? I'm conflicted because by the rules specifying PU it seems so, but in practice I don't see how it could be done.

For example: how can you have a derate or K harvesting scenario without driver input (by means of changing accelerator pedal position). I would think all these deploy / recovery scenarios are too much and too varied depending on track position for the driver to keep up -> Is it just because its a demand map and not a 'delivered map'? And if that's the case it still allows a PU map to protect the MGU-K from any sudden over acceleration events (ie. wheel spin), to increase reliability of the motor.

I believe the mgu-k is not allowed to work below 100km/h at a standing start. That means controlling wheelspin, traction control, at the start atleast is not an option. But I am for the rest as clueless... .

[saviour stivala]

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.

that doesnt explain why you only use 60Kw for the K, the ES can push deliver enough to give the K 120Kw and the H 60 Kw at the same time.

I think this really depends on the research. If the research came from the FIA, who vastly underestimated the holes in their rules and therefore had misconceptions on the realm of possibilities, then it could be possible.

@Saviour Stivala: could you clarify who did the research?

“McCabism: Optimal control theory and FERRARI’s turbo-electric hybrid”. Will tell you all you need to know, including the commissioning, the people involved and the resultant research paper.

[saviour stivala]

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.

Here are the (f)actual 2018 F1 Technical Rules;

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
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 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

There seems to be a rule change involved in this area. Saviour Stivala, could you give us the document's date?

5.5.1's change looks more like a small clarification, 5.5.2 is unchanged, 5.5.3 is heavily changed and 5.5.4 is added. Seems like the previous 5.5.3 left the door wide open for anything not being the minimum or maximum pedal position.

i am not sure of the document date but must have been either 2015 or 2016.

[Nonserviam85]

isn't that exactly what the regulations don't allow ? (in declaring the features that constitute traction control)

btw and afaik this is a 2 quadrant system

As long as you are regenerating it is always a 4quadrant system. They might use only 2 quadrants due to operational constraints but it is a 4Q drive.