Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[turbof1]

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.

Hmmm, McCabism is a very respectable source. I'm putting a link here for the article for everybody to read: http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2015/04/op ... raris.html

Some issues creeped up in the article though...:

Recall that the primary constraints are: 100kg fuel capacity, 100kg/hr maximum fuel flow, 4MJ Energy Store capacity, 2MJ per lap maximum energy flow from ERS-K to the Energy Store, and 4MJ per lap maximum energy flow from the Energy Store to the ERS-K

We already discussed these limitations are actually legally bypassed.

For example, the power of the internal combustion (IC) engine under the maximum fuel-flow rate, with the turbo wastegate closed, is quoted as 440kW (590bhp); it is claimed that by having the turbo wastegate open, the power of the IC engine can be boosted by 20kW (~27bhp), but in the process the ERS-H has to use 60kW of power from the Energy Store to power the compressor; and with the wastegate closed, the 20kW reduction in IC power is compensated by the 40kW generated by the ERS-H. (Opening the wastegate boosts IC power because the back-pressure in the exhaust system is reduced).

We all know the ICE is actually producing more than 590bhp. Also turbo's have gotten quite a bit larger than they were in 2014-2015.

The root of the problem lies in the original paper, made in november 2013. Back then the power unit was estimated to produce 750bhp, recovery systems included. Mccabism even mentions this:

In light of this, then, the figures quoted in these papers can be interpreted as pertaining to Ferrari's turbo-electric hybrid. The first paper was submitted for publication in late 2013, and the assumptions used there are the same as those used in the 2015 paper, so it appears that Ferrari development data from no later than 2013 was used throughout.

Still, the paper gives a good conceptual idea if we assume the ICE power is 590bhp (and the ERS power to be 160BHP). With a turbo needed for such an ICE, it is roughly estimated you'd need 60kw to power it. Which is very interesting.

[turbof1]

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.

Yeah, if I had to guess probably 2016. The 2017 rule book had huge revisions and rewriting of existing rules. Though what we see in practice probably is not going to differ all too much. The 2017 rulebook incooperated a lot of Technical Directives. It's always possible 5.5.3 had a technical directive before 2017.

[Tommy Cookers]

the K machine whether generating or motoring only rotates forwards - there's operation only in these 2 quadrants
it never operates backwards because driving backwards must be by mechanical reversing ie using reverse gear


5.5.4 limits the amount by which PU torque is reduced automatically (by mapping) eg on wheelspinning (or underrotation)
it's not in conflict with 5.5.1 as 5.5.1 refers to how the driver controls PU torque not how the map controls PU torque

since the map is defined as involving rpm (not rate of change of rpm) it is a steady state map
presumably the FIA feels able to check at steady states but not dynamically
so any advantageous dynamic effect of the K eg on wheelspinning or underrotation is legal
such effects are limited by the K's torque being small relative to the ICE's torque

[dren]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

[saviour stivala]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

[turbof1]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

Exactly. We can atleast get some idea out of this. It's brilliant information.

[saviour stivala]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

Exactly. We can atleast get some idea out of this. It's brilliant information.

Thank you, appreciated.

[dren]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

I appreciate the information. I read the entire paper. Interesting the optimal race strategy didn't use the full K allotment. It also shows the 2MJ K regen limit isn't met on track based on brake regen only.

[saviour stivala]

Today 2018 everybody knows a lot more than what we know in 2014, which was the first year of the new power unit formula. A lot of things have changed, a lot of development progress had been made which means that also a lot of the numbers expressing development gains have changed. I personally have no doubt that the numbers, figures, graphs and statements in that 2013 university of Oxford research paper were correct at that research paper presentation time. That research was done on FERRARI’S power unit development data, that development was being done well before the engine was ran on track, most probably at the design stage. One thing that should be appreciated is that research was done to optimise the way that FERRARI development could be used around a lap on track.

[Nonserviam85]

The article is interesting though it's a bit off relative to what we know teams are doing. A 20kw gain on 440kw ICE is 4.5%. If these PUs are pushing 1000hp in qualification mode, the ICE should be just over 800hp with a 35hp gain in e-boost mode.

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

I appreciate the information. I read the entire paper. Interesting the optimal race strategy didn't use the full K allotment. It also shows the 2MJ K regen limit isn't met on track based on brake regen only.

What I also find interesting is how the deployment strategy changed after 2017 when the braking points became shorter due to the new aero regs.

[dren]

The technical research paper conclusions pertained to a hybrid power unit design that most probably was only in its early days of dyno running, that is why I said that since those early days numbers/calculations are sure to have drastically changed/improved upon, but just for one number, that of the K in and out.

I appreciate the information. I read the entire paper. Interesting the optimal race strategy didn't use the full K allotment. It also shows the 2MJ K regen limit isn't met on track based on brake regen only.

What I also find interesting is how the deployment strategy changed after 2017 when the braking points became shorter due to the new aero regs.

Yes, and more throttle due to increase in drag. Honda said it's partially what prompted them to come up with the extra harvest mode.

[Krischnen]

I think Ferrari is getting the extra power from running their ICE off-throttle. This explains why there were talks about the Ferrari sounding different during cornering. That's why Kimi has it while still running spec1. And it explains Nico Rosberg comments.

What I think they are doing is, as soon as the driver lifts his foot of the throttle the motormanagement takes over and keeps the ICE running at a predetermined rpm, without providing torque to the rear axle. The rules regarding this have already been posted somewhere above.
I expect they can achieve higher boostpressure by doing this instead of spooling up the turbine through the MGU-H. At the same time they can harvest energy through the MGU-H, instead of having to put energy into the MGU-H to keep the turbo spooled up. At the cost of some fuel.
The harvesting (and providing energy to the MGU-K) stops when the driver requests the maximum power from the ICE (in other words; when there is no headroom anymore to harvest energy through the MGU-H on top of the requested torgue by the driver)

This way there is less 'spending' energy from the ES and there is more harvesting. Resulting in a huge increase of amount of energy to deploy.

Another very welcome side effect of this is that they can exhaust blow the rearwing. But exhaust blowing was banned you might say? Well, not really, the technical directive stated that:
"To be permissible, such flows should be the result of settings that genuinely increase the performance or reliability of the power unit, and not contrived to increase the exhaust flow."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... 82/?nrt=54

[saviour stivala]

The chassis mounted accelerator pedal travel in relation to that of the engine throttle butterflies. The exhaust tailpipes position and angle as well as what exhaust gases comes out of which pipe. The rear wing position and height. Are all regulated by the regulatory body. May all teams do all they can within rules/regulations to gain the best advantage they could as regards to lap times.

[ringo]

So you are suggesting that during braking, the driver can step on both brake and throttle, pull in the clutch, put the MGUK in harvest mode, and rev the engine and load the MGUH.. this makes sense. Burns gas, but if fuel is not a problem in qualifying, then its very viable.
In the race they can still do this technique.

[roon]

Video evidence suggests the engine remains clutched to the gearbox most or all of the time. Engine braking is audible which would suggest the ICE isn't being disconnected to run solely as a combustor. But the effect might still be partially achievable without clutch disengagement. Speculatively: part-throttle and zero-throttle modes could simply represent a transition from piston power priority to gas-generation priority, via ignition and injection timing. High throttle and full throttle is low-backpressure, supercharged,and K-boosted mode with earlier timing. Part and zero throttle is compounding mode with later timing and/or cylinder cutting. The sweep of the throttle pedal alters myriad processes within these complex power units.