Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[wuzak]

The MGUK can't operate until the car reaches 100km/h at the start of a race.

[Drivetrainer]

AMuS said there were 6 decisive seconds when Vettel passed Lewis and hints it's all down on deployment. Maybe it's Ferrari doesn't have a longer deployment phase but a later than usual one. We know that MGU-K by the rules it's allowed to kick in just after car is reaching 100km/h but in their case after let's say 150 or 200km/h. That way allows them a delayed deployment phase when is strategically needed. Seeing that Lewis after Radillion was coming out of "juice" and Vettel passing him as he was standing still could force us to think that Ferrari has a longer deployment phase (as Rosberg implied with that 25% more battery energy). In fact maybe it's a delayed deployment phase knowing they have a very good traction on low speed corners. Traction is more down to rear suspension hence rake setup and torque. Knowing the MGU-K isn't allowed to kick in bellow 100km/h that means is all down to ICE and more so down to fuel and Shell which has been investing a lot of cash to deliver and make big gains. We don't have to underestimate fuel advantages any more even though they are limited by some constrained rules and only 3 times per season for bringing new fuels. It will became like a similar tyre war for Petronas company saying they will go head hunting even on Universities in order to venture in new and radical ideas coming from the people who has no pressure to deliver like they have...

Delayed deployment makes no sense IMO, since u get the most advantage when u boost in lower speed areas (resistance of air grows squared). You can watch this in LMP1, they boost until ~250kmh and then just ICE.
So the only reason to not boost in lower speed areas would be if you dont have enough traction to put it on the ground, but i dont think that thats an issue.

[Dr. Acula]

AMuS said there were 6 decisive seconds when Vettel passed Lewis and hints it's all down on deployment. Maybe it's Ferrari doesn't have a longer deployment phase but a later than usual one. We know that MGU-K by the rules it's allowed to kick in just after car is reaching 100km/h but in their case after let's say 150 or 200km/h. That way allows them a delayed deployment phase when is strategically needed. Seeing that Lewis after Radillion was coming out of "juice" and Vettel passing him as he was standing still could force us to think that Ferrari has a longer deployment phase (as Rosberg implied with that 25% more battery energy). In fact maybe it's a delayed deployment phase knowing they have a very good traction on low speed corners. Traction is more down to rear suspension hence rake setup and torque. Knowing the MGU-K isn't allowed to kick in bellow 100km/h that means is all down to ICE and more so down to fuel and Shell which has been investing a lot of cash to deliver and make big gains. We don't have to underestimate fuel advantages any more even though they are limited by some constrained rules and only 3 times per season for bringing new fuels. It will became like a similar tyre war for Petronas company saying they will go head hunting even on Universities in order to venture in new and radical ideas coming from the people who has no pressure to deliver like they have...

Well, we should consider a few things first.
First of all, the camel straight was always the best place in Spa to overtake an opponent. Even before DRS was introduced a lot of overtaking happend there. It's a very long straight and it's possible to follow a car through Eau Rouge and Raidillon.
Secondly, do the Racing Point cars also have more power than the works Mercedes? Because they both get up to Lewis on the straight from even further back than Vettel. Yes, this question is rhetorical.
I think it's more likely what we saw there, was Lewis was in a wrong engine mode or he bodged the exit to the camel straight.
Also, from an energy standpoint it would be easely possible to use the MGU-K with full power, powered from the battery only from La Source down to Les Combes. It would be stupid, because you would use up most of the directly aloud 4MJ, but it would be possible.

[Red Rock Mutley]

It seemed a straightforward overtake - keep it sensible down to Eau Rouge, make sure the car's in reasonable shape coming out of Raidillon, then turn the PU to the highest power mode for a full-on assault down the Kemmel Straight. I've no reason to doubt AMuS reasoning; 6 seconds of max mode at the start of the straight seems about the right length of time and the right place to deploy it

[saviour stivala]

As wuzak said, That the MGU-K can’t operate until the car reaches 100km/h only at race start.
Regarding that overtake, a non DRS overtake which made the car in front looks like it was standing still. Does anybody believes that the car in front wasn’t deploying its maximum deployment at the same time the car behind was?.
Does anybody still have any doubt that the deployment of the car behind was not of maximum combustion power?.

[Dr. Acula]

Does anybody still have any doubt that the deployment of the car behind was not of maximum combustion power?.

That's not the question.
The question is how significant was the power difference between the Ferrari and the Merc. I personally don't believe the difference is that significant as some people here seem to think it is.
The best proof for that in my opinion are the two Racing Point cars because they also seem to be able to reduce the gap significantly to Lewis down the straight but had the same Mercedes engine in the back.
So the question for me is more, "why was the Merc so slow down the camel straight, even compared to cars with the same engine."

[JesperA]

Going back to the high pressure air sound during cornering and corner exit (beginning of applying throttle), maybe this have been asked and/or suggested before but per the rules, are you allowed to store exhaust gasses in a chamber within the exhaust or manifold (like the mercedes log)? I am not suggesting that this is what Ferrari are doing (i highly highly doubt it) but i am curious to see if the regulation would allow such a system?

So when the driver lifts the throttle it would open a valve/nozzle in the exhaust to re-route (using something similar to the variable exhaust nozzles found in jet engines, but internally in the exhaust and mounted backwards to change between full bypass exhaust to exhaust pressure collection mode) some of the exhaust gasses into that chamber, storing it at fairly high pressures then dumping it out through a small nozzle (creating a high speed stream of air) aimed at the turbo impeller during the acceleration to quickly accelerating it back up to its normal operational speed; thus the turbolag of spooling the impeller down to harvest the energy completely during the braking and cornering phase would not be an issue.

That way they could allow for more energy harvesting of the MGU-H during the ICE inactive phase (allowing it to spool down way below what would be possible otherwise). The system could also be used for controlling back-pressure and/or exhaust pulses (dump pulses of air on sine-low/negative)

OR you could use it for mixed phase acceleration, store the exhaust gasses in the high pressure chamber, only allow the MGU-H to spool down to a "normal"/standard minimum speed during braking and cornering, then when accelerating you spool up the impeller electrically from 1 battery, the other battery runs the MGU-K, then after a couple of seconds acceleration you dump the high pressure air on the impeller making it overrun and use that extra energy to get an extra electrical boost directly from the MGU-H -> MGU-K while you save some battery due to the 200nm limit, then use the battery later during the the acceleration phase when the overrun has ended. This would result in a slightly longer deployment.

[ringo]

Does anybody still have any doubt that the deployment of the car behind was not of maximum combustion power?.

That's not the question.
The question is how significant was the power difference between the Ferrari and the Merc. I personally don't believe the difference is that significant as some people here seem to think it is.
The best proof for that in my opinion are the two Racing Point cars because they also seem to be able to reduce the gap significantly to Lewis down the straight but had the same Mercedes engine in the back.
So the question for me is more, "why was the Merc so slow down the camel straight, even compared to cars with the same engine."

Force India usually run less downforce. Also the ferrari and mercedes were punching a big hole in the air for both force indias to gain.

Regarding bleeding air into the turbine from the compressor, i don't think that would be very helpful and doesn't have anything to do with acceleration since the MGUK can only output 120kW.
It is possible to get more power from the turbine by dropping the pressure at its outlet, and in turn harvest more or increase boost pressure, but why dump boost to make boost?

I am more leaning towards Ferrari has a disgustingly powerful combustion process that is so damaging to engine life that they only use it when necessary. If there are limits on compression ratio, they are probably very close to it.

Finally there is a lot of energy available from the exhaust that most MGUH are not exploiting. They can get as much as 180kW if needed or even more, given that these engines are more powerful than i had originally thought back in 2014. At the time it was suspected that 90kW max was harvested from the H, but i strongly believe they are harvesting twice the amount these days.

[saviour stivala]

Every team chooses the level of down-force that they calculate will produce the fastest time around a lap, some of the time the chosen level of down-force will produce a higher top speed but still not the fastest time around a lap.

[saviour stivala]

Does anybody still have any doubt that the deployment of the car behind was not of maximum combustion power?.

That's not the question.
The question is how significant was the power difference between the Ferrari and the Merc. I personally don't believe the difference is that significant as some people here seem to think it is.
The best proof for that in my opinion are the two Racing Point cars because they also seem to be able to reduce the gap significantly to Lewis down the straight but had the same Mercedes engine in the back.
So the question for me is more, "why was the Merc so slow down the camel straight, even compared to cars with the same engine."

Force India usually run less downforce. Also the ferrari and mercedes were punching a big hole in the air for both force indias to gain.

Regarding bleeding air into the turbine from the compressor, i don't think that would be very helpful and doesn't have anything to do with acceleration since the MGUK can only output 120kW.
It is possible to get more power from the turbine by dropping the pressure at its outlet, and in turn harvest more or increase boost pressure, but why dump boost to make boost?

I am more leaning towards Ferrari has a disgustingly powerful combustion process that is so damaging to engine life that they only use it when necessary. If there are limits on compression ratio, they are probably very close to it.

Finally there is a lot of energy available from the exhaust that most MGUH are not exploiting. They can get as much as 180kW if needed or even more, given that these engines are more powerful than i had originally thought back in 2014. At the time it was suspected that 90kW max was harvested from the H, but i strongly believe they are harvesting twice the amount these days.

As I understand it compression ratio is now limited to 18:1. Also that the best MGU-H/turbo combinations can now contribute past the 60% mark of ERS needs. And yes there is a lot of energy left/available that can be made good use off in both exhaust and fuel, the problem to make gains from the two is getting the level of needed reliability, fuel consumption and the ability to harvest by the MGU-H.

[hurril]

Something that I've thought about is whether or not Ferrari and/ or Mercedes may in fact have switched from two inlets to the turbine to six. The "snakes nest" looks slightly different for Mercedes this year and has done at least since last year for Ferrari. Always interesting.

[saviour stivala]

Something that I've thought about is whether or not Ferrari and/ or Mercedes may in fact have switched from two inlets to the turbine to six. The "snakes nest" looks slightly different for Mercedes this year and has done at least since last year for Ferrari. Always interesting.

I believe that all four manufacturers are presently using twin intake exhaust scroll.

[Dr. Acula]

I am more leaning towards Ferrari has a disgustingly powerful combustion process that is so damaging to engine life that they only use it when necessary. If there are limits on compression ratio, they are probably very close to it.

The rules limit the compression ration to 18:1 which is insanely high already for a natural aspirated petrol engine, let alone a heavely turbo charged one.
The most powerful engine mode isn't good for the engines longevity for sure because they probably do the same thing they did back with the V10s. They run with a certain amount of knock. It kills the engine really quickly but you can get more power out of it. But i don't think that's something Ferrari does exclusevly. This trick is quite old and well known.

[Zynerji]

I am more leaning towards Ferrari has a disgustingly powerful combustion process that is so damaging to engine life that they only use it when necessary. If there are limits on compression ratio, they are probably very close to it.

The rules limit the compression ration to 18:1 which is insanely high already for a natural aspirated petrol engine, let alone a heavely turbo charged one.
The most powerful engine mode isn't good for the engines longevity for sure because they probably do the same thing they did back with the V10s. They run with a certain amount of knock. It kills the engine really quickly but you can get more power out of it. But i don't think that's something Ferrari does exclusevly. This trick is quite old and well known.

With these new uber fuels, they could be doing things that are completely against common sense and long standing rules of thumb.

[rscsr]

I am more leaning towards Ferrari has a disgustingly powerful combustion process that is so damaging to engine life that they only use it when necessary. If there are limits on compression ratio, they are probably very close to it.

The rules limit the compression ration to 18:1 which is insanely high already for a natural aspirated petrol engine, let alone a heavely turbo charged one.
...

But not exceptionally high for a direct injection engine. Most Diesel engines are using in excess of 18:1. Of course you can get away with such a high compression when the fuel burns slower, hence limiting the temperatures. And it is also well known that higher compression improves efficiency. Even the old V8 in F1 used compression ratios of about 16:1 (only limited due to the short stroke used)