Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

Which is odd, since Ferrari did not have control of the speed of the formation lap except several races since the mid-season break.

There were also races where the Mercedes cars were slow on the formation lap.

The speed of the formation lap can be explained by a desire to not sit on the grid for too long. Faster formation laps tend to spread the field out more.

Also, the advantage of the Ferraris is most pronounced in qualifying, and they never seemed particularly slow in doing their out-laps. Mercedes, on the other hand....

Jesus... I hope this isn't true. Article is referring to free practice sessions, with most of them being in FP3..which to be honest, that adds more questions.. because FP3 has the race/quali engine fitted and then guess what else happens a few hours post FP3...
That also comfortably answers why it is only Quali they have this significant advantage.

I'm not about pointing fingers, but either there are massive coincidences on several fronts going on here or there is way more to the story.

And why would they do this?

Where would they store the fuel, between the fuel flow sensor and the injectors without the FIA being able to detect it?

The FIA can't detect how much physically gets into the motor. They only measure what passes the sensor. So it is technically feasible it could be stored between the two. It's all speculative, however Mercedes and Honda have noted down curious behaviour and they both have just as much experience with these engines and are likely highly aware of activities/possible scenarios that would suggest something illegal MAY be afoot.

[Alexf1]

Maybe this is why Bottas did such a fast formation lap in Austin: to prevent Ferrari from bulking fuel for the start (and he succeeded in doing)

[LM10]

Remember the races in which Ferrari was uncatchable on the straights even though Mercedes had slipstream and DRS. This went on lap after lap after lap. How would they be able to do that storing fuel?
Pretty bizarre idea of what Ferrari might be doing. I would be surprised if it was that.

[Tzk]

Except there never was any loophole.
Cheating the sensor is clearly banned in the regulations.

Exactly.
1. you can't trick the sensor and pass more than 100l/h through it.
2. you can't store fuel past the sensor as the rules also cover this.
3. you can't put fuel into the engine by bypassing the sensor.

RB and Merc don't have any clue how Ferrari does it. That's why they ask the FIA for directives to either rule out a theory or to find the way Ferrari does it. It is that simple...

Remember the races in which Ferrari was uncatchable on the straights even though Mercedes had slipstream and DRS. This went on lap after lap after lap. How would they be able to do that storing fuel?

That was just less drag than mercedes. Remember that the Merc is the car with the most df and drag on the grid while the Ferrari has the least drag and df on the top3. And then on top of that Ferrari got their magic mode. That's why Merc can't pass a Ferrari on the straights.

Remember Williams a few years ago? They were a nightmare to pass, because they were so fast on the straights.

[izzy]

that's old news ... back on october 17th someone (probably RBR) leaked to the media that the FIA was not answering requests for clarification and told the teams to protest ... page 249 here

The point is they have issued the Directive, now, so they did have to. But they didn't wanna, they had to be pushed into it

[Tommy Cookers]

Some details on the Technical Directive, via Mark Hughes:
Tec Directive 0035/19.
In response to Red Bull asking if it would be legal to run a pulsing electrical signal to interfere with the fuel flow meter so that in between the 2000Hertz frequency measuring points, it could momentarily (and repeatedly) exceed the nominal fuel flow regulation limit (sort of like momentarily doing 80mph in a 70mph limit but still staying within a 70mph limit as measured between two points).

The FIA said no TD 0035/19 .....

isn't Mark Hughes' account simply wrong ?
RB doesn't exclude having a rate exceeding 100 kg/hr with a meter reading that says the rate isn't exceeding 100 kg/hr ?

btw (unrelated point) people reading the rules shouldn't forget that .....
the fuel rate greatly exceeds 100 kg/hr multiple times per engine rev
(we don't have carburettors or continuous injection)

[LM10]

Remember the races in which Ferrari was uncatchable on the straights even though Mercedes had slipstream and DRS. This went on lap after lap after lap. How would they be able to do that storing fuel?

That was just less drag than mercedes. Remember that the Merc is the car with the most df and drag on the grid while the Ferrari has the least drag and df on the top3. And then on top of that Ferrari got their magic mode. That's why Merc can't pass a Ferrari on the straights.

Remember Williams a few years ago? They were a nightmare to pass, because they were so fast on the straights.

Drag surely played a role, but Ferrari just rocketed away in the first phases of the acceleration. However, we will never know the whole story behind.

[turbof1]

To be honest, we should wait until after the Brazilian Grand Prix with trying to draw decisive conclusions. The speculation is just going through the roof right now. Not just here, but basically on any website (and especially on those who are less conservative).

[LM10]

This "PG Tech" guy on twitter claims that there is a difference of only 0.1 sec between spec 2 and spec 3 PUs (of course when both are fresh). The major differentiating factor is the significantly better efficiency of PU 3 in the races and that's because it uses the latest specifications of petrol and oils. I must say, a few months ago, when spec 3 was introduced, I believe to have heared something along the same lines as well.

What's more, he says that at the moment the analyzes of PU 3 of Leclerc don't seem to be that positive. It might have been damaged too much.

[SiLo]

This "PG Tech" guy on twitter claims that there is a difference of only 0.1 sec between spec 2 and spec 3 PUs (of course when both are fresh). The major differentiating factor is the significantly better efficiency of PU 3 in the races and that's because it uses the latest specifications of petrol and oils. I must say, a few months ago, when spec 3 was introduced, I believe to have heared something along the same lines as well.

What's more, he says that at the moment the analyzes of PU 3 of Leclerc don't seem to be that positive. It might have been damaged too much.

Damaged from using higher modes for too long? It could be that they were simply using much higher modes for the performance and have now run into reliability issues.Let's not forget it's rare to see a Merc engine failure in the works team these days.

[Just_a_fan]

To be honest, we should wait until after the Brazilian Grand Prix with trying to draw decisive conclusions. The speculation is just going through the roof right now. Not just here, but basically on any website (and especially on those who are less conservative).

Probably because speculation sells, along with people being bored towards the end of a long season that has now, effectively, ended. With two races to go, the only interest left in the season is whether Ferrari have been naughty. That RedBull are having fun stoking the flames adds to the interest. Can't really blame the punters, here and elsewhere, for it.

[LM10]

This "PG Tech" guy on twitter claims that there is a difference of only 0.1 sec between spec 2 and spec 3 PUs (of course when both are fresh). The major differentiating factor is the significantly better efficiency of PU 3 in the races and that's because it uses the latest specifications of petrol and oils. I must say, a few months ago, when spec 3 was introduced, I believe to have heared something along the same lines as well.

What's more, he says that at the moment the analyzes of PU 3 of Leclerc don't seem to be that positive. It might have been damaged too much.

Damaged from using higher modes for too long? It could be that they were simply using much higher modes for the performance and have now run into reliability issues.Let's not forget it's rare to see a Merc engine failure in the works team these days.

Leclerc had an oil leak in FP3. Did you miss that?

[SiLo]

This "PG Tech" guy on twitter claims that there is a difference of only 0.1 sec between spec 2 and spec 3 PUs (of course when both are fresh). The major differentiating factor is the significantly better efficiency of PU 3 in the races and that's because it uses the latest specifications of petrol and oils. I must say, a few months ago, when spec 3 was introduced, I believe to have heared something along the same lines as well.

What's more, he says that at the moment the analyzes of PU 3 of Leclerc don't seem to be that positive. It might have been damaged too much.

Damaged from using higher modes for too long? It could be that they were simply using much higher modes for the performance and have now run into reliability issues.Let's not forget it's rare to see a Merc engine failure in the works team these days.

Leclerc had an oil leak in FP3. Did you miss that?

I did! Thanks.

[turbof1]

I gave it some more thought in light of an upcoming article.

The whole impression made by the community now, the one where it is claimed that Ferrari sends electronic interference into the fuel flow sensor, is frankly bollocks. I am sure this has been hit already, but can you imagine what that requires?

-You'd need some sort of device that is capable of precise interference inbetween the 2000Hertz measure points. Timing has to be impecable, the interference has to be impecable.
-This has to be done under racing circumstances. When the car hobling, vibrating and cornering around.
-And it has to be done in a fashion where at the very least its main purpose is not to interfere with the fuel flow sensor. It has to be "accidental". Can you sell such a precise controlled signal and frankly impressive technology behind it as accidental?

If that was the case, we would not be talking about Ferrari potentially cheating. We'd be talking about Ferrari signing their multi billion contract with the military for their new EMP stealth device that can be confused for accidental interference.

If something out of the Technical Directive did put a curve on Ferrari's performance, big if, it has to be in the other 2 questions RBR asked.

[saviour stivala]

This "PG Tech" guy on twitter claims that there is a difference of only 0.1 sec between spec 2 and spec 3 PUs (of course when both are fresh). The major differentiating factor is the significantly better efficiency of PU 3 in the races and that's because it uses the latest specifications of petrol and oils. I must say, a few months ago, when spec 3 was introduced, I believe to have heared something along the same lines as well.

What's more, he says that at the moment the analyzes of PU 3 of Leclerc don't seem to be that positive. It might have been damaged too much.

The power unit of Leclerc that was replaced for the race went back to Marinello for inspection, we will know by Brazil if it can be used again or not. An oil leak was reported as the cause of its stoppage.
The specification-2 engine Leclerc used in USA had covered 5000km at Belgium. It is estimated that at 5000km it would have lost 15hp from its original output . And on the other hand when new it was down 10hp to the specification 3.