Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[subcritical71]

You are right, I do recall seeing that somewhere, I think it was new for the current season.
I wonder if they have just reduced the overhead or eliminated it completely ?

I found it in the 2020 Tech Regulations;
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

I assume that means if you are charging the battery via K->H at 120kW, then engine power is -120kW therefore FF limit is 10kg/hr. The trick here is to run the engine at -50kW as that has no stated limit.

[henry]

Well they can and they do actually.
At part load demand where less than 100 kg/h is required they can burn the excess in the combustion chamber and harvest it with the K or have a retarded spark and allow some of it to burn in the exhaust where it can be harvested by the H.

I can't find it now, but wasn't there a TD which focused on fuel flow vs. torque demand or pedal position?? If I remember that correctly, then how much does that TD not all this H recovery? When I (think I read) that TD, I saw that as effectively neutering the approach, but their may still be scope to exploit within the rules.

The TD controls fuel flow against ICE power. It sets the lower control threshold point as -50kW. That’s minus. They expect the ICE to be driving against the K. The curve seems low given that it limits ICE power to 420kW at 100kg/hr.

[gruntguru]

Hmm . . there you have it - a power limited formula.

[gruntguru]

.... How much "unburned value" do you think there might be in an F1 exhaust? Don't forget they are operating ultra-lean and have the highest thermal efficiency of any ICE. Then you have to consider what fraction of that exhaust could be recycled through the combustion process.

presumably ...
the unburned value is c.5% - ie combustion efficiency is c.95%
(a little of the 5% being MGUH-recovered as there's steady burn conditions upstream of the turbine)

the highest (B)TE will comes this way - not from further leaning
further leaning would lose more in depressed CE than it would gain in reduced heat dump to coolant and exhaust

I will dig out a TJI paper and post something tomorrow however I do recall minimum HC in the exhaust was at about 1.2 lambda and peak efficiency was more like 1.6 (all NA). The F1 turbo case will be different of course but the benefits from the turbo machinery also increase with massflow (and therefore leanness) - up to a point.

[stevesingo]

The TD controls fuel flow against ICE power. It sets the lower control threshold point as -50kW. That’s minus. They expect the ICE to be driving against the K. The curve seems low given that it limits ICE power to 420kW at 100kg/hr.

At partial load. Question is, what is partial load? Technically a pedal demand for torque of 99% is partial.

[Xwang]

Well they can and they do actually.
At part load demand where less than 100 kg/h is required they can burn the excess in the combustion chamber and harvest it with the K or have a retarded spark and allow some of it to burn in the exhaust where it can be harvested by the H.

I can't find it now, but wasn't there a TD which focused on fuel flow vs. torque demand or pedal position?? If I remember that correctly, then how much does that TD not all this H recovery? When I (think I read) that TD, I saw that as effectively neutering the approach, but their may still be scope to exploit within the rules.

The TD controls fuel flow against ICE power. It sets the lower control threshold point as -50kW. That’s minus. They expect the ICE to be driving against the K. The curve seems low given that it limits ICE power to 420kW at 100kg/hr.

IMHO you are not reading the rule in the correct way.
It gives the maximum fuel flow as a function of power and this limit coexists with the other ones which prescribe maximum fuel flow as a function of RPM.
So if you have 1000kW, this rules says that you cannot use more than 279,85 kg/h, but since in such a case the limit as a function of RPM is more stringent than your system have to adhere to the limit given by the RPM.
Otherwise if you are at 12000 RPM and are asking only 100kW of power you cannot use 100 kg/h as you were able to do up to last year, but you can use only up to 48,55 kg/h.
This is how I've understood that. It's a way to impose a minimum engine efficiency when no full power is in use (probably because last year during this phases of low power demand more than the necessary fuel flow was passed through the fuel flow meter in order to be able to somehow store energy to be used for the following accelerations).

[Partymood]

So this article is quite interesting regarding the FIA deal and the Ferrari engine:

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2020 ... refresh_ce

The best summary I could find (from Reddit):

1) Red Bull and Mercedes suspected faul play by Ferrari regarding the engine, but their clarifications asked from the FIA initially amounted to nothing.

2) A FIA-person, who was embedded at Ferrari found out the trick Ferrari was pulling off (bypassing the fuel flow sensor) and forwarded that information to either Mercedes (or Red Bull) who then asked the FIA for clarification, leading to the TD that nerfed Ferrari, and the FIA-Ferrari settlement.

3) To put that into context; the FIA can't issue technical clarifications of their own volition. A team needs to prompt the FIA, upon which they can issue a TD. This FIA-person therefore handed over this info about the Ferrari engine to Mercedes.. allegedly, which eventually led to the TD.

4) Ferrari felt betrayed by this FIA-person (who in their eyes illegally shared Ferrari IP with others) and feel that Toto's wrath was in retaliation to Ferrari vetoeing him as Chase Carey's successor as the head of Formula 1.

5) It is believed (by those in or close to Ferrari) that other (read: most likely Mercedes) engines still operate in a grey area, while Ferrari is now fielding the only truly legal engine.

If this is the wrong thread let me know and I can move it.

I wander if you read and understood the article before posting a summary found on Reddit. IMHO I don't think you did.
On reddit's summary there are many errors and additions, bits taken out of contest or "embellished".
I don't feel like translating the all piece , but I made a note of the bits that are inacutate or missing from the article that you linked.

Firstly, F1AT didn't pen the original article, but only did an editorial on a piece of Giorgio Terruzzi and an interview to Leo Turrini.

No FIA man was planted at Ferrari and there's no mention of what Ferrari was doing with its PU.

What it says is that a FIA person told the journalist that someone in Ferrari, in accordance with a competitor, informed them about Ferrari's trick.

Nothing of point 3 is present in the article linked.

Point 4 is taken out of context. No mention of the part in bold. Toto is mention on the basis that he changed his behaviour towards Binotto because he vetoed his candidature as CC's successor.

Point 5 in bold is attributed to the journalist who wrote the original article.

[henry]

I can't find it now, but wasn't there a TD which focused on fuel flow vs. torque demand or pedal position?? If I remember that correctly, then how much does that TD not all this H recovery? When I (think I read) that TD, I saw that as effectively neutering the approach, but their may still be scope to exploit within the rules.

The TD controls fuel flow against ICE power. It sets the lower control threshold point as -50kW. That’s minus. They expect the ICE to be driving against the K. The curve seems low given that it limits ICE power to 420kW at 100kg/hr.

IMHO you are not reading the rule in the correct way.
It gives the maximum fuel flow as a function of power and this limit coexists with the other ones which prescribe maximum fuel flow as a function of RPM.
So if you have 1000kW, this rules says that you cannot use more than 279,85 kg/h, but since in such a case the limit as a function of RPM is more stringent than your system have to adhere to the limit given by the RPM.
Otherwise if you are at 12000 RPM and are asking only 100kW of power you cannot use 100 kg/h as you were able to do up to last year, but you can use only up to 48,55 kg/h.
This is how I've understood that. It's a way to impose a minimum engine efficiency when no full power is in use (probably because last year during this phases of low power demand more than the necessary fuel flow was passed through the fuel flow meter in order to be able to somehow store energy to be used for the following accelerations).

It’s how I read it as well, I came to the same conclusion over in the General V6 Turbo thread.

If you reverse the equation defining the power/flow relationship you get a confusing result.

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

Rearranging

Engine power(kW) = ( Q(kg/h) - 22.85) / 0.257

The max partial load power would be just before the flow reaches 100kg/hr (any RPM 10500 and above) this equation sets that at 300kW. ( a flow of 10kg/hr gives -50kW As specified).

I thought I understood this and that the minus power was because this was PU power and the ICE was driving against the MGU-K. So max ICE power would be 420 kW, still way below the 600+ they are producing in qualifying. But I’m not so sure now because they don’t Always drive against the K At part load.

The regulation refers to engine, and this is what an engine is.

1.23 Engine
The internal combustion engine including ancillaries and actuator systems necessary for its proper function.

I’m afraid I’m baffled by this new regulation which is possibly something triggered by Ferrari and the assistance they have been giving to the FIA. probably for the purpose you are suggesting, restricting fuel accumulation.

[Big Tea]

So this article is quite interesting regarding the FIA deal and the Ferrari engine:

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2020 ... refresh_ce

The best summary I could find (from Reddit):

1) Red Bull and Mercedes suspected faul play by Ferrari regarding the engine, but their clarifications asked from the FIA initially amounted to nothing.

2) A FIA-person, who was embedded at Ferrari found out the trick Ferrari was pulling off (bypassing the fuel flow sensor) and forwarded that information to either Mercedes (or Red Bull) who then asked the FIA for clarification, leading to the TD that nerfed Ferrari, and the FIA-Ferrari settlement.

3) To put that into context; the FIA can't issue technical clarifications of their own volition. A team needs to prompt the FIA, upon which they can issue a TD. This FIA-person therefore handed over this info about the Ferrari engine to Mercedes.. allegedly, which eventually led to the TD.

4) Ferrari felt betrayed by this FIA-person (who in their eyes illegally shared Ferrari IP with others) and feel that Toto's wrath was in retaliation to Ferrari vetoeing him as Chase Carey's successor as the head of Formula 1.

5) It is believed (by those in or close to Ferrari) that other (read: most likely Mercedes) engines still operate in a grey area, while Ferrari is now fielding the only truly legal engine.

If this is the wrong thread let me know and I can move it.

The part in bold is not mentioned in the article. No FIA man was planted at Ferrari and there's no mention of what Ferrari was doing with its PU. What it says is that a FIA person told the journalist that someone in Ferrari informed them about Ferrari's trick.

I have to ask though why and how was an 'FIA-person' 'embedded' at Ferrari? An FIA person would be working for FIA not Ferrari, or they would be a Ferrari person. Anyone at Ferrari and in a position to have this information would be an established Ferrari person.

There is of course a FIA steward or rep was at Ferrari investigating some other infringement and the rules do not allow for discrepancies outside this mandate, and if so, would this person firstly be allowed to report to FIA on it without a query from another team, and also would they be allowed to pass the information on to another team?

Taking it as above, Ferrari could well feel they have been illegally shopped even though guilty of doing something.

[Partymood]

So this article is quite interesting regarding the FIA deal and the Ferrari engine:

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2020 ... refresh_ce

The best summary I could find (from Reddit):

1) Red Bull and Mercedes suspected faul play by Ferrari regarding the engine, but their clarifications asked from the FIA initially amounted to nothing.

2) A FIA-person, who was embedded at Ferrari found out the trick Ferrari was pulling off (bypassing the fuel flow sensor) and forwarded that information to either Mercedes (or Red Bull) who then asked the FIA for clarification, leading to the TD that nerfed Ferrari, and the FIA-Ferrari settlement.

3) To put that into context; the FIA can't issue technical clarifications of their own volition. A team needs to prompt the FIA, upon which they can issue a TD. This FIA-person therefore handed over this info about the Ferrari engine to Mercedes.. allegedly, which eventually led to the TD.

4) Ferrari felt betrayed by this FIA-person (who in their eyes illegally shared Ferrari IP with others) and feel that Toto's wrath was in retaliation to Ferrari vetoeing him as Chase Carey's successor as the head of Formula 1.

5) It is believed (by those in or close to Ferrari) that other (read: most likely Mercedes) engines still operate in a grey area, while Ferrari is now fielding the only truly legal engine.

If this is the wrong thread let me know and I can move it.

The part in bold is not mentioned in the article. No FIA man was planted at Ferrari and there's no mention of what Ferrari was doing with its PU. What it says is that a FIA person told the journalist that someone in Ferrari informed them about Ferrari's trick.

I have to ask though why and how was an 'FIA-person' 'embedded' at Ferrari? An FIA person would be working for FIA not Ferrari, or they would be a Ferrari person. Anyone at Ferrari and in a position to have this information would be an established Ferrari person.

There is of course a FIA steward or rep was at Ferrari investigating some other infringement and the rules do not allow for discrepancies outside this mandate, and if so, would this person firstly be allowed to report to FIA on it without a query from another team, and also would they be allowed to pass the information on to another team?

Taking it as above, Ferrari could well feel they have been illegally shopped even though guilty of doing something.


you can only answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?> (Don't remember the film)

I fail to see a sense in your reply to ME as we both say the same thing... Anyway, did you see the edited post?

[Big Tea]

The part in bold is not mentioned in the article. No FIA man was planted at Ferrari and there's no mention of what Ferrari was doing with its PU. What it says is that a FIA person told the journalist that someone in Ferrari informed them about Ferrari's trick.

I have to ask though why and how was an 'FIA-person' 'embedded' at Ferrari? An FIA person would be working for FIA not Ferrari, or they would be a Ferrari person. Anyone at Ferrari and in a position to have this information would be an established Ferrari person.

There is of course a FIA steward or rep was at Ferrari investigating some other infringement and the rules do not allow for discrepancies outside this mandate, and if so, would this person firstly be allowed to report to FIA on it without a query from another team, and also would they be allowed to pass the information on to another team?

Taking it as above, Ferrari could well feel they have been illegally shopped even though guilty of doing something.


you can only answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?> (Don't remember the film)

I fail to see a sense in your reply to ME as we both say the same thing... Anyway, did you see the edited post?

I am agreeing with you, and also looking for a reason why FIA can not just hose Ferrari for rule braking, is it because they did it themselves?

[Partymood]

I have to ask though why and how was an 'FIA-person' 'embedded' at Ferrari? An FIA person would be working for FIA not Ferrari, or they would be a Ferrari person. Anyone at Ferrari and in a position to have this information would be an established Ferrari person.

There is of course a FIA steward or rep was at Ferrari investigating some other infringement and the rules do not allow for discrepancies outside this mandate, and if so, would this person firstly be allowed to report to FIA on it without a query from another team, and also would they be allowed to pass the information on to another team?

Taking it as above, Ferrari could well feel they have been illegally shopped even though guilty of doing something.


you can only answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?> (Don't remember the film)

I fail to see a sense in your reply to ME as we both say the same thing... Anyway, did you see the edited post?

I am agreeing with you, and also looking for a reason why FIA can not just hose Ferrari for rule braking, is it because they did it themselves?

Obviously because they didn't or it couldn't be proved.
Do you remember that movie... "Hung 'em high"? You seem to use the same logic of the regulators

[PlatinumZealot]

The TD controls fuel flow against ICE power. It sets the lower control threshold point as -50kW. That’s minus. They expect the ICE to be driving against the K. The curve seems low given that it limits ICE power to 420kW at 100kg/hr.

IMHO you are not reading the rule in the correct way.
It gives the maximum fuel flow as a function of power and this limit coexists with the other ones which prescribe maximum fuel flow as a function of RPM.
So if you have 1000kW, this rules says that you cannot use more than 279,85 kg/h, but since in such a case the limit as a function of RPM is more stringent than your system have to adhere to the limit given by the RPM.
Otherwise if you are at 12000 RPM and are asking only 100kW of power you cannot use 100 kg/h as you were able to do up to last year, but you can use only up to 48,55 kg/h.
This is how I've understood that. It's a way to impose a minimum engine efficiency when no full power is in use (probably because last year during this phases of low power demand more than the necessary fuel flow was passed through the fuel flow meter in order to be able to somehow store energy to be used for the following accelerations).

It’s how I read it as well, I came to the same conclusion over in the General V6 Turbo thread.

If you reverse the equation defining the power/flow relationship you get a confusing result.

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

Rearranging

Engine power(kW) = ( Q(kg/h) - 22.85) / 0.257

The max partial load power would be just before the flow reaches 100kg/hr (any RPM 10500 and above) this equation sets that at 300kW. ( a flow of 10kg/hr gives -50kW As specified).

I thought I understood this and that the minus power was because this was PU power and the ICE was driving against the MGU-K. So max ICE power would be 420 kW, still way below the 600+ they are producing in qualifying. But I’m not so sure now because they don’t Always drive against the K At part load.

The regulation refers to engine, and this is what an engine is.

1.23 Engine
The internal combustion engine including ancillaries and actuator systems necessary for its proper function.

I’m afraid I’m baffled by this new regulation which is possibly something triggered by Ferrari and the assistance they have been giving to the FIA. probably for the purpose you are suggesting, restricting fuel accumulation.

I have never heard of negative engine power before (maybe it does exist I dunn).. how do you measure that on on the dyno?
With my layman brain, the engine will have mechanical losses and also engine braking If we are talking about the engine absorbing energy and turning that into heat and compressed air. Not sure what else. Anyway, I don't think the rule is limiting maximum fuel flow for engine braking. You don't inject fuel to get negative ICE power. So even though I have not read the original source document... I am gonna say it seems a bad translation has happened here. I am sticking my neck out and saying this is for positive 50kW.

[Xwang]

IMHO you are not reading the rule in the correct way.
It gives the maximum fuel flow as a function of power and this limit coexists with the other ones which prescribe maximum fuel flow as a function of RPM.
So if you have 1000kW, this rules says that you cannot use more than 279,85 kg/h, but since in such a case the limit as a function of RPM is more stringent than your system have to adhere to the limit given by the RPM.
Otherwise if you are at 12000 RPM and are asking only 100kW of power you cannot use 100 kg/h as you were able to do up to last year, but you can use only up to 48,55 kg/h.
This is how I've understood that. It's a way to impose a minimum engine efficiency when no full power is in use (probably because last year during this phases of low power demand more than the necessary fuel flow was passed through the fuel flow meter in order to be able to somehow store energy to be used for the following accelerations).

It’s how I read it as well, I came to the same conclusion over in the General V6 Turbo thread.

If you reverse the equation defining the power/flow relationship you get a confusing result.

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

Rearranging

Engine power(kW) = ( Q(kg/h) - 22.85) / 0.257

The max partial load power would be just before the flow reaches 100kg/hr (any RPM 10500 and above) this equation sets that at 300kW. ( a flow of 10kg/hr gives -50kW As specified).

I thought I understood this and that the minus power was because this was PU power and the ICE was driving against the MGU-K. So max ICE power would be 420 kW, still way below the 600+ they are producing in qualifying. But I’m not so sure now because they don’t Always drive against the K At part load.

The regulation refers to engine, and this is what an engine is.

1.23 Engine
The internal combustion engine including ancillaries and actuator systems necessary for its proper function.

I’m afraid I’m baffled by this new regulation which is possibly something triggered by Ferrari and the assistance they have been giving to the FIA. probably for the purpose you are suggesting, restricting fuel accumulation.

I have never heard of negative engine power before (maybe it does exist I dunn).. how do you measure that on on the dyno?
With my layman brain, the engine will have mechanical losses and also engine braking If we are talking about the engine absorbing energy and turning that into heat and compressed air. Not sure what else. Anyway, I don't think the rule is limiting maximum fuel flow for engine braking. You don't inject fuel to get negative ICE power. So even though I have not read the original source document... I am gonna say it seems a bad translation has happened here. I am sticking my neck out and saying this is for positive 50kW.

Well if you drive a car with a manual gearbox on a steep descent using a low gear and without pressing the throttle, you will discover that the engine will work as a brake. In such a case the power of the engine is negative.

[henry]

I am gonna say it seems a bad translation has happened here. I am sticking my neck out and saying this is for positive 50kW.

The equation is

Engine power(kW) = ( Q(kg/h) - 22.85) / 0.257

a flow, Q, of 10kg/hr gives -50kW As specified

So it’s not mistranslation or a typo. It really is minus50kW