Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Zynerji]

Apologies if this is old news.
So according to this youtube video from Autosport, Ferrari are not introducing a split-turbo architecture for 2021.

1)It is introducing a "superfast cylinder head" which will help achieve greater "fuel atomization" and higher combustion chamber pressure in order to get closer to the 500bar limit.
2) New piston crown + New intake ducts + New alloys
3) slightly smaller turbine to improve electrical charging for a more efficient ERS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8r1VnRWMVM

500 bar limit is in regards to line pressure in the high pressure fuel pump. The higher the fuel pressure the better the fuel atomizes. You push the fuel harder through the injection nozzle causing it to disperse into smaller droplets than at a lower pressure. Meaning the Ferrari engine is using a fuel delivery system that uses a higher pressure, closer to the regulation limits. This is not without drawbacks, as higher fuel pressure requires more energy to compress. If not careful with very high pressure and too high a temperature, fuel can enter a strange state that is not quite gas and not quite liquid. AKA supercritical state.

I believe Ferrari run a hot and a cold fuel rail, and mix at the injector for perfect temperature control to prevent this.

[PlatinumZealot]

I can not understand what you are actually saying (I am not on your level of tech knowledge).
Please can you explain, I will appreciate it.

A twinscrew compressor designed to turn at 50,000 rpms, driven by a double flow turbine.
In this way a common angular speed (rpm) between components is retained as per regulations and a bit more efficiency is to be had. Rotating mass will be higher but it will not be as detrimental because the system will be kept in narrow speed range.

Advantges:
Fits inisde the Vee ofthe engine with intercoolers above it and cross-flow intake runners above that.
More linear characteristics to air flow and rpm
More reliability of MGUH.
More efficient compression ( less heat) smaller intercoolers

You do realize twin screw compressors are incredibly bulky. Centrifugal compressor is by far the best choice for this efficiency formula.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/ls1tech.co ... a345e.jpeg

This is the twin screw supercharger on the C7 Z06 Vette. That engine makes 630bhp, and it takes that big ass blower to do it, the F1 engines need more air than that supercharger can provide. True F1 has a money is no object mentality, still I doubt you could make it small enough to fit within the V and flow enough air.

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/attachments ... bc1303.jpg

Here's a centrifugal compressor that flows more air than the twin screw pictured above. Notice how much more compact it is.

The size depends on the design.
If it spins faster you can make it smaller. So check those calculations.

At fifty thousand rpms, the blower might be less than a third of that size.

The twin screw is inherently more efficient because the compression happens inside the screw not outside it. Now... I have not evaluated how efficient it will be in an F1 application or as a package.

I came up with this for amusement but it is very possible when I think about it.

In terms of the rpm/ load characteristics..
The curve is a bit more linear, and the MGUH will definitely have to react faster to slow the speed down in off throttle situations. In quick on throttle situations you activate the MGUH again but boost should build much faster with the screw.

A bold endeavour but it's workable.

[FDD]

A twinscrew compressor designed to turn at 50,000 rpms, driven by a double flow turbine.
In this way a common angular speed (rpm) between components is retained as per regulations and a bit more efficiency is to be had. Rotating mass will be higher but it will not be as detrimental because the system will be kept in narrow speed range.

Advantges:
Fits inisde the Vee ofthe engine with intercoolers above it and cross-flow intake runners above that.
More linear characteristics to air flow and rpm
More reliability of MGUH.
More efficient compression ( less heat) smaller intercoolers

You do realize twin screw compressors are incredibly bulky. Centrifugal compressor is by far the best choice for this efficiency formula.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/ls1tech.co ... a345e.jpeg

This is the twin screw supercharger on the C7 Z06 Vette. That engine makes 630bhp, and it takes that big ass blower to do it, the F1 engines need more air than that supercharger can provide. True F1 has a money is no object mentality, still I doubt you could make it small enough to fit within the V and flow enough air.

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/attachments ... bc1303.jpg

Here's a centrifugal compressor that flows more air than the twin screw pictured above. Notice how much more compact it is.

The size depends on the design.
If it spins faster you can make it smaller. So check those calculations.

At fifty thousand rpms, the blower might be less than a third of that size.

The twin screw is inherently more efficient because the compression happens inside the screw not outside it. Now... I have not evaluated how efficient it will be in an F1 application or as a package.

I came up with this for amusement but it is very possible when I think about it.

In terms of the rpm/ load characteristics..
The curve is a bit more linear, and the MGUH will definitely have to react faster to slow the speed down in off throttle situations. In quick on throttle situations you activate the MGUH again but boost should build much faster with the screw.

A bold endeavour but it's workable.

If I understand right, this means that MGUH will be able to generate more power?

[Xwang]

A twinscrew compressor designed to turn at 50,000 rpms, driven by a double flow turbine.
In this way a common angular speed (rpm) between components is retained as per regulations and a bit more efficiency is to be had. Rotating mass will be higher but it will not be as detrimental because the system will be kept in narrow speed range.

Advantges:
Fits inisde the Vee ofthe engine with intercoolers above it and cross-flow intake runners above that.
More linear characteristics to air flow and rpm
More reliability of MGUH.
More efficient compression ( less heat) smaller intercoolers

You do realize twin screw compressors are incredibly bulky. Centrifugal compressor is by far the best choice for this efficiency formula.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/ls1tech.co ... a345e.jpeg

This is the twin screw supercharger on the C7 Z06 Vette. That engine makes 630bhp, and it takes that big ass blower to do it, the F1 engines need more air than that supercharger can provide. True F1 has a money is no object mentality, still I doubt you could make it small enough to fit within the V and flow enough air.

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/attachments ... bc1303.jpg

Here's a centrifugal compressor that flows more air than the twin screw pictured above. Notice how much more compact it is.

The size depends on the design.
If it spins faster you can make it smaller. So check those calculations.

At fifty thousand rpms, the blower might be less than a third of that size.

The twin screw is inherently more efficient because the compression happens inside the screw not outside it. Now... I have not evaluated how efficient it will be in an F1 application or as a package.

I came up with this for amusement but it is very possible when I think about it.

In terms of the rpm/ load characteristics..
The curve is a bit more linear, and the MGUH will definitely have to react faster to slow the speed down in off throttle situations. In quick on throttle situations you activate the MGUH again but boost should build much faster with the screw.

A bold endeavour but it's workable.

Could it be something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conical_screw_compressor
?

[PlatinumZealot]

That is very interesting. I never knew such a thing exists. If it the screws are non-touching it would be a good candidate. It's very compact.

[Zynerji]

That is very interesting. I never knew such a thing exists. If it the screws are non-touching it would be a good candidate. It's very compact.

Could shrink them, and install 6 of them radially around a pinion gear, and have a radial screw turbo.

[Xwang]

That is very interesting. I never knew such a thing exists. If it the screws are non-touching it would be a good candidate. It's very compact.

Could shrink them, and install 6 of them radially around a pinion gear, and have a radial screw turbo.

I think they cannot do so because I remember that rules limit the orientation of rotating machines to be aligned with engine crankshaft. Do I remember correctly?

[Zynerji]

That is very interesting. I never knew such a thing exists. If it the screws are non-touching it would be a good candidate. It's very compact.

Could shrink them, and install 6 of them radially around a pinion gear, and have a radial screw turbo.

I think they cannot do so because I remember that rules limit the orientation of rotating machines to be aligned with engine crankshaft. Do I remember correctly?

Sure, but I believe we were just speculating about a "new" tech, and how it could be harnessed under the current situation.

Not an actual recommendation to the teams.

[aleks_ader]

I doubt in any real NET gain of any other system that would justify change from centrifugal design paradigm.

Any added inertial mass is bigger penalty than any gain in potential improved efficacy window. We all know the F1 operating windows is very narrow really. And also from volumetric occupied placement efficiency i don't see big change. At least at current technology atm. See theorised paper below if u wonder why i think so.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcon ... ntext=icec

Surely all that discussion is tongue and check but still nice thought experiment tho. But for overall PU packaging and orientation of centrifugal compressor is still room for improvement, even in Mercedes design. But not for compressor design itself IMO.

[aleks_ader]

And Could u argue that multiple screw compressor is multistage anyway. Are multistage compressor allowed in rules or is that just for turbine? And parts are not on common axis. So idea is screw-ed from get go xD

Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor with a
single Inlet linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the
engine crankshaft and inboard of Y=25. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the
shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at
the same angular velocity

[mzso]

Hi!

So what's with the news report claiming Ferrari going for a completely new engine concept for 2022, and like a day later a feature freeze is announced for 2022.

[FDD]

Hi!

So what's with the news report claiming Ferrari going for a completely new engine concept for 2022, and like a day later a feature freeze is announced for 2022.

There is nothing strange here, they'll present the new engine at the very beginning of 2022, with no possibilities of development through the next 3 years starting from 2022.

[mzso]

Hi!

So what's with the news report claiming Ferrari going for a completely new engine concept for 2022, and like a day later a feature freeze is announced for 2022.

There is nothing strange here, they'll present the new engine at the very beginning of 2022, with no possibilities of development through the next 3 years starting from 2022.

Well, that would mean Ferrari would need to get everything right on first try with a radical re-design, which is impossible...
But if there's a freeze for 2022, it means no new PU spec that years. Nowhere was it claimed that they will get on more upgrade in 2022.

[the EDGE]

Hi!

So what's with the news report claiming Ferrari going for a completely new engine concept for 2022, and like a day later a feature freeze is announced for 2022.

There is nothing strange here, they'll present the new engine at the very beginning of 2022, with no possibilities of development through the next 3 years starting from 2022.

Well, that would mean Ferrari would need to get everything right on first try with a radical re-design, which is impossible...
But if there's a freeze for 2022, it means no new PU spec that years. Nowhere was it claimed that they will get on more upgrade in 2022.

All manufactures will have a chance to introduce a new engine for the first race of 22, including Honda

These engines will have to be tuned to run the new E10 fuel (10% ethanol)

I very much doubt Ferrari, or any other team will try anything to radical

[FDD]

Hi!

So what's with the news report claiming Ferrari going for a completely new engine concept for 2022, and like a day later a feature freeze is announced for 2022.

There is nothing strange here, they'll present the new engine at the very beginning of 2022, with no possibilities of development through the next 3 years starting from 2022.

Well, that would mean Ferrari would need to get everything right on first try with a radical re-design, which is impossible...
But if there's a freeze for 2022, it means no new PU spec that years. Nowhere was it claimed that they will get on more upgrade in 2022.

You are absolutely right. But Binoto like team manager has to decide for the level of the risk appetite.
"No pain no gain", when you are in the comfort zone there is no improvement, so he can take the gamble and put Ferrari and him self over the top, or it can be total disaster, or the option to play on safe cards it is always there.