Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[SiLo]

For something like this I can't see how they didn't check with the FIA on it.

Also be interesting to see how this knowledge became public.

[_cerber1]

[Holm86]

How can they possible cool the intake air further, after the intercoolers??
All I can think about is vortex cooling, but that also create extra hot air as a by product, which I don't think they're allowed to dump ...

[TwanV]

Apparently this was already in issue in 2018, see here : https://maxf1.net/en/fia-will-monitor-e ... n-f1-2018/

so although I don't know how the cooling by heat exchange takes place to the plenum, my guess is they are already cooling to the 10 degree over ambient limit. you could be right in the opposite sense, making use of a vortex tube to locally increase temperature over the sensor while in effect cooling the bulk to lower temperature.

[.poz]

How can they possible cool the intake air further, after the intercoolers??
All I can think about is vortex cooling, but that also create extra hot air as a by product, which I don't think they're allowed to dump ...

https://www.vortec.com/Content/Images/u ... nology.png

afaik they have to dump it in the aspiration before the compressor.. so the hot compressed air is cooled by expansion

The question is: is wasting energy to compress air that i wasted convenient ?
Sure it is to have a short boost of energy but in overall energy balance ?

And if you can use a light and smaller intercooler ? The energy wasted to compress air that you don't use is more or less of the energy saved by a more efficient aerodynamic ?

[SiLo]

I wonder if this big shift of employees from HPP to RB is what has suddenly facilitated these questions?

[PhillipM]

The temperature is averaged over such a long time for the FIA sensor that it's more than possible to temporarily cool the plenum for a boost out of the corners or even just in vital portions of a qualifying lap, I'm pretty sure we discussed this right back in testing when it looked like they had a cooling system in the plenum, because I remember posting the same stuff then - the article is just a rehash of what was talked about here back then.

[Dee]

Aren't the rules fairly simple for this year? No updates to the engine which improve performance.

Bahrain: Honda have engine which has to be detuned during the race and reliability fix done for France which brings them back to the same level of performance, as seen by data and GPS traces

Silverstone: Mercedes bring a performance update which adds 20HP to the engine which started in race 1.

This is all that is needed for the FIA to ban the new technology.

[bosyber]

Aren't the rules fairly simple for this year? No updates to the engine which improve performance.

Bahrain: Honda have engine which has to be detuned during the race and reliability fix done for France which brings them back to the same level of performance, as seen by data and GPS traces

Silverstone: Mercedes bring a performance update which adds 20HP to the engine which started in race 1.

This is all that is needed for the FIA to ban the new technology.

And how about Mercedes can show that the 'design performance' is only being achieved since Silverstone bc. there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP? It rarely is as simple as you make it out to be.

[Zynerji]

I've speculated on these forums about vortex cooling for years.

Even if it is a type of valve similar to the F-Duct that feeds the vortex tube (not like pictured, more like the ones that the drivers use for cooling while in the garage), it could still average out temperature wise by drawing in the cold air at corner exit, and then losing that boost along the straight as the temps equalize...

I think its 200IQ, but was told that it would not be legal every time that I brought it up on here.

PS: I think the hot exit of the vortex tube can be used to drive the pneumatic valves, so it does not necessarily need to be left in the plenum.

[Dee]

Aren't the rules fairly simple for this year? No updates to the engine which improve performance.

Bahrain: Honda have engine which has to be detuned during the race and reliability fix done for France which brings them back to the same level of performance, as seen by data and GPS traces

Silverstone: Mercedes bring a performance update which adds 20HP to the engine which started in race 1.

This is all that is needed for the FIA to ban the new technology.

And how about Mercedes can show that the 'design performance' is only being achieved since Silverstone bc. there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP? It rarely is as simple as you make it out to be.

"there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP"

Unreliable means that you can run it but it is unreliable and may break down, therefore a risk

Unrealiable means that Mercedes run that technology at Bahrain and then do what Honda did, detune and fix it

What Mercedes did is run a Spec 1 engine in Bahrain and then added new technology to come back with a Spec 2 in Silverstone. This should not be at all allowed.

[Rodak]

PS: I think the hot exit of the vortex tube can be used to drive the pneumatic valves, so it does not necessarily need to be left in the plenum.

The pneumatic valve system is not a loss system. The air (I believe they actually use nitrogen) in the valve system is compressed as the valve is opened and thus acts as a spring. Gas is not injected into the system to return the valve to its closed position.

[dans79]

I wonder if this big shift of employees from HPP to RB is what has suddenly facilitated these questions?

Not unless people are violating their gardening leave!

[bosyber]

Aren't the rules fairly simple for this year? No updates to the engine which improve performance.

Bahrain: Honda have engine which has to be detuned during the race and reliability fix done for France which brings them back to the same level of performance, as seen by data and GPS traces

Silverstone: Mercedes bring a performance update which adds 20HP to the engine which started in race 1.

This is all that is needed for the FIA to ban the new technology.

And how about Mercedes can show that the 'design performance' is only being achieved since Silverstone bc. there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP? It rarely is as simple as you make it out to be.

"there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP"

Unreliable means that you can run it but it is unreliable and may break down, therefore a risk

Unrealiable means that Mercedes run that technology at Bahrain and then do what Honda did, detune and fix it

What Mercedes did is run a Spec 1 engine in Bahrain and then added new technology to come back with a Spec 2 in Silverstone. This should not be at all allowed.

Your reasoning only works if Mercedes initially took that risk of running an unreliable mode, rather than detecting potential issues in testing and subsequently detuning the units before the 1st race, rather than doing like Honda who ran the 1st race in what turned out to be a risky mode during that race and having to only than having to detune it, making the issue visible to their competition.

And given how Mercedes have mostly been running their PU risk-averse during the hybrid-period, which is one reason they long had a much better reliability record than others (helped that they had an advantage that made that choice a lot easier), and with the limit on PU's allowed during a season it certainly makes sense to be conservative in running (esp. when they at the moment have the lead in the WDC). That's the whole reason there was speculation that the PU issues Williams had were due to them being allowed to do _more_ risky stuff than the factory team allowed itself.

You seem to be arguing from what you want things to be, rather from what's likely. I am not saying they cannot be doing something fishy or even illegal, but your argument doesn't make a good case for it.

[Dee]

And how about Mercedes can show that the 'design performance' is only being achieved since Silverstone bc. there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP? It rarely is as simple as you make it out to be.

"there were some unreliability risks before they managed to iron those out with updates that were finally finalized at that GP"

Unreliable means that you can run it but it is unreliable and may break down, therefore a risk

Unrealiable means that Mercedes run that technology at Bahrain and then do what Honda did, detune and fix it

What Mercedes did is run a Spec 1 engine in Bahrain and then added new technology to come back with a Spec 2 in Silverstone. This should not be at all allowed.

Your reasoning only works if Mercedes initially took that risk of running an unreliable mode, rather than detecting potential issues in testing and subsequently detuning the units before the 1st race, rather than doing like Honda who ran the 1st race in what turned out to be a risky mode during that race and having to only than having to detune it, making the issue visible to their competition.

And given how Mercedes have mostly been running their PU risk-averse during the hybrid-period, which is one reason they long had a much better reliability record than others (helped that they had an advantage that made that choice a lot easier), and with the limit on PU's allowed during a season it certainly makes sense to be conservative in running (esp. when they at the moment have the lead in the WDC). That's the whole reason there was speculation that the PU issues Williams had were due to them being allowed to do _more_ risky stuff than the factory team allowed itself.

You seem to be arguing from what you want things to be, rather from what's likely. I am not saying they cannot be doing something fishy or even illegal, but your argument doesn't make a good case for it.

"Your reasoning only works if Mercedes initially took that risk of running an unreliable mode, rather than detecting potential issues in testing and subsequently detuning the units before the 1st race"

You want the FIA to allow teams change their engines to a better engine mid season because they couldn't run their preferred one at the start? Updates are not allowed, whatsever. You run a detuned engine from race 1, that's your engine performance for the year. It's not the FIA's fault, or Honda's fault or anyone else's fault that Mercedes did not have their engine ready in time.