Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[munudeges]

Any excess beyond the 4MJ you can store by overspinning the MGU-H and using it as flywheel storage.

That has also popped into my head as well. It might explain the GPS data many teams find strange.........

[PhillipM]

Nah, this is old, old news, everyone should have been using this for years, bar maybe Honda with the compact turbo setup.
Of course, you could go OTT with it and store a lot more for qualifying/one lap mode than other manufacturers, for compromises elsewhere.

[munudeges]

The Ferrari does sound rather different than other engines though, and has a much more pronounced whine onboard.

[Singabule]

I glad yo see this old discussion of extra harvest strategy is living in ferarri thread. There is no fully free load mode, but to just certain extent in race mode. As of energy still could be harvested with impact turbo effect (see duplexcyclone engine) is not small. Then, combine this with exhaust blowing wastegate and extra harvest on cornering, you can get amazing cornering speed plus charge your battery at the same time. This is proof different approach taken by merc and ferarri, while merc load fuel as minimal as possible, ferarri execute this harvest and fuel as much as possible. This also explain why their qualy pace is similar, because this two engine is very similar but operate differently. Regarding wategate, could they shut the main exit and only utilize wastegate instead? I think so in partial load. Wonder why vettel approach in cornering very different than hamilton?

[Big Tea]

The obvious question, which I assumed has an obvious answer is, is there a way to store energy that is not considered outside the rule of a single 'energy store'.

Flywheel, capacitance of some sort, chemical or electrical conversion of any description that is not.

Reading through the regs the only thing I can think relevant is in 5.2.2 that says

Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are
being respected.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used.

Can this be bypassed ? (floating voltage? PWM?)

Also, I am not sure other than the diagram what the limitation of energy store is (not amount, that is clear)

Also the MGU control unit is marked up maximum 5kj storage? is this measured as battery in/out? I have to assume so

[Tommy Cookers]

......Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are
being respected. A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used.
Can this be bypassed ? (floating voltage? PWM?)
...Also the MGU control unit is marked up maximum 5kj storage? is this measured as battery in/out? I have to assume so

what the FIA calls an MGU control unit has an onboard energy store - the first 5kJ used by K needn't be counted
this store is an energy 'float' necessary to stabilise the internal voltage with sudden movements of energy

the so-called DC measurements may not be accurate eg with activity in many short pulses as with 'extra harvest' techniques

[Big Tea]

......Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are
being respected. A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used.
Can this be bypassed ? (floating voltage? PWM?)
...Also the MGU control unit is marked up maximum 5kj storage? is this measured as battery in/out? I have to assume so

what the FIA calls a MGU control unit will have an onboard energy float ie the first 5kJ used by K motoring will not be counted

the so-called DC measurements may not be accurate eg with activity in many short pulses as with 'extra harvest' techniques

With that and the 300kj for 'non ers' I was wondering what else was 'just laying around' and could be used for a few seconds now and again?
I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it difficult to follow.

[godlameroso]

......Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements are
being respected. A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used.
Can this be bypassed ? (floating voltage? PWM?)
...Also the MGU control unit is marked up maximum 5kj storage? is this measured as battery in/out? I have to assume so

what the FIA calls a MGU control unit will have an onboard energy float ie the first 5kJ used by K motoring will not be counted

the so-called DC measurements may not be accurate eg with activity in many short pulses as with 'extra harvest' techniques

With that and the 300kj for 'non ers' I was wondering what else was 'just laying around' and could be used for a few seconds now and again?
I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it difficult to follow.

Likely the alternator on the car.

[Big Tea]

what the FIA calls a MGU control unit will have an onboard energy float ie the first 5kJ used by K motoring will not be counted

the so-called DC measurements may not be accurate eg with activity in many short pulses as with 'extra harvest' techniques

With that and the 300kj for 'non ers' I was wondering what else was 'just laying around' and could be used for a few seconds now and again?
I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it difficult to follow.

Likely the alternator on the car.

Thanks, I understand most of what the 'stated' use is (i think), but it seems to be a lot of energy just floating about when there is little other than the rain lights to need it. Is it stored in the main ES? or could it be tricked into a capacitor bank and enable it as a dash in qualli or a couple times a race? Just about where the graphs show a little jump maybe?

ECU etc would probably be on its own system would it not? Even if topped up during the race it would not need huge amounts at all times.
(or am I even thicker than I thought?)

[henry]

MGU-H as a flywheel

The inertia of the Turbine-H-Compressor assembly is around 6E-04 kgm2 . It’s small.

When looking at the Honda “extra harvest” mode with this inertia, 120kW over 25 milliseconds changes the assembly speed by around 5000 rpm.

If you speed the assembly to 125,000 and then use the H to reduce it to 100,000 by driving the K at 120kW the “boost” will last just over 0.1 seconds.

If you increase the inertia to do longer duration you increase the power, and energy, that must be used to defeat lag. Since lag time will stay constant (otherwise the drivers will complain) the power needed will go up in proportion to the increase of inertia.

For these reasons I don’t think that Ferrari are using a “flywheel” to increase their performance on the straights.

[henry]

With that and the 300kj for 'non ers' I was wondering what else was 'just laying around' and could be used for a few seconds now and again?
I am not the sharpest tool in the box, but I find it difficult to follow.

Likely the alternator on the car.

Thanks, I understand most of what the 'stated' use is (i think), but it seems to be a lot of energy just floating about when there is little other than the rain lights to need it. Is it stored in the main ES? or could it be tricked into a capacitor bank and enable it as a dash in qualli or a couple times a race? Just about where the graphs show a little jump maybe?

ECU etc would probably be on its own system would it not? Even if topped up during the race it would not need huge amounts at all times.
(or am I even thicker than I thought?)

The regulation allows 300 kJ with 20 kJ at a rate greater than 2kW. So they could deliver 2kW for 150 seconds, or 120kW for 0.17 seconds.

[atanatizante]

I made a very simple simulation. Two cars, same mass, same drag.

Car A 700kW accelerates From 150kph to 320kph in 5.44 secs over 389m

Car B 670kW accelerates from 150kph to 316kph in 5.50 secs over 389m

Even with a 30kW advantage it would take 8 such events to gain 0.5 seconds.

I also looked at 250kph as the lower speed, which it has been suggested is Andy Cowell’s number. As might be expected the time differences are very small.

I think to gain 0.5 seconds over 3 or 4 straights probably needs more than just a 30kW advantage.

My model is very crude, I’ve not allowed transmission loss for instance, but I think it’s in the right ballpark.

You must do one more time this model. And the reason is considering that after 200km/h (in Merc`s case) Ferrari is reaching their top speed earlier hence their gain on the straight must be due to staying at that top speed for longer than Merc. In addition to that on that speed graph we could see that their car arrives sooner at on top speed. So, it`s a double gain but mostly it comes down to staying longer rather than reaching sooner that top speed.

We know that due to Shell investments in combustion with TJI, HCCI and so on now they are ahead both in fuel and combustion development area. Considering that MGU-K kicks in after 100km/h and could deliver constant and equal power for both cars, Ferrari being able to reach sooner their top speed means they have more HP coming out from ICE, I think. Staying longer on deployment means they have a different schedule for both straights and the start of the race. Most teams spend their deployment on corner exit and on the straights but it seems that now Ferrari is spending more time deployment onto the latter hence their time again. And the reason for that is they have an advantage both in traction and higher downforce levels (due to their RW having more AoA) which allows them to use no or less electric power out of the corners. That means they have a better MGU-H relying more often on harvesting enough power just to ignore K harvesting, as we could easily see in the braking area their rain light blinks less often than Merc one.

Their 0.5 sec/lap advantage, as Toto said, couldn`t be down to that 40HP for the reason it`s not enough regardless the track they are racing. More credible is that time gain but it must be said that it could be achieved only in Q3 PU mode, coz had they could sustain it also in the race than they would easily win the race with at least a 30 sec. gap … So further pursuing this logic that could be explained only had Ferrari is the first team that could sustain now 160HP constantly on the whole qualify lap and intermittently in the race. I know that there are other opinions regarding this matter and we would be glad if someone could have some proof (not that I have one ) to back his/her … …

Now regarding fuel, unfortunately, there are very few chemists around here as I`ve noticed since some years ago. Every time we speak about fuel in everybody`s mind it`s all about HP. But nobody has considering other aspects such as how much time they could gain had the fuel lowers its density. That`s the real deal and the area of development now. Just imagine a 5% decrease in density from 105kg fuel allowed. That means 99,75kg. And bearing in mind that for 10kg of fuel means 0.35-0.4 sec/lap – track dependent – then when a car starts with 5kg less fuel it could gain some 0,15-0.2 sec/lap …

[dren]

You'd want to focus on specific energy. We had the discussion way back in the start of the current formula. Regular gas/petrol is 46.4MJ/kg. You'd want that number to increase. I'm sure there is a give and take with other factors that make it work with the combustion process desired.

[Tommy Cookers]

isn't the fuel in effect as light as it can be ?
ie the fuel has the highest possible heating value per kg (consistent with all the other necessary qualities)
so that the fuel weight required for each race will be the fewest kg as appropriate/'possible' for that race

Shell said of the NA days that the fuel was 'lightest' ie optimised for the best heat per kg of combustion air unless ....
a race needed a more of this fuel than the tankage volume would allow
for this they used fuel of higher density - and still good heat per kg of air (afaik this is called stoichiometric heat)

[JasonF1]

PG Tech:

Loophole on hybrid part. Ferrari, who lost power during the controls between Spain and France (hence the 35 hp increase in Austria), was able to take advantage of even more aggressive mapping after the final okay of the FIA in the controls.

Why is no one else talking about this? If I understand this correctly, the FIA is not monitoring this aspect of Ferrari's ERS anymore since Austria? How is that possible? Surely they must leave the sensors on for the rest of the season. Many clues have shown that it is an engine mapping that is only a software update away from being activated or deactivated (FIA was only satisfied with Ferrari's ERS after the latter did a software update, before that they were seeing "strange things"). The fact that Ferrari lost power while monitoring was enforced makes it all the more suspicious. Surely the FIA can't be that naive.