Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Just_a_fan]

your story fails..
https://azertag.az/en/xeber/FIA_confirm ... it-1089458

pretty certain Mercedes said it kept to the new 0.9L regs anyway after introducing the new power unit.

OFC Mercedes said that.. but
Mercedes did a gentlmen agreement about oil burning with other manufacturer but was the only one non respecting hat commitment

Really looking forward to seeing your evidence of that...

[zibby43]

This holier than thou attitude is appalling. You're acting like mercedes wasn't burning oil by the bucket loads as recently as 2017, going as far as introducing power units early to skirt (a word you used) around the incoming stricter limits. Any car excessively smoking will attract attention as a result of this and it's not gonna simply go away just because you want it to.

Hyperbole much?

Not only have you lost your composure, now you can’t even get your facts straight anymore.

1) Oil burning was never illegal. Nothing in the rules specifically prohibited it when the hybrid era kicked off in 2014. Every team did it. When teams that weren’t as good at it complained, gradual limits were imposed (which Mercedes always complied with, to the letter of the law).

2) If Mercedes introduced those PUs early for that purpose (they didn’t, but you just can’t remember and wanted to fire off this emotional post before researching), guess what? That ALSO was done with the letter of the law for the restrictions that season.

3) Mercedes complied with the OLD 0.9L burn rate limitations with those PUs introduced at Spa.

“Mercedes has since suggested that its data confirms it stayed within the lower 0.9L/100km consumption level for the Belgian GP, although that doesn't rule out the possibility that it can or indeed will run up to the higher level if needed in future races.”

Here’s a good refresher course on the history of oil burning that corroborates everything I set out above.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech- ... 4/3043308/

your story fails..
https://azertag.az/en/xeber/FIA_confirm ... it-1089458

You missed the entire point of my story, which is that Mercedes voluntarily kept to the 0.9L limit despite being technically able to utilize the full 1.2L burn rate.

[Polite]

Hyperbole much?

Not only have you lost your composure, now you can’t even get your facts straight anymore.

1) Oil burning was never illegal. Nothing in the rules specifically prohibited it when the hybrid era kicked off in 2014. Every team did it. When teams that weren’t as good at it complained, gradual limits were imposed (which Mercedes always complied with, to the letter of the law).

2) If Mercedes introduced those PUs early for that purpose (they didn’t, but you just can’t remember and wanted to fire off this emotional post before researching), guess what? That ALSO was done with the letter of the law for the restrictions that season.

3) Mercedes complied with the OLD 0.9L burn rate limitations with those PUs introduced at Spa.

“Mercedes has since suggested that its data confirms it stayed within the lower 0.9L/100km consumption level for the Belgian GP, although that doesn't rule out the possibility that it can or indeed will run up to the higher level if needed in future races.”

Here’s a good refresher course on the history of oil burning that corroborates everything I set out above.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech- ... 4/3043308/

your story fails..
https://azertag.az/en/xeber/FIA_confirm ... it-1089458

You missed the entire point of my story, which is that Mercedes voluntarily kept to the 0.9L limit despite being technically able to utilize the full 1.2L burn rate.

you are right, in fact Ferrari still thanks Mercedes for running the rest of the season with the limit of 0.9l even if they could use 1.2l, with their old spec PUs. While Ferrari raced from Monza onwards with the limit of 0.9l with their new PUs, respecting the agreement between the manufacturers

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fresh ... 0/4996340/

Am I wrong or did you bring up the oil story to prove how bona fide Mercedes is?

[Polite]

pretty certain Mercedes said it kept to the new 0.9L regs anyway after introducing the new power unit.

OFC Mercedes said that.. but
Mercedes did a gentlmen agreement about oil burning with other manufacturer but was the only one non respecting hat commitment

Really looking forward to seeing your evidence of that...

here they are
https://www.grandprix.com/news/mercedes ... ement.html
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/ ... rn-ruling/
https://www.news24.com/wheels/FormulaOn ... t-20170826
https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repo ... agreement/
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fresh ... 0/4996340/
just google "f1 2017 oil burning agreement"..
I would add that agreement was requested by Renault from the FIA ​​and the manufacturers to anticipate the restrictive rules introduced step by step for several years (no limit> 1.2l> 0.9> 0.6l> 0.3l now)

[zibby43]

your story fails..
https://azertag.az/en/xeber/FIA_confirm ... it-1089458

You missed the entire point of my story, which is that Mercedes voluntarily kept to the 0.9L limit despite being technically able to utilize the full 1.2L burn rate.

you are right, in fact Ferrari still thanks Mercedes for running the rest of the season with the limit of 0.9l even if they could use 1.2l, with their old spec PUs. While Ferrari raced from Monza onwards with the limit of 0.9l with their new PUs, respecting the agreement between the manufacturers

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fresh ... 0/4996340/

Am I wrong or did you bring up the oil story to prove how bona fide Mercedes is?

You’re equating introducing the engines with automatically utilizing the higher burn rate.

There’re not mutually inclusive.

Btw, you actually read the article you included?

“. . . although suggestions a gentleman's agreement had been in place between the two outfits not to introduce an engine in Belgium are understood to be wide of the mark.”

[Polite]

You missed the entire point of my story, which is that Mercedes voluntarily kept to the 0.9L limit despite being technically able to utilize the full 1.2L burn rate.

you are right, in fact Ferrari still thanks Mercedes for running the rest of the season with the limit of 0.9l even if they could use 1.2l, with their old spec PUs. While Ferrari raced from Monza onwards with the limit of 0.9l with their new PUs, respecting the agreement between the manufacturers

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fresh ... 0/4996340/

Am I wrong or did you bring up the oil story to prove how bona fide Mercedes is?

You’re equating introducing the engines with automatically utilizing the higher burn rate.

There’re not mutually inclusive.

If you have an ace up your sleeve, you use it when you get the most out of it.
Ferrari and the others played with a deck of cards without aces.
If you had a doubt, would you trust what an opponent tells you about something done by themselves?

ps.
obviously there is no evidence of the agreement, just as there is no evidence that Mercedes used its 1.2l engines with only 0.9l
I would just like to bring back to reality a story that on this site and especially in England has been fictionalized all to the advantage of Mercedes, an their "fair play"

[zibby43]

you are right, in fact Ferrari still thanks Mercedes for running the rest of the season with the limit of 0.9l even if they could use 1.2l, with their old spec PUs. While Ferrari raced from Monza onwards with the limit of 0.9l with their new PUs, respecting the agreement between the manufacturers

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fresh ... 0/4996340/

Am I wrong or did you bring up the oil story to prove how bona fide Mercedes is?

You’re equating introducing the engines with automatically utilizing the higher burn rate.

There’re not mutually inclusive.

If you have an ace up your sleeve, you use it when you get the most out of it.
Ferrari and the others played with a deck of cards without aces.
If you had a doubt, would you trust what an opponent tells you about something done by themselves?

ps.
obviously there is no evidence of the agreement, just as there is no evidence that Mercedes used its 1.2l engines with only 0.9l
I would just like to bring back to reality a story that on this site and especially in England has been fictionalized all to the advantage of Mercedes, an their "fair play"

You’re more than welcome to do so. Or attempt to do so.

I haven’t seen any credible evidence to the contrary. No smoking gun. No cars declaring the wrong amount of fuel. No FIA secret engine settlement.

[Juzh]

That may be your opinion, but they’re arguably the most transparent team on the grid that provides the most access and content.

Yes, they provide content for casual fans that is in almost all cases super obvious to everyone on this forum. For example like this one:

5 minutes of talking that reveals nothing that wasn't known for ages already. Rinse and repeat 100 times over.

If you want proper technical information on engines honda is the only company that released any kind of useful and detailed information in their japanese articles basically since the start of V6 era. They went as far as releasing info on their current spec engine even. Would love to see mercedes do that. That's not to say anything's wrong with them not doing it, no one really does it, apart from honda.

[DR30]

And frankly nobody has wastegates capable of reducing exhaust pressure to ambient. Not even close.

In the traditional sense of a wastegate true. However they may be using a diverter style bypass which would allow full bypass or somewhere in between. I suspect this is what is done by the looks of some of the "wastegate pictures" available.

[PhillipM]

I seriously doubt any of them would use a diverter type. There are no upsides to using one.

[saviour stivala]

Turbo engines of 400hp or more are normally equipped with an external waste-gate. Both an internal (build-in turbine housing) waste-gate and an external waste-gate are essentially a ‘bypass valve’. The external waste-gate allows for more flexibility with overall design and will result in a more productive turbo as it can route the exhaust gases further away from the turbine housing. All four makes of formula one engines uses an external waste-gate, when waste-gate is open it diverts exhaust gases away from exhaust turbine housing. As exhaust gases tends to follow the path of least resistance. When the external waste-gate is open and so diverting exhaust gases away from turbine housing (exhaust gases following the path of least resistance) any exhaust gases inside the turbine housing are rendered at near atmospheric pressure, at which exhaust pressure no turbine recovery work is possible.

[DR30]

I seriously doubt any of them would use a diverter type. There are no upsides to using one.

Hmm I would think that the engine seeing the lowest possible backpressure would be an advantage when turbine driven electrically, and likely drive losses at the turbine due to spinning faster than the exhaust stream. I would imagine the turbine spinning in isolation of the exhaust would reduce power required to motor the shaft similar to throttling a compressor.

[henry]

All the pictures I’ve seen in the last few years typically have a single wastegate well away from the bifurcations in the exhausts. Unless I’m misunderstanding what a diverter does I don’t think they are using them.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... the turbine spinning in isolation of the exhaust would reduce power required to motor the shaft similar to throttling a compressor.....

according to me ....
the turbine will be driven by the exhaust dynamic pressure (when the static pressure is vented WGO)
this will contribute to driving the compressor ie cost the least electrical power in electric supercharge mode

and .....
what the crankshaft 'sees' as (so-called) exhaust 'back pressure' is the exhaust static pressure

[PhillipM]

Hmm I would think that the engine seeing the lowest possible backpressure would be an advantage when turbine driven electrically, and likely drive losses at the turbine due to spinning faster than the exhaust stream. I would imagine the turbine spinning in isolation of the exhaust would reduce power required to motor the shaft similar to throttling a compressor.

Even when the turbine is being driven electrically you're still extracting work from the exhaust blowdown, diverting that would only ever be a net loss of power.