Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[nzjrs]

Harvesting mainly from what I see.

How does this show itself to you? Any particular harvesting mode?

Just my theory based on the Ferrari-powered cars’ consistently weird race pace:

1) Sudden loss of pace after first 2/3 laps.
2) Consistently fast after SC restarts, after they have had plenty of laps to recharge the battery.
3) K1 Plus mode gave a very noticeable boost last year, while it is almost useless now. Even after the fuel trick was banned (COTA) last year it was just as effective, suggesting it is purely an ERS mode.

How consistent was this across their customer teams though? My memory was that Ferarri gained more than their customers, and have now lost more (I could be wrong and want to be corrected on this point).

I can't square this with the regulation that the customer teams must have the same engine. How does your theory tie all this together?

[ScrewCaptain27]

How does this show itself to you? Any particular harvesting mode?

Just my theory based on the Ferrari-powered cars’ consistently weird race pace:

1) Sudden loss of pace after first 2/3 laps.
2) Consistently fast after SC restarts, after they have had plenty of laps to recharge the battery.
3) K1 Plus mode gave a very noticeable boost last year, while it is almost useless now. Even after the fuel trick was banned (COTA) last year it was just as effective, suggesting it is purely an ERS mode.

How consistent was this across their customer teams though? My memory was that Ferarri gained more than their customers, and have now lost more (I could be wrong and want to be corrected on this point).

I can't square this with the regulation that the customer teams must have the same engine. How does your theory tie all this together?

All Ferrari customer teams have made a noticeable step back since they all have the same power unit.

[nzjrs]

Just my theory based on the Ferrari-powered cars’ consistently weird race pace:

1) Sudden loss of pace after first 2/3 laps.
2) Consistently fast after SC restarts, after they have had plenty of laps to recharge the battery.
3) K1 Plus mode gave a very noticeable boost last year, while it is almost useless now. Even after the fuel trick was banned (COTA) last year it was just as effective, suggesting it is purely an ERS mode.

How consistent was this across their customer teams though? My memory was that Ferarri gained more than their customers, and have now lost more (I could be wrong and want to be corrected on this point).

I can't square this with the regulation that the customer teams must have the same engine. How does your theory tie all this together?

All Ferrari customer teams have made a noticeable step back since they all have the same power unit.

I should have been more specific. I agree they have all made a step backward - but during the peak of the 'fast ferarri' phase last year, it was Ferarri only that seemed to have the extra power available.

I can't square that cleanly with regulation changes (which would slow every ferarri team down more equally). I am inclined to believe there were a number of things which are now no longer allowed either through regulation or settlement, and the most secret of them slowed Ferarri down more than their customers (the settlement part).

[ScrewCaptain27]

The fuel system is not part of the PU I think, and the trick (AFAIK worth about 15BHP in quali) was a Ferrari exclusive, banned from the USA race last year and that was the part discussed in the settlement. The rest (oil burning and ERS) was affected by regulation changes.

Sorry to disappoint the haters here, but loopholes and regulation changes are not cheating.

[Scorpaguy]

...as for customer cars, Alfa was pretty fast in the first half of 2019 with impressive numbers in the straight-line speed traps. Additionally, Kimi was consistently #6 in Spain testing. When racing started, they were not 6th, but KR was a solid points scorer. Of course after the summer break, the wheels came off at Alfa...and when they did get them back on, they were the wrong ones

Still, Alfa was pretty fast with the Ferrari mill in half of 2019...Haas was a mess, so hard to tell on that one.

[nzjrs]

The fuel system is not part of the PU I think, and the trick (AFAIK worth about 15BHP in quali) was a Ferrari exclusive, banned from the USA race last year and that was the part discussed in the settlement. The rest (oil burning and ERS) was affected by regulation changes.

Sorry to disappoint the haters here, but loopholes and regulation changes are not cheating.

Cool! That is exactly what I think, nice to see someone reach the same conclusions independently.

(FWIW depending on what *exactly* the trick was I could be convinced either way if it was cheating or not)

[zibby43]

The fuel system is not part of the PU I think, and the trick (AFAIK worth about 15BHP in quali) was a Ferrari exclusive, banned from the USA race last year and that was the part discussed in the settlement. The rest (oil burning and ERS) was affected by regulation changes.

Sorry to disappoint the haters here, but loopholes and regulation changes are not cheating.

Cool! That is exactly what I think, nice to see someone reach the same conclusions independently.

(FWIW depending on what *exactly* the trick was I could be convinced either way if it was cheating or not)

Yeah, the more I’m learning, it really was right on the razor’s edge, which I can see both perspectives.

[nzjrs]

(FWIW depending on what *exactly* the trick was I could be convinced either way if it was cheating or not)

Yeah, the more I’m learning, it really was right on the razor’s edge, which I can see both perspectives.

Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks

1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating

It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.

[Big Tea]

(FWIW depending on what *exactly* the trick was I could be convinced either way if it was cheating or not)

Yeah, the more I’m learning, it really was right on the razor’s edge, which I can see both perspectives.

Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks

1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating

It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.

Its strange but I see (3) the last one, the least cheating. Cant give you an answer why, possibly because its the simplest.

[zibby43]

(FWIW depending on what *exactly* the trick was I could be convinced either way if it was cheating or not)

Yeah, the more I’m learning, it really was right on the razor’s edge, which I can see both perspectives.

Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks

1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating

It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.

Very interesting stuff!

[Mattchu]

Kudos to all the latest posters on approaching this very delicate matter with a degree of maturity that is seldom seen.

Now I`m not in the same league as many who post on here with regards to the current power units and their incredibly complex designs, but one thing is clear...Ferrari have lost a considerable amount of grunt, the customer teams look to have lost less but still a substantial amount.

Which brings me to my question. How much of this gain/loss was due to the various lubricants that Shell brought to the Marenello outfit. There was a bit of, lets say finger pointing, from Red Bull at one stage which implied that some exotic mixture was being used which smelt a bit like pineapple! Do we know if this same fuel/lubricant is still being used? Did Alfa and Haas use the same juice.
Would it be possible for a fuel to be developed that could make the FIA sensor think it was using less than it actually was in certain circumstances.

We`ll probably never know the answer, I just hope Ferrari can work some magic and become front runners again...

[mzso]

The fuel system is not part of the PU I think, and the trick (AFAIK worth about 15BHP in quali) was a Ferrari exclusive, banned from the USA race last year and that was the part discussed in the settlement. The rest (oil burning and ERS) was affected by regulation changes.

Sorry to disappoint the haters here, but loopholes and regulation changes are not cheating.

There were nor regulations changes. Only better policing of rules, to prevent cheating... Now they can't get away with it, because it would show

[gruntguru]

Yeah, the more I’m learning, it really was right on the razor’s edge, which I can see both perspectives.

Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks

1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating

It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.

Its strange but I see (3) the last one, the least cheating. Cant give you an answer why, possibly because its the simplest.

Agreed.

[PlatinumZealot]

Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks

1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating

It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.

What do you suppose is the sampling frequncy of the sensor?

The injectors pulse width modulation could be around 200kHz or maybe more.

The mechanical pump is too slow compared so I am assuming the closing of the fuel injectors were used to synchronise the fuel flow in phase with the sampling rate.

This pathway is also brings many questions. Because there are six fuel injectors out of phase by whatever uneven firing phases comes with a 90 degree V6, all these pulses would superimpose as they reflect back to a single pipe to the fuel sensor. Not to mention the pulses have to survive going through the cam driven fuel HP pumps if the sensor is located before the fuel HP pumps which I doubt.

The only way I see using the injectors to do the trick is if the fuel sensor(s) was located after the HP fuel pump one on each engine bank. If it were before the fuel pump, it would be too much obstacles between injector and flow sensor.

[nzjrs]

What do you suppose is the sampling frequncy of the sensor?

The injectors pulse width modulation could be around 200kHz or maybe more.

The mechanical pump is too slow compared so I am assuming the closing of the fuel injectors were used to synchronise the fuel flow in phase with the sampling rate.

In one of the many other threads on this topic here, after I posted the datasheet for the FFS that listed the sampling frequency I think maybe gruntguru convincingly argued that such electro-mechanical modulation was feasible at the required frequency.

Sorry, I can't find it now in the search.

Maybe someone else remembers (I dont think it was this thread because I remember the discussion being rather narrowly focussed - and free of ferarri heat - on reverse engineering strategies, started I believe by a blackhat or similar paper on sampling tricks).