Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[ENGINE TUNER]

I'm looking back at the previous posts as it seems the question is misconstrued or misunderstood. Fact Only's reply was that a potential "phase 2" part would not have costed extra tokens as it was internal development of the same part that ultimately would cost a set amount of tokens. For instance say you want to make change to your cilinder, which cost 3 tokens (hypothetical, I don't know how much tokens that would cost). Your first iteration of the change is phase 1. Is it good, then it is brought to race spec and you spent 3 tokens. If it is not good, it goes to phase 2 and further phases until it is good, after which you bring it to race spec and spend 3 tokens.

Yes there is probably some misunderstanding, but my point stands.

Phase 1 for 2016 must be understood to be the final phase of 2015, because any performance change between the two would have cost tokens(once they homologated it)(but then again why change it if you are not trying to race the new or any improved one, or more importantly, why waste resources if you are not trying to use tokens on that particular part?)

So either Merc decided they didn't NEED to change it(already fully optimized) or they didn't WANT to spend tokens on it anyway(tokens better spent somewhere else) so they didn't waste resources on a phase 2.

2 options as to why there was no phase 2.

[turbof1]

I'm looking back at the previous posts as it seems the question is misconstrued or misunderstood. Fact Only's reply was that a potential "phase 2" part would not have costed extra tokens as it was internal development of the same part that ultimately would cost a set amount of tokens. For instance say you want to make change to your cilinder, which cost 3 tokens (hypothetical, I don't know how much tokens that would cost). Your first iteration of the change is phase 1. Is it good, then it is brought to race spec and you spent 3 tokens. If it is not good, it goes to phase 2 and further phases until it is good, after which you bring it to race spec and spend 3 tokens.

Yes there is probably some misunderstanding, but my point stands.

Phase 1 for 2016 must be understood to be the final phase of 2015, because any performance change between the two would have cost tokens(once they homologated it)(but then again why change it if you are not trying to race the new or any improved one, or more importantly, why waste resources if you are not trying to use tokens on that particular part?)

So either Merc decided they didn't NEED to change it(already fully optimized) or they didn't WANT to spend tokens on it anyway(tokens better spent somewhere else) so they didn't waste resources on a phase 2.

2 options as to why there was no phase 2.

Be careful with assumptions here. Facts Only mentioned this:

Interesting nugget of info there, the MGUK is "PH1.0" or Phase 1.0. Phase 1.0 will be the very first iteration of the 2016 design and shows that Merc' have not needed to make any changes to that design since (likely) late 2015, not even after initial dyno testing or winter track testing.

I'll let him clarify. My personal understanding on the matter is this: back in 2015 during the Italian GP, Mercedes introduced upgrades costing tokens, which were preparations of the 2016 PU. Since tokens are not transferable across seasons, it was best to use tokens at that point for several parts. Assuming tokens were used for that phase 1 part (again: use them or loose them), it's also quite safe to assume that phase 1 part was indeed tested thoroughly to work in the context of mostly the 2015 PU. However, if the phase 1 part did not work in conjunction with the 2016 upgrades, a phase 2 part had to be designed. I think in that context we are looking at a reliability upgrade without usage of tokens.

I think this is more exception than rule. As tokens are not transferable across seasons, Mercedes were looking for a way to increase the pool of tokens for 2016, through using tokens in function of 2016, in 2015. So you can perhaps call this an exception. Again, let's be careful with assumptions and see what FO has to say.

[sosic2121]

Well it's pretty amazing that they can make the motors so small to be quite honest. A standard 120kW electric motor is considerably heavier and bigger than an F1 unit. It almost defies rational logic as to how they could make a small motor so powerful, so they're either using exotic materials as far as magnets or winding is concerned, or it's something completely different than us mere mortals get to see.

Could it be that these motors spin at higher rpm so can be made lighter, due to lower torque needed? Is that the reason Ferrari changed position of their unit so they can use gears to increase rpm?

Maybe it's down to higher voltage?

[Facts Only]

You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Each year a new engine prefix will be started and everything will revert back to PH1.0, this engine will go through dyno work and pre-season testing with modification and phase updates until eventually it becomes the melbourne race engine (maybe PH1.5). Even with the token system (and in the days of the "frozen" V8's) this happened every year.

The PU maker will probaby do an upgrade early in the season (Canada perhaps) for a cost of few tokens but in the meantime numerous iteration of tested engines will have taken place so one part with a few tokens spent might have jumped a large number of phases as it was tested and refined (maybe PH2.2).

Then another upgrade with a token spend might come mid season but a few deads ends might have been explored or a lot of iterations could have been made so it might make a jump all the way to PH4.0 (these are just examples).

My intiial surprise was that the FIF1 MGUK picture from very late in the season showed a PH1.0 part, meaning that (ignoring tokens) it didnt need any major updates from the very first design way back when. Even if that design was pretty much a carry-over of the previous years final Phase that still shows a very mature design and comprehensive initial work.

[hurril]

You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Why would you put it like that? I mean, sure, so you don't like the token system but you are implying here that it isn't really being used anyway. Is this a burp on your part or what are you on about here?

[turbof1]

You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Why would you put it like that? I mean, sure, so you don't like the token system but you are implying here that it isn't really being used anyway. Is this a burp on your part or what are you on about here?

If I had to guess, there have been many situations before where performance upgrades were able to be put through as reliability upgrades.

[hurril]

You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Why would you put it like that? I mean, sure, so you don't like the token system but you are implying here that it isn't really being used anyway. Is this a burp on your part or what are you on about here?

If I had to guess, there have been many situations before where performance upgrades were able to be put through as reliability upgrades.

Well all reliability upgrades are ultimately about performance but sure. I don't think this is the rule though.

[godlameroso]

You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Why would you put it like that? I mean, sure, so you don't like the token system but you are implying here that it isn't really being used anyway. Is this a burp on your part or what are you on about here?

The BS is in the fact that it's tried to be passed off as a cost saving measure, because teams have multiple power units on the dyno at any given time. Parts are tested, re-designed, some scrapped, some updated, so a team could have tested dozens of new components with various iterations, and only when they plan to introduce the update after it passes all requisite QA do they finally spend tokens. So in the end there's still plenty of development going on.

In this Mercedes has another strategic advantage, their power unit is so good that they no longer need to make huge investments in it to maintain their advantage, so they can devote these resources to the chassis side.

[Blackout]

The power figures according to http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... er_30.html
Seems much more credible than the 50hp delta BS

[Muulka]

The power figures according to http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... ml?refresh
Seems much more credible than the 50hp delta BS

I don't think it's BS, looking at the speed deltas at Monza where the Merc teams were running barn doors and RB had practically no rear wing. And Max wouldn't have said a number if they hadn't given him reason to believe it.

[Blackout]

The power figures according to http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... ml?refresh
Seems much more credible than the 50hp delta BS

I don't think it's BS, looking at the speed deltas at Monza where the Merc teams were running barn doors and RB had practically no rear wing. And Max wouldn't have said a number if they hadn't given him reason to believe it.

-Horner and Marko said the delta was 50 or 60 hp in 2015
-Renault said they have halved the gap compared to the best PU after Barcelona
-I stopped comparing qualy speed traps with the 2015 ones after mid season but the RB max speed gap compared to the best cars and/or the highest speed traps was consistently half of the 2015 gap atleast
And yes qualy speed traps are quite useful because soft new tires+DRS+'empty' tank+maximum effort
The RB12 is obviously better than its older sister but*
So IMO engine gap between Merc and Renault was approximatevely half of that in 2015 IMO. And *RB heads and drivers themeselve kept emphasizing the PU progress and they even said that RB is often running more DF (sometimes maximum DF) /is sacrifying DF for top speed less and less.
So that 50hp figure (same as 2015?) isnt very logical.

Ok Mercedes spent more tokens than Renault and they probably increased their advantage again... but 50hp??

[FPV GTHO]

Renault might have halved the gap after Barcelona, but they pretty much diverted everything to next year after that. Meanwhile, Mercedes spent their tokens later in the season. It's natural to assume then the gap got bigger from there.

[Muulka]

The power figures according to http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... ml?refresh
Seems much more credible than the 50hp delta BS

I don't think it's BS, looking at the speed deltas at Monza where the Merc teams were running barn doors and RB had practically no rear wing. And Max wouldn't have said a number if they hadn't given him reason to believe it.

-Horner and Marko said the delta was 50 or 60 hp in 2015
-Renault said they have halved the gap compared to the best PU after Barcelona
-I stopped comparing qualy speed traps with the 2015 ones after mid season but the RB max speed gap compared to the best cars and/or the highest speed traps was consistently half of the 2015 gap atleast
And yes qualy speed traps are quite useful because soft new tires+DRS+'empty' tank+maximum effort
The RB12 is obviously better than its older sister but*
So IMO engine gap between Merc and Renault was approximatevely half of that in 2015 IMO. And *RB heads and drivers themeselve kept emphasizing the PU progress and they even said that RB is often running more DF (sometimes maximum DF) /is sacrifying DF for top speed less and less.
So that 50hp figure (same as 2015?) isnt very logical.

Ok Mercedes spent more tokens than Renault and they probably increased their advantage again... but 50hp??

Believe what you will, but the teams have access to an awful lot more data for competitor analysis; audio traces and GPS data in particular.

Yes the 2016 Renault is clearly much better than the 2015, but that's not saying much. The power differential is definitely much much bigger than the 15 hp mentioned above.

[Blackout]

I don't think it's BS, looking at the speed deltas at Monza where the Merc teams were running barn doors and RB had practically no rear wing. And Max wouldn't have said a number if they hadn't given him reason to believe it.

-Horner and Marko said the delta was 50 or 60 hp in 2015
-Renault said they have halved the gap compared to the best PU after Barcelona
-I stopped comparing qualy speed traps with the 2015 ones after mid season but the RB max speed gap compared to the best cars and/or the highest speed traps was consistently half of the 2015 gap atleast
And yes qualy speed traps are quite useful because soft new tires+DRS+'empty' tank+maximum effort
The RB12 is obviously better than its older sister but*
So IMO engine gap between Merc and Renault was approximatevely half of that in 2015 IMO. And *RB heads and drivers themeselve kept emphasizing the PU progress and they even said that RB is often running more DF (sometimes maximum DF) /is sacrifying DF for top speed less and less.
So that 50hp figure (same as 2015?) isnt very logical.

Ok Mercedes spent more tokens than Renault and they probably increased their advantage again... but 50hp??

Believe what you will, but the teams have access to an awful lot more data for competitor analysis; audio traces and GPS data in particular.

Yes the 2016 Renault is clearly much better than the 2015, but that's not saying much. The power differential is definitely much much bigger than the 15 hp mentioned above.

15? belive? I'm talking logic and I'm trying to cross-check some informations. Youre the believer : )
And http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... er_30.html says 35hp in Q and 25hp in race. Not 15hp...
And that 50hp from VES or Rosberg could also be just a manner of speaking to say 'a lot of hp'. Did they give that number during a precise technical interview?

[ringo]

Where will the gap increase end?
It's getting ridiculous how the media keeps adding big chunks of horsepower to these engines. We are probably at 1100 by the looks of things. I think the redbull has all reason to exaggerate the power gap.
Its probably more logical to work backwards. Use what is physically possible as mercedes benchmark then deduct these power chunks and see where the other engines lie.