2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

You are missing the point

All the sizing of the components remain the same

The only change is no limit on the MGUK harvesting and limiting the MGUK usage per lap to 4MJ

If all the component sizings remain the same then the same power can be harvested from teh MGUK under braking. WHich means for most tracks the practical limit of recovered energy per lap is 2MJ or less.

Sure you could choose to not use that energy, storing it in a 4MJ,6MJ or 8MJ ES to enable later attacks, but that too would be impractical as the time lost not using the power of teh MGUK means you would most likely be falling too far back from your intended prey. If you could stay up close, then you are a much faster car and ought to find a way past in any case.

[godlameroso]

Same engine but not same software...

By "software", I assume you mean engine mapping.

The ECU's are all identical (McLaren controlled supply) and the firmware version is monitored by the FIA.

Each PU would be run/tested at the factory post assembly. I imagine that there will be variations in the power and torque curves for each PU (due mainly to combined machining/assembly tolerances and their impact on parasitic losses). Mercedes would obviously take the cream (worth say 5hp?), and this is the advantage they have from supplying PUs to so many teams.

As Williams are their closest competitor (that they supply with PUs), they could (in theory) select their PUs from towards the bottom of the spectrum to maintain supremacy...

ECU and PU are identical, but the sensors feeding values to the ecu are different. And the way the ECU communicates with those sensors are different and there are no rules regarding these components.

[.poz]

If all the component sizings remain the same then the same power can be harvested from teh MGUK under braking. WHich means for most tracks the practical limit of recovered energy per lap is 2MJ or less.

That is how the 2014 Ferrari PU was working.

[PlatinumZealot]

Same engine but not same software...

By "software", I assume you mean engine mapping.

The ECU's are all identical (McLaren controlled supply) and the firmware version is monitored by the FIA.

Each PU would be run/tested at the factory post assembly. I imagine that there will be variations in the power and torque curves for each PU (due mainly to combined machining/assembly tolerances and their impact on parasitic losses). Mercedes would obviously take the cream (worth say 5hp?), and this is the advantage they have from supplying PUs to so many teams.

As Williams are their closest competitor (that they supply with PUs), they could (in theory) select their PUs from towards the bottom of the spectrum to maintain supremacy...

ECU and PU are identical, but the sensors feeding values to the ecu are different. And the way the ECU communicates with those sensors are different and there are no rules regarding these components.

I bet the Williams engine is just as powerful. Williams arent dumb enough to blindly take mercedes "base maps." They have vast experience in hybrid mapping. And with regards to ICE mapIng .... Simples they can turn everything up for qualifying. It is not like traction control is legal anymore where the engine map influnces is even more. Race management is a different kettle of fish however. I have no clue how different the maps are for that.

[Facts Only]

Sorry to burst a few bubbles here but Mercedes HPP write all the engine map software for the engines, their engineers trackside control and record what map is being used at all times. It has to be that tightly controlled to allow the engines to run for 5 race weekends. With each map they know exactly how much life is being taken out of the engine per kilometer, running in overtake mode with the highest cylinder pressure would kill the engine in a couple of hundred kilometers, every bit of running is put into the damage matrix so they can have a strategy of when to use each engine.
Thats not to say that the teams cant come up with there own usage strategy and HPP will support them with their plans but at they end of the day they are leased from HPP who are fully in control and they have written all the software.
It also doesnt mean that teams dont have different maps but this will only extend to a set of works egine maps and a set of customer maps that are probably a few iterations behind used for everyone else.
The customer teams dont even have access to the HPP dyno's to write any software of their own and the engines go back to Brixworth between races so they cant be run anywhere else.

The differences between PU's are a lot less than 5hp, more like 0.5hp, the engines are earmarked for a car as they are being built and noit selected based on perfromance.

[Moose]

their engineers trackside control and record what map is being used at all times.

False, that's against the rules.

[Facts Only]

their engineers trackside control and record what map is being used at all times.

False, that's against the rules.

Not literally, they dont sit there and switch them for the driver I thought that would be obvious.

[giantfan10]

customer engines are like the Ferrari FXX.....
they get transported to a track ... you get to drive them for a weekend then they go right back to Maranello.
F1PUs... the manufacturer brings them to the track... you run them in your car... at the end of the weekend the manufacturer collects them all and takes them back to their factory.....
during that weekend there is a small team of the manufacturers engineers in your garage monitoring their PUs.
when exactly does a customer team have a chance to tinker with anything much less write complex software?
reason #1 a customer team will NEVER win a constructors championship when their engine manufacturer is a participant in that championship.....

[Wayne DR]

The differences between PU's are a lot less than 5hp, more like 0.5hp, the engines are earmarked for a car as they are being built and noit selected based on performance.

Based on a PU delivering say 850hp (690 ICE and 160 MGUK), 5hp variance is around +/-0.25%, so 0.5hp equates to +/-0.025% variation!

Their fabrication/machining quality control and instrumentation calibration must be insanely tight to achieve that level of repeatability across all of their PUs.

[trinidefender]

The differences between PU's are a lot less than 5hp, more like 0.5hp, the engines are earmarked for a car as they are being built and noit selected based on performance.

Based on a PU delivering say 850hp (690 ICE and 160 MGUK), 5hp variance is around +/-0.25%, so 0.5hp equates to +/-0.025% variation!

Their fabrication/machining quality control and instrumentation calibration must be insanely tight to achieve that level of repeatability across all of their PUs.

Well considering that the coolant has to be heated to operating temps and pumped around the ICE to warm it up before the engine is started to maintain tolerances I'm not surprised that the variations in power levels from ICE to ICE are so small.

Can anybody reliably confirm or deny if they also do this with the oil as well?

[Facts Only]

The differences between PU's are a lot less than 5hp, more like 0.5hp, the engines are earmarked for a car as they are being built and noit selected based on performance.

Based on a PU delivering say 850hp (690 ICE and 160 MGUK), 5hp variance is around +/-0.25%, so 0.5hp equates to +/-0.025% variation!

Their fabrication/machining quality control and instrumentation calibration must be insanely tight to achieve that level of repeatability across all of their PUs.

The tolerances are insane, ±5 microns (0.005mm) is not an uncommon tolerance. ±0.05mm is seen as 'rough'. Its a major readjustment to go from F1 to other engineering where rulers are used to check parts and 0.5mm is to tight to measure.

[Vortex37]

Re: Engine Maps and customer control.

One other thing to take into consideration is the integration of gearbox/clutch control and BBW/Kers from the customer. Gains of 1/10th sec per corner soon add up to the current works team advantage. But I do have a question over their end of straight performance, it seems to be more than aerodynamic.

Traction control banned. Yes it is in the rules. But think outside the box!

[Wayne DR]

Traction control banned. Yes it is in the rules. But think outside the box!

So in my ERS Control System, if I did something like set a limit of say 5% slip for the rear end at full throttle (measured indirectly of course to stay within the rules). I could, when this limit is exceeded, say switch the MGUK from motor mode to generator mode (up to the 2MJ limit), drop up to 320hp at the wheels and charge the energy store...

Or even more simply, control MGUK mode and power input/output through a table using throttle position, selected gear and rpm as variables... Using car GPS position as the sole variable would be even easier, just have a table to optimise ES, MGUK and MGUH power usage per lap (obviously customised per track). The possibilities are endless...

How many seconds per lap is smart/efficient use of all available power worth?

[Pieoter]

Put simply, you can't use the MGUK/MGUH as traction control.

5.6.7 Homologated sensors must be fitted which measure the torque generated at the power unit output shaft and the torques supplied to each driveshaft. These signals must be provided to the ECU.

We should also include

5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

and

5.6.6 The power unit must achieve the torque demanded by the FIA standard software.

Pretty clear cut that you can't use the MGUK/MGUH as traction control, without being instantly caught as a cheat.

[Cold Fussion]

Put simply, you can't use the MGUK/MGUH as traction control.

5.6.7 Homologated sensors must be fitted which measure the torque generated at the power unit output shaft and the torques supplied to each driveshaft. These signals must be provided to the ECU.

We should also include

5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

and

5.6.6 The power unit must achieve the torque demanded by the FIA standard software.

Pretty clear cut that you can't use the MGUK/MGUH as traction control, without being instantly caught as a cheat.

Monotonically just means always increasing so you could still satisfy that condition using Wayne's method (so long as the spec ecu allowed for it). However I remember a couple years ago (2012/2011?) Red Bull were in trouble for their (I think) pedal maps. From memory their maps satisfied the strict definition of monotonically but the FIA still weren't happy with it.