Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[henry]

See, those are the rules that make no sense... Why make a road relevant hybrid formula, then place such idiotic restrictions on the very items that manufacturers want to develop for their road cars?

Yes, that's a cost sink. Yes, the manufacturers understand that. Yes, that is the most important part of improving future, road going hybrids...

At this point, the only thing they are really developing is software.

Welcome to the world of marketing.

The manufacturers want to include the word “hybrid” in their marketing material. They want to say they are recovering energy that would otherwise be wasted. As long as they can say those things it doesn’t matter what the details are. After all there’s a limited proportion of the general public that has understanding to go beyond the fact that the engine has an electric motor that uses waste energy.

The duty cycle of an F1 power train is worlds apart from that of a road going version. It’s designed to operate at maximum output for 60,70,80% of its life while a road going engine is instead operating at, 10,20,30%.

Having said that these current units are at research level in at least the area of combustion, and perhaps some others. This may feed forward into roadgoing vehicles, who knows. Certainly not many outside of the teams.

It’s unlikely that all they are developing is software. But again the developments they are making are far from the eyes of the general public, and even if they weren’t there’s a very small proportion of the general public that would recognise the words to describe what they are doing let alone the processes involved. And, IMHO, software is what propels all these things forward, whether it is in design, analysis or configuration and processing the actual running systems. This is true of all the world around us, it’s relevant.

And finally the rules themselves. They are arbitrary, defined to reach a certain performance threshold and not provide opportunities for significant variety so as to assure low performance differentials.

They failed there. I personally think for 2 reasons. Firstly, it’s research level stuff and one team had better insights which were not in the public domain. Secondly, all teams optimise their performance, through understanding and the use of software to encode that understanding, so differences, although small, are fully exploited.

[henry]

@Restless:
The 4MJ limit is only a state-of-charge-difference limit. Basically 4MJ between the max state of charge and the min state of charge. One could in principle store or use more than 4MJ as long as one plays ping-pong between those max and min states of charge of the ES.

Nope. They cannot get away with that. If you watch the battery graphic icon during the races you will notice that it never shows the battery level increasing (recharging) during the lap it only goes to full after they cross the line. Meaning that the FIA easily measures the totalized flow into and out of the MGUK and uses a battery symbol to represent how much of the 4MJ goes into driving the MGUK.

Are you sure that is the battery SOC?

It’s behaviour seems more consistent with showing the 4MJ flow from ES to MGU-K, which would reset each lap and decrease only.

[Zynerji]

See, those are the rules that make no sense... Why make a road relevant hybrid formula, then place such idiotic restrictions on the very items that manufacturers want to develop for their road cars?

Yes, that's a cost sink. Yes, the manufacturers understand that. Yes, that is the most important part of improving future, road going hybrids...

At this point, the only thing they are really developing is software.

Welcome to the world of marketing.

The manufacturers want to include the word “hybrid” in their marketing material. They want to say they are recovering energy that would otherwise be wasted. As long as they can say those things it doesn’t matter what the details are. After all there’s a limited proportion of the general public that has understanding to go beyond the fact that the engine has an electric motor that uses waste energy.

The duty cycle of an F1 power train is worlds apart from that of a road going version. It’s designed to operate at maximum output for 60,70,80% of its life while a road going engine is instead operating at, 10,20,30%.

Having said that these current units are at research level in at least the area of combustion, and perhaps some others. This may feed forward into roadgoing vehicles, who knows. Certainly not many outside of the teams.

It’s unlikely that all they are developing is software. But again the developments they are making are far from the eyes of the general public, and even if they weren’t there’s a very small proportion of the general public that would recognise the words to describe what they are doing let alone the processes involved. And, IMHO, software is what propels all these things forward, whether it is in design, analysis or configuration and processing the actual running systems. This is true of all the world around us, it’s relevant.

And finally the rules themselves. They are arbitrary, defined to reach a certain performance threshold and not provide opportunities for significant variety so as to assure low performance differentials.

They failed there. I personally think for 2 reasons. Firstly, it’s research level stuff and one team had better insights which were not in the public domain. Secondly, all teams optimise their performance, through understanding and the use of software to encode that understanding, so differences, although small, are fully exploited.

In the world of racing, it really only boils down to 2 things: power and weight.

Restricting those 2 things, specifically, is counter intuitive.

In the world of road cars, it boils down to efficiency and reliability, with the first being directly impacted most by power and weight.

No wonder new manufacturers won't join.

As you say, it's marketing. But isn't the best marketing of a road car being able to claim "xxxHP at yyyMPG"?

That's why I dislike these arbitrary rules.

There simply is no synergy.

[henry]

In the world of racing, it really only boils down to 2 things: power and weight.

Restricting those 2 things, specifically, is counter intuitive.

In the world of road cars, it boils down to efficiency and reliability, with the first being directly impacted most by power and weight.

No wonder new manufacturers won't join.

As you say, it's marketing. But isn't the best marketing of a road car being able to claim "xxxHP at yyyMPG"?

That's why I dislike these arbitrary rules.

There simply is no synergy.

You’re right. Those two characteristics are significant for racing.

Restricting power and weight is what makes this a closed contest and not a free for all. That’s what you do to avoid large disparities in performance, which are bad for the show. The other key characteristic is aerodynamics and they are similarly restrictive. None of this stops some teams being better than others.

Again I agree, weight and power are significant for road car efficiency. But then so is safety which is the most significant factor in the increased weight of modern vehicles, along with a desire to make them larger. The manufacturing techniques and materials used in F1 to control weight are very different from those in volume production, but not all I have to say.

When I look at car advertising in the U.K. right now what I mainly see is car as infotainment, or car as smart assistant, or the ubiquitous you’ll look smart, successful, sexy, in one of these. It’s to the latter I think F1 show tries to appeal. Mileage and horsepower are not promoted very strongly.

IMO the reason new manufacturers are wary is that this is serious cutting edge stuff that requires considerable investment and carries a much higher risk of failure than earlier PU formulae. In the past they had 100 years of research and data to draw on which can be summarised as, get more air in. That’s not what it’s about now.

All major sports have arbitrary rules, and I think the synergy which you seek is fully there one the electronic complexity and glamour.

[hollus]

Back on topic to the Ferrari PU, gentlemen (and ladies). Thanks.

[GrandAxe]

Lets clear things. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The max power the MGU-K can generate is limited to 120kw.
2. The max power the MGU-K can receive from the ES is 120kw.

3. The max power the MGU-H can generate is unlimited.
4. The max power the MGU-K can receive from the MGU-H is unlimited.

5. Only mechanical connections to the MGU-H are limited.

Items 3, 4, 5 create a possible loophole by which the MGU-H can be driven (say by an alternator) and in turn power the MGU-K - bypassing parts of the drive train and gaining power through higher efficiencies and (possibly) reduced weight, as well as gaining the ability to deploy for much longer (the whole lap if necessary, eg during quali).

4 is incorrect, the amount of energy transferred from H to K is unlimited. No matter what, the K can only generate or consume 120kw of power. The key here is the difference between energy and power.

Thanks for the correction of #4.

For the energy, it can be delivered in unlimited amounts as a potential (using, say an ultracapacitor), and then discharged at 120kw continuously for as long as the charge lasts.

There is plenty of storage for electric charge:
4kj max in the ES;
5kj max in the MGU Control Unit;
300kj max in non-ERS or 20kj max in non-ERS is drawn at more than 2kw.

[wuzak]

Lets clear things. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The max power the MGU-K can generate is limited to 120kw.
2. The max power the MGU-K can receive from the ES is 120kw.

3. The max power the MGU-H can generate is unlimited.
4. The max power the MGU-K can receive from the MGU-H is unlimited.

5. Only mechanical connections to the MGU-H are limited.

Items 3, 4, 5 create a possible loophole by which the MGU-H can be driven (say by an alternator) and in turn power the MGU-K - bypassing parts of the drive train and gaining power through higher efficiencies and (possibly) reduced weight, as well as gaining the ability to deploy for much longer (the whole lap if necessary, eg during quali).

4 is incorrect, the amount of energy transferred from H to K is unlimited. No matter what, the K can only generate or consume 120kw of power. The key here is the difference between energy and power.

Thanks for the correction of #4.

For the energy, it can be delivered in unlimited amounts as a potential (using, say an ultracapacitor), and then discharged at 120kw continuously for as long as the charge lasts.

There is plenty of storage for electric charge:
4kj max in the ES;
5kj max in the MGU Control Unit;
300kj max in non-ERS or 20kj max in non-ERS is drawn at more than 2kw.

4MJ max in the ES.

I don't believe the 300kJ can be used in conjunction for the ERS (ie it can't be used to power the MGUK). It can be used for other functions.

[GrandAxe]

4 is incorrect, the amount of energy transferred from H to K is unlimited. No matter what, the K can only generate or consume 120kw of power. The key here is the difference between energy and power.

Thanks for the correction of #4.

For the energy, it can be delivered in unlimited amounts as a potential (using, say an ultracapacitor), and then discharged at 120kw continuously for as long as the charge lasts.

There is plenty of storage for electric charge:
4kj max in the ES;
5kj max in the MGU Control Unit;
300kj max in non-ERS or 20kj max in non-ERS is drawn at more than 2kw.

4MJ max in the ES.

I don't believe the 300kJ can be used in conjunction for the ERS (ie it can't be used to power the MGUK). It can be used for other functions.

Yes, its MJ. That must be the world record for a series of typo's.

[PlatinumZealot]

Clearly the advantage is thermal - aluminium softens at fairly low temperatures and they want to operate with a hotter piston crown.

Peak combustion temperatures and pressures are very high in these engines and one path to higher TE (power) is higher pressure and temperature hence the search for increased temperature tolerance at the piston crown. Steel is great but its strength/mass ratio works against it - especially in thin sections under pressure loading like the piston crown. Honeycombed steel allows the crown to be thicker (resisting bending) without the extra weight.

If they can make a steel piston with the same mass and strength as an aluminium piston there will be a huge advantage in temperature tolerance.

I am reviving the steel piston topic.

There has been new developments in 3D printing as of late. Nano Particles are added to the metal powder to stabilize the grain boundaries and prevent hot cracking... Now previously unwledable metals are weldable (in additive manufacturing).

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-09-d-high- ... lding.html

[dren]

Pistons containing prechambers?

[roon]

That might be a path toward simulating dual injectors. Port and DI. Since the piston is only aligned with the side mounted injector for a split second, one injector could be used to fill both the cylinder and a pre-chamber. The cylinder filled BTDC, the pre-chamber filled at, or near, TDC.

[saviour stivala]

Every space above the piston whatever it is called is filled with whatever is being compressed.

[dren]

Every space above the piston whatever it is called is filled with whatever is being compressed.

WOAH

[Oehrly]

Some time ago I had an idea about the magical smoke coming from the Ferrari engines exhaust. People are wondering whether it is Oil vapour. What if it is not Oil but Water vapour?

As far as I know injecting water or mixing it into the intake air is not allowed but "things" can "leak" you know

Here's a video by Bosch about water injection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5yLPUVViXI

I'll quote the given advantages:
- cooling of intake air
- higher efficency
- lower combustion chamber temperature
- lower knocking tendency
- allows earlier ignition timing
- possible higher compression ratio

If all that is more or less true it would be quite beneficial to do that somehow.

Still the question remains, would you even see water vapor from the exhaust if you were doing that?
If it is water vapor it would also explain why they are not concerned about the huge clouds on startup in the garage for example.

[Dr. Acula]

Some time ago I had an idea about the magical smoke coming from the Ferrari engines exhaust. People are wondering whether it is Oil vapour. What if it is not Oil but Water vapour?

As far as I know injecting water or mixing it into the intake air is not allowed but "things" can "leak" you know

Here's a video by Bosch about water injection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5yLPUVViXI

I'll quote the given advantages:
- cooling of intake air
- higher efficency
- lower combustion chamber temperature
- lower knocking tendency
- allows earlier ignition timing
- possible higher compression ratio

If all that is more or less true it would be quite beneficial to do that somehow.

Still the question remains, would you even see water vapor from the exhaust if you were doing that?
If it is water vapor it would also explain why they are not concerned about the huge clouds on startup in the garage for example.

Well, all of this is true, but "cooling of intake air" is basically the cause for the rest of it. And there is a article in the rules which defines the lowest aloud intake air temperature.

5.6.8 Engine plenum (as defined in line 4 of Appendix 2 to these regulations) air temperature must be more than ten degrees centigrade above ambient temperature. When assessing compliance, the temperature of the air will be the lap average recorded, by an FIA approved and sealed sensor located in an FIA approved location situated in the engine plenum, during every lap of the race. The first lap of the race, laps carried out whilst the safety car is deployed, pit in and out laps and any laps that are obvious anomalies (as judged by the technical delegate) will not be used to assess the average temperature. The ambient temperature will be that recorded by the FIA appointed weather service provider one hour before any practice session or two hours before the race. This information will also be displayed on the timing monitors.