Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
roon
309
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by roon » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:01 am

Big Tea wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:43 pm
roon wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:30 pm
Mr. Tea:

All compressor charge air must be used for combustion within the engine, by regulation. Off throttle gas flow can be increased/energized via late ignition, avoiding piston power while maintaining turbine power somewhat. I don't know how commonly that is done, if at all.
As I feared, I look a dik now LOL I'm used to it.

If for instance there was sufficient valve overlap, would that not allow (relatively) cooler air into the hot exhaust. Would this be enough?
Nothing wrong with the question, and I misspoke, actually. All air entering the compressor, and fuel exiting the injectors, must exit through the exhaust pipe. So there's nothing regulating valve overlap effects, and conceivably you could dump charge air directly into the exhaust. No photographic evidence of pipework to support this ever being done.

So long as the charge air is sufficiently heated by the ICE, there will be enough energy available in the exhaust stream to power the turbine and sustain the compressor. If there is too much dilution (too much charge air) then turbine power alone won't be able to sustain the compressor power requirements, and the H will have to consume electricity to make up for the difference.

In these engines compressor work and intercooling might be the main limiting factor for air:fuel ratios, in-cylinder dilution, and any valve-overlap/out-cylinder dilution.

I had a go at a similar idea here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18874&p=736875&hili ... ap#p736875
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9259&p=735425&hilit=overlap#p735425
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9259&p=735375&hilit=overlap#p735375

With enough overlap there would be the opportunity to energize gas flow destined for the turbine under any regime. Ignition is limited to five sparks per cycle, but there are no limits to injection events, only fuel mass flow.

saviour stivala
-3
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by saviour stivala » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:03 am

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:01 am
Big Tea wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:43 pm
roon wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:30 pm
Mr. Tea:

All compressor charge air must be used for combustion within the engine, by regulation. Off throttle gas flow can be increased/energized via late ignition, avoiding piston power while maintaining turbine power somewhat. I don't know how commonly that is done, if at all.
As I feared, I look a dik now LOL I'm used to it.

If for instance there was sufficient valve overlap, would that not allow (relatively) cooler air into the hot exhaust. Would this be enough?
Nothing wrong with the question, and I misspoke, actually. All air entering the compressor, and fuel exiting the injectors, must exit through the exhaust pipe. So there's nothing regulating valve overlap effects, and conceivably you could dump charge air directly into the exhaust. No photographic evidence of pipework to support this ever being done.

So long as the charge air is sufficiently heated by the ICE, there will be enough energy available in the exhaust stream to power the turbine and sustain the compressor. If there is too much dilution (too much charge air) then turbine power alone won't be able to sustain the compressor power requirements, and the H will have to consume electricity to make up for the difference.

In these engines compressor work and intercooling might be the main limiting factor for air:fuel ratios, in-cylinder dilution, and any valve-overlap/out-cylinder dilution.

I had a go at a similar idea here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18874&p=736875&hili ... ap#p736875
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9259&p=735425&hilit=overlap#p735425
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9259&p=735375&hilit=overlap#p735375

With enough overlap there would be the opportunity to energize gas flow destined for the turbine under any regime. Ignition is limited to five sparks per cycle, but there are no limits to injection events, only fuel mass flow.
In the 2.4l v8 era both "HOT" and "COLD" blowing terms were in voge. both were possible and used by means of mapping that manipulating the throttle/s butterflys separatly from the throttle pedel. that throttle butterflys/throttle pedal manipulation is no longer allowed. any turbo air charge no matter the valves overlap must first go past an open throttle butterfly.

f1316
124
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by f1316 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:55 am

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:41 am
Honestly, what they have been able to do with the hybrid tech is probably the single most road-relevant technology from the last 20 years.
All of which begs the question (at least to my mind): if engine manufacturers are able to generate so much electrical energy without additional fuel (or, now, oil), why would you write regulations that make it so convoluted to use that eenergy, often pushing development more in the direction of improved combustion?

For road relevance/green credentials, wouldn’t it make more sense to limit only the ICE specification and fuel allowance, and allow teams to generate as much power as possible from that? Would that not increase fuel efficiency? You could then conceivably then gradually reduce fuel allowances (preferably also reducing weight to help), which is both a great PR story and keeps the PU a relevant part of the car.

Or am I missing something?

Tommy Cookers
463
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:32 am

F1 rules have as intended produced piston engines with weak turbine-compounding

'they' don't want F1 to be taken over by turbine engines with weak piston-compounding
or other apparently turbine engines with pistons
(long advocated and seemingly plausible with the core piston engine using CI and CI-suitable fuel)

originally the FIA stated that further reductions in allowed fuel quantity were intended


btw
increasing the boost doesn't increase the H recovery - as increase in compressor work uses all the increase in turbine work

Zynerji
42
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Zynerji » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:28 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:55 am
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:41 am
Honestly, what they have been able to do with the hybrid tech is probably the single most road-relevant technology from the last 20 years.
All of which begs the question (at least to my mind): if engine manufacturers are able to generate so much electrical energy without additional fuel (or, now, oil), why would you write regulations that make it so convoluted to use that eenergy, often pushing development more in the direction of improved combustion?

For road relevance/green credentials, wouldn’t it make more sense to limit only the ICE specification and fuel allowance, and allow teams to generate as much power as possible from that? Would that not increase fuel efficiency? You could then conceivably then gradually reduce fuel allowances (preferably also reducing weight to help), which is both a great PR story and keeps the PU a relevant part of the car.

Or am I missing something?
I'm all for freezing the ICE, and uncapping the MGUH/K tech, and adding a Front MGUK. These cars would probably reach 70% efficiency if they could just recover/deploy on the front axle...

etusch
24
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Turkey

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by etusch » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm

Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.

f1316
124
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by f1316 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm

etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.
Don’t have any position on this personally but just interested to understand why 4wd is not good?

LM10
23
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by LM10 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:21 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm
etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.
Don’t have any position on this personally but just interested to understand why 4wd is not good?
Wouldn't that make overtaking harder?

f1316
124
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by f1316 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:25 pm

LM10 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:21 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm
etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.
Don’t have any position on this personally but just interested to understand why 4wd is not good?
Wouldn't that make overtaking harder?
If anything I would have thought easier - greater proportion of overall grips coming from the mechanical aspect, no?

However he seemed to liken it to the 3 PU rule, so wondering if he thinks it’s a reliability issue somehow?

f1316
124
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by f1316 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:27 pm

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:28 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:55 am
Zynerji wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:41 am
Honestly, what they have been able to do with the hybrid tech is probably the single most road-relevant technology from the last 20 years.
All of which begs the question (at least to my mind): if engine manufacturers are able to generate so much electrical energy without additional fuel (or, now, oil), why would you write regulations that make it so convoluted to use that eenergy, often pushing development more in the direction of improved combustion?

For road relevance/green credentials, wouldn’t it make more sense to limit only the ICE specification and fuel allowance, and allow teams to generate as much power as possible from that? Would that not increase fuel efficiency? You could then conceivably then gradually reduce fuel allowances (preferably also reducing weight to help), which is both a great PR story and keeps the PU a relevant part of the car.

Or am I missing something?
I'm all for freezing the ICE, and uncapping the MGUH/K tech, and adding a Front MGUK. These cars would probably reach 70% efficiency if they could just recover/deploy on the front axle...
Right. Can’t understand why the limit on the electrical energy (unless it’s the perpetual cost-saving red herring - they’re always going to spend the money on something!)

roon
309
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by roon » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:32 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:27 pm
Can’t understand why the limit on the electrical energy (unless it’s the perpetual cost-saving red herring - they’re always going to spend the money on something!)
Some want to develop efficient ICEs. Some want to develop hybrids and EVs.

f1316
124
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by f1316 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:37 pm

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:32 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:27 pm
Can’t understand why the limit on the electrical energy (unless it’s the perpetual cost-saving red herring - they’re always going to spend the money on something!)
Some want to develop efficient ICEs. Some want to develop hybrids and EVs.
Ok, so in that case, you can still develop the ICE’s output in current regs - so check! - but you can’t really do that with the electrical energy output without going to these extremely complicated (and not road relevant - you’d never design it this way without the regulation) solutions - so no check.

Seems lopsided and counter to the whole purpose of creating ‘green’ engine regs.

etusch
24
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Turkey

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by etusch » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:48 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm
etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.
Don’t have any position on this personally but just interested to understand why 4wd is not good?
It is against of Formula 1 car's soul. It must be rwd, peak of power and tech and a bit expencive. I am sure nobody accept it.

Zynerji
42
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Zynerji » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:33 pm

etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:48 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm
etusch wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Front wheel regenaration will open a way to 4wd car which is not good like 3 pu for whole season.
Don’t have any position on this personally but just interested to understand why 4wd is not good?
It is against of Formula 1 car's soul. It must be rwd, peak of power and tech and a bit expencive. I am sure nobody accept it.
I thought F1's "soul" was too too be the most technologically advanced racing series on the planet?

Arbitrarily forcing 2WD when tech has proven that AWD is faster (Porche 919) makes no sense to me.

Dex35
0
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:55 am

Re: Ferrari Power Unit

Post by Dex35 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:37 am

by Tommy Cookers » 10 Jul 2018, 04:32

F1 rules have as intended produced piston engines with weak turbine-compounding

'they' don't want F1 to be taken over by turbine engines with weak piston-compounding
or other apparently turbine engines with pistons
(long advocated and seemingly plausible with the core piston engine using CI and CI-suitable fuel)

originally the FIA stated that further reductions in allowed fuel quantity were intended


btw
increasing the boost doesn't increase the H recovery - as increase in compressor work uses all the increase in turbine work

Agree about 1:1 increase in compressor to turbine work. But using a turboexpander to help lower intake air temperature (along with smaller intercooler(s)) could have the benefit of extra electricity. Would go a ways in explaining the rule change about inlet temps being no less than 10* above ambient.