Mercedes Power Unit Hardware & Software

[noname]

Would it not be more reasonable for the customers to always have the same modes, but maybe with firm instructions on how long/often they are safe to be used ?

To be able to give such an instruction you need to know whole package inside out. Cooling, lubricants, loads coming from chassis, etc., etc. To collect all of this somebody would have to run 100s' hours on the dyno and simulations, and it would have to be end user, not Merc. I do not see this happening.

[MrPotatoHead]

The mapping is fairly straightforward.
As mentioned by others here the customer teams have different intercooler setups, and different lubricants and fuels.
Because of this you'll have the "optimized" for Mercedes parts and fluids calibration files.
For everyone else you'll have more "generic" "safe" calibration files for the not quite so optimized hardware and fluids.

Otherwise Mercedes would need to have 3 or 4 different engine dyno setups all running in parallel to test the different customer combinations.

This is why Ron Dennis made the comment that McLaren would never win with a "customer" engine and needed a "works" engine. This caused the Honda gamble which did not pay off for them sadly.

[Juzh]

The mapping is fairly straightforward.
As mentioned by others here the customer teams have different intercooler setups, and different lubricants and fuels.
Because of this you'll have the "optimized" for Mercedes parts and fluids calibration files.
For everyone else you'll have more "generic" "safe" calibration files for the not quite so optimized hardware and fluids.

Otherwise Mercedes would need to have 3 or 4 different engine dyno setups all running in parallel to test the different customer combinations.

This is why Ron Dennis made the comment that McLaren would never win with a "customer" engine and needed a "works" engine. This caused the Honda gamble which did not pay off for them sadly.

Funny how all this crap wasn't a problem in the V8 era.

[dans79]

Funny how all this crap wasn't a problem in the V8 era.

I take it you missed all the equalization stuff?

No reanson to develop anything new that pushes the limit, if you always get knocked back down to the lowest common denomenator.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/78776 ... ualisation

[MrPotatoHead]

The mapping is fairly straightforward.
As mentioned by others here the customer teams have different intercooler setups, and different lubricants and fuels.
Because of this you'll have the "optimized" for Mercedes parts and fluids calibration files.
For everyone else you'll have more "generic" "safe" calibration files for the not quite so optimized hardware and fluids.

Otherwise Mercedes would need to have 3 or 4 different engine dyno setups all running in parallel to test the different customer combinations.

This is why Ron Dennis made the comment that McLaren would never win with a "customer" engine and needed a "works" engine. This caused the Honda gamble which did not pay off for them sadly.

Funny how all this crap wasn't a problem in the V8 era.

Welcome to highly strung turbocharged engines.

[Webber2011]

Would it not be more reasonable for the customers to always have the same modes, but maybe with firm instructions on how long/often they are safe to be used ?

To be able to give such an instruction you need to know whole package inside out. Cooling, lubricants, loads coming from chassis, etc., etc. To collect all of this somebody would have to run 100s' hours on the dyno and simulations, and it would have to be end user, not Merc. I do not see this happening.

The mapping is fairly straightforward.
As mentioned by others here the customer teams have different intercooler setups, and different lubricants and fuels.
Because of this you'll have the "optimized" for Mercedes parts and fluids calibration files.
For everyone else you'll have more "generic" "safe" calibration files for the not quite so optimized hardware and fluids.

Otherwise Mercedes would need to have 3 or 4 different engine dyno setups all running in parallel to test the different customer combinations.

This is why Ron Dennis made the comment that McLaren would never win with a "customer" engine and needed a "works" engine. This caused the Honda gamble which did not pay off for them sadly.

Thanks guys, I kind of new all this would be a great strain on Mercedes if they were to supply all their customers with equal mapping, but didn't realise the extent as far as how much time and money it would take.

My morals as far as fair play towards the customers probably got in the way of common sense to be honest

Red Bull have shown in previous years that you can outperform your engine supplier, but in your honest opinions, what's the chances of that happening these day with such a complex PU ? ? ?

Cheers,
Simo'

[f1316]

You could also simply specify in the regulations that identical fuel and lubricants are supplied as part of the deal (teams could still show logos from other fuel suppliers for sponsorship if they wanted).

That way identical maps could also be supplied - no need for separate dynos etc.

[dans79]

You could also simply specify in the regulations that identical fuel and lubricants are supplied as part of the deal (teams could still show logos from other fuel suppliers for sponsorship if they wanted).

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't sit very well with the sponsors. Half the reason they sponsor, is because they want to claim that their product gives a competitive edge. They can't legally do that if the car isn't actually running their product (false advertising).

For example i used to see this commercial about 2 dozen times every race weened back in the day.
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7pe6/mobil-1-be ... il-goes-in

[Blackout]

The only reason any of this is done is to secure an advantage. So, it is literally impossible for a Merc customer car to compete with a Merc factory car.

How do you explain RBR (3rd) wiping the mat with Renault (6th) ?

RBR - 3 wins, 13 podiums, 13 retirements, 368 points
Reanult - 0 wins, 0 podiums, 11 retirements, 57 points

Hint, it's not because the engine manufactures are doing anything to hinder their clients, it's about who can best optimize the total package!

Yeah and it's because Renault and RBR did NOT have the same workeforce/budget/development time for the 2017 cars/infrastructures at all.
Merc is atleast twice as big as its customers so even if merc gives them the same PU, their chassis will allways be far better; on paper...
Same for RB today: The RB13 conception started earlier than the RS17, more than 700 people worked on it; with a stable long standing technical team in well established facilities... while the Renault 2017 project started 1 month after Renault took over Lotus and less than 500 people worked on it at the beginning (470 to 520 all in all), in a factory that was quite dusty and rusty in many areas especially during the first half of 2016.
And if RB spends 90% of their money chasing performance, Renault must also focus on the factories and buy dozens of people and machines
That's why the Renault team that produced the 2017 car, is a smaller team compared to RB/Merc etc and even Williams. That means the gap between them in lap time is completely logical today...

AMuS says:
Merc 949 PS. Ferrari 934 PS, Renault 907 PS und Honda 881 PS. https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

[MrPotatoHead]

You could also simply specify in the regulations that identical fuel and lubricants are supplied as part of the deal (teams could still show logos from other fuel suppliers for sponsorship if they wanted).

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't sit very well with the sponsors. Half the reason they sponsor, is because they want to claim that their product gives a competitive edge. They can't legally do that if the car isn't actually running their product (false advertising).

For example i used to see this commercial about 2 dozen times every race weened back in the day.
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7pe6/mobil-1-be ... il-goes-in

The name on the car isn't always the same as what's actually in the engine though
Most of the time it is. But not always.

[MrPotatoHead]

Here's an interesting fact that someone at Mercedes told me earlier this year - Mercedes gained 50HP in 2017 from the fuel.

If the customer teams do not have the same fuel they can't have the same 50HP...

[OO7]

Here's an interesting fact that someone at Mercedes told me earlier this year - Mercedes gained 50HP in 2017 from the fuel.

If the customer teams do not have the same fuel they can't have the same 50HP...

Happy new year MrPotatoHead

50bhp from the fuel alone in one season! That puts the efficiency calculations into perspective. Previously I mentioned that the fuel would have improved from the 1662bhp value Andy Cowell (or Paddy Lowe) mentioned a few years ago, but I didn't think it was as significant as you have stated.

I remember Alonso being involved in a demonstration at Ferrari a while back, when his F1 car was run on pump fuel. There was a drop in performance (I'm not sure how much or if it was even revealed) and it makes me wonder how drastically the V6T would suffer in a similar venture.

[gruntguru]

50bhp from the fuel alone in one season! That puts the efficiency calculations into perspective. Previously I mentioned that the fuel would have improved from the 1662bhp value Andy Cowell (or Paddy Lowe) mentioned a few years ago, but I didn't think it was as significant as you have stated.

No doubt an improved heating value would account for some of the 50hp and of course that portion does not improve the thermal efficiency of the ICE. Some of the gains would also be enhancements to other fuel properties such as octane rating, ignition point, latent heat of vaporisation etc etc.

[OO7]

50bhp from the fuel alone in one season! That puts the efficiency calculations into perspective. Previously I mentioned that the fuel would have improved from the 1662bhp value Andy Cowell (or Paddy Lowe) mentioned a few years ago, but I didn't think it was as significant as you have stated.

No doubt an improved heating value would account for some of the 50hp and of course that portion does not improve the thermal efficiency of the ICE. Some of the gains would also be enhancements to other fuel properties such as octane rating, ignition point, latent heat of vaporisation etc etc.

Considering the sheer scale of performance growth stemming from fuel alone, I wonder what sort of gains are being seen from hardware/combustion redesign?

[Big Tea]

Would this be from just the fuel formulation, or hardware changes that become usable because of the fuel formulation?
Or indeed the fuel formulation possible to use because of hardware/software changes?

It seems like a huge amount on its own, without even considering how developed it already was a year ago.
Has some 'gizmo' been found that is an enabler and that is the big leap?

(please excuse my questions if they seem obvious to you, I really am interested not just being a distraction.)