F1technical.net

So we got confirmation there is a second sensor and Arrivabene heavily implies it is in relation to the "complex" battery system. He does deny it hit the power, but I think he would deny regardless of what is going on.

Curious how he looked pissed off by the fact that it got leaked. I do tend to believe he is worried the intellectual property of the battery system might get leaked.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 10:26

So we got confirmation there is a second sensor and Arrivabene heavily implies it is in relation to the "complex" battery system. He does deny it hit the power, but I think he would deny regardless of what is going on.

Curious how he looked pissed off by the fact that it got leaked. I do tend to believe he is worried the intellectual property of the battery system might get leaked.

Yes and that’s scandalous, in my opinion. Just the FIA and Ferrari know these kind of details. Since Ferrari obviously won’t leak the information themselves, there can only be one option left.

LM10 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:29

Since Ferrari obviously won’t leak the information themselves

The Ferrari is not a single entity, there are many people working, also there may be subcontractors etc.
Also, the leak itself does not explain why the performance seems to have dropped.

timbo wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:48

LM10 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:29

Since Ferrari obviously won’t leak the information themselves

The Ferrari is not a single entity, there are many people working, also there may be subcontractors etc.
Also, the leak itself does not explain why the performance seems to have dropped.

They should ask the AMuS reporters from where they got these informations.

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:51

timbo wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:48

LM10 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:29

Since Ferrari obviously won’t leak the information themselves

The Ferrari is not a single entity, there are many people working, also there may be subcontractors etc.
Also, the leak itself does not explain why the performance seems to have dropped.

They should ask the AMuS reporters from where they got these informations.

And you think they would reveal their source!?

marvin78 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:52

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:51

timbo wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 11:48

The Ferrari is not a single entity, there are many people working, also there may be subcontractors etc.
Also, the leak itself does not explain why the performance seems to have dropped.

They should ask the AMuS reporters from where they got these informations.

And you think they would reveal their source!?

Well...no

turbof1 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 10:26

So we got confirmation there is a second sensor and Arrivabene heavily implies it is in relation to the "complex" battery system. He does deny it hit the power, but I think he would deny regardless of what is going on.

Curious how he looked pissed off by the fact that it got leaked. I do tend to believe he is worried the intellectual property of the battery system might get leaked.

I agree. I think they had more wing on in Sochi because of their tyre heating problems so they looked down on power and Singapore isn't a renowned power circuit anyway. This weekend won't reveal a great deal either, maybe Austin will be a better place to judge.

Too much smoke for it to be nothing for me. I do think they were doing something that would be considered a grey area and the second sensor would just confirm it.

Looks like they took the decision to just stop doing that before they truly get caught. If they got caught doing something that another team can protest, it's possible they could get thrown out of races which they really don't want.

That's my tinfoil hat 2 cents anyway.

Talking about smoke ...
The Ferrari's have stopped smoking heavily on start up too.

GrandAxe wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 12:43

Talking about smoke ...
The Ferrari's have stopped smoking heavily on start up too.

This was already the case a few races into the season...

Have you guys seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q1gGmU40zA

digitalrurouni wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 14:14

Have you guys seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q1gGmU40zA

Yes, it was posted a page or two ago (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21958&start=2895#p796171). Thanks again for it though. Which leads me back to what was said ~3:50.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 06:48

I think the rules are being misinterpreted here. For one thing it is not possible to "spool" the compressor without creating boost. Try reading it this way:

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor and it may only be linked to (driven by) a sole single stage exhaust turbine and an electrical motor generator (MGU-H)

I'm not sure, but not convinced 100% either way either. The spool up part for instance, agreed you can't spool up without producing boost, however they may be able to spool until just as boost is increased, from the H, tough one to do and police in my eyes. You can have something connected and yet not able to drive it directly. There is a provision for a clutch also. The more I read it the more inclined I am to agree with Scarbs interpretation.

Has there ever been a team which has stated they use electric turbo/supercharging? I know, it's like asking if they have verified that they use spark plugs, but if they have said it directly then it could be put to bed.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 14:36

digitalrurouni wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 14:14

Have you guys seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q1gGmU40zA

Yes, it was posted a page or two ago (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21958&start=2895#p796171). Thanks again for it though. Which leads me back to what was said ~3:50.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 06:48

I think the rules are being misinterpreted here. For one thing it is not possible to "spool" the compressor without creating boost. Try reading it this way:

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor and it may only be linked to (driven by) a sole single stage exhaust turbine and an electrical motor generator (MGU-H)

I'm not sure, but not convinced 100% either way either. The spool up part for instance, agreed you can't spool up without producing boost, however they may be able to spool until just as boost is increased, from the H, tough one to do and police in my eyes. You can have something connected and yet not able to drive it directly. There is a provision for a clutch also. The more I read it the more inclined I am to agree with Scarbs interpretation.

Has there ever been a team which has stated they use electric turbo/supercharging? I know, it's like asking if they have verified that they use spark plugs, but if they have said it directly then it could be put to bed.

Did I mishear @scarbs. I would not be convinced by an assertion that the MGU-H cannot drive the compressor. If that were the case there’d be no anti-lag, Honda’s “extra deploy” technique would be illegal, and finally boost would drop when the wastegates open.

The business of two batteries and extra sensors intrigues me. Firstly I don’t think the FIA fitted any more sensors in the early season tests. They explicitly said that this was difficult to do and they weren’t going to ask Ferrari to do so. Secondly, the regs say only one sensor to measure everything in and out of the ES. This implies, although it is not required explicitly, that there is only one connection between the ES management unit and the DC-DC converter attached to the CU-H and CU-K. The management unit can then connect as many cell combinations, “batteries”, as Ferrari want to fit.

I suggest two possible scenarios. Either Ferrari connect “directly” from the ES manager to the H, after all it’s unregulated in the regs, or the management unit creates a situation in switching between batteries that confuses the sensor into recording less energy transfer than actually happens. Such a scenario is the sort of thing that an employee might see in testing and then refine to reap a reward. There were reports earlier in the season about there being a specific cabling component to the way Ferrari gained an advantage from their twin batteries.

There is, of course, a third scenario in which there’s nothing happening. But that’s much less fun.
There

This could be a reason. The FIA quietly fitted a second sensor, to monitor the system, wasn't happy with what Ferrari was saying and the data they gathered and told them to stop doing it. Thus they now have a PU that can't run at 100% of its designed potential, doesn't even mean its illegal.

2.7 Duty of Competitor :
It is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards that his
automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.
The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features,
demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of physical inspection of
hardware or materials. No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a means of
ensuring its compliance.

siskue2005 wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 06:56

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2018, 23:33

dans79 wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2018, 22:44

Scarabs has weighed in on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q1gGmU40zA

Interesting remarks. Especially at the 3:15 mark...'MGU-H is not allowed to produce boost, as such, so it cannot be used as an electric turbocharger'. Did I miss something?

i also thought the MGU H can be used to spin up the Turbo at low speed?
or am i getting it wrong here? please correct me

At the traxk

At the track i even heard the turbo’s spin up, when revving the engine for a (simulation) start. Sounded like the turbo/mgu was spinning at max rpm, while the crankshaft was kept at 7000-8000 before they relause the clutch peddle.