Le FRIC, C'est Chic

Funny how the newest things in F1 really have roots that go back ages.   Take the latest Mercedes nomination "secret",  a trick front suspension that has roots back to the Citroen DS?

What?

OK,  that's a bombastic statement but we are talking about a clever "analog" hydraulic suspension developed by Frenchmen.

You can read about the particulars of what the Brackley Silver Arrows  have done with their front suspension elsewhere,   I will try to distill it.

look at where the pushrod is attached

Mercedes have figured out a loophole in the regulations that allows them to fit a front suspension system that gives them the competitive advantage over Red Bull and Ferrari in terms of aero efficiency and tire management.

Red Bull has something similar but not quite

You remember FRIC (Front to rear interlinked Suspension) introduced by Mercedes in 2011 and banned in mid 2014.  Turns out the re-written rules forbid front to rear and diagonal linkage but there is nothing preventing left to right connections (think sway bar in normal car terms) so teams have been taking advantage of this and have continued to develop suspension that take advantage of this system.    The key has been packaging, most team use a version of a "hydraulic computer" suspension in the rear where space is not at a premium but only Mercedes has figured out how to fit the system on the front axle.

Ferrari is sticking by the letter of the rules... and suffering.

And this is where the clever exploitation of a rule loophole comes in.  Mercedes took advantage of an allowance which had been made for Manor where they were permitted to add a chassis "spacer" to adapt their 2014 car to fit 2015 regulation,  Taking advantage of this gray area allowed the German team to create the space needed  to fit the intricate components needed and to use the vanity panel, an esthetic part for most other teams, as a structural piece.

It's borderline legal and brilliant.

Why go through all this effort? Because the system gives you the ultimate in suspension, soft over fast bumps and stiff over sustained corners,  allowing the car to float over kerbs while maintaining the optimal ride height and aero efficiency in the fast bits while utilizing tires most efficiently.

It's not a new concept,  think Renault mass damper and of course the original FRIC.    Ferrari and Red Bulls chassis are not made in a way this can be easily retrofitted but more crucially, Mercedes have the expertise in tuning what is a very complicated system.

The brains behind this system is said to be French engineer Loic Serra, McLaren tried unsuccessfully to poach him away from Brackley.   Red Bull however was successful in tempting a Mercedes hydraulic engineer over to their side for next season.   At RBR, this yet unnamed tech will work with Pierre Wache another highly touted suspension specialist who,  like Serra, came through Sauber from Michelin, where they both were tire interaction engineers in the early 2000s.

You can read more tech details at Auto Motor und Sport and at Motorsport but score one for engineers and zero for the rule makers.

What's this about Ferrari using Diesel technology in their F1 engines?

Following the Grand Prix in Melbourne, there was a bit of a buzz on the internet about what might have been the secret behind Ferrari's rocket start.

No, no, Ferrari's not rolling coal

It was suggested the Scuderia might have used a page out of diesel technology to get the extra boost which allowed Vettel and Raikkonen to get away from  Rosberg and Hamilton.

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) is a system that, like diesel, relies on compression rather than a spark for ignition.   The thought over at Reddit was that this allows for the faster engine response.

Now, objectively, Vettel did get a great start but he jumped Hamilton because Lewis had a lousy one. It is far more likely the Ferrari clutch system (software included) is better.  On the dirty side of the track, Rosberg and Raikkonen were pretty even down the straight.  Kimi was clever in placing his car in the right spot to take advantage of Rosberg and Hamilton tripping over each other and got ahead.

So, not so sure about this Ferrari "Magic Bullet"  theory.

Still, intrigued, we put the question to our friend currently working in an F1 engine department.

Without giving away more than he had to, he confirmed the theory is, if  not quite right,  somewhat on the right track:  Mercedes have had an super clever ignition system, certainly in 2015 and possibly even in 2014 and Ferrari have implemented a similar system this year.  

What precisely that system is he would not reveal (maybe it involves... "lasers"?)  but it's not HCCI.   Ferrari spent the majority of its engine tokens to implement it and presumably Renault, who has used almost none so far,  will do the same by early summer.

Let's see what Bahrain will bring.

Is Mercedes injecting hydrogen or is someone just blowing gas?

With everyone busy worrying about split turbos, was Mercedes an order of magnitude more diabolically clever?

If you are a regular reader you know enough not to get too excited about pre-season form so, rather than speculate on the future, it's fun to explore "conspiracy" theories while we wait for the season to begin in Australia.

F1 teams are in the middle of the second pre-season testing session in Barcelona and, despite the headlines, most experts agree Mercedes still holds the edge.  Reliability and long runs may not make for fancy titles but that's what wins races.

That only fueled  some corners of the F1 internet in formulating a "theory du jour" seeking to explain this overwhelming superiority and it makes for an entertaining read.   Frst brought up by F1AnalisiTecnica.com and later picked up by Autosprint, it contains just enough, as Steven Colbert would say, "truthiness" to make it tantalizing.

Let me try to lay out this latest theory of where those extra  50 to 70 Mercedes hp might come from.

AutoMotorSport Photo.

The Evidence

Mercedes engines, while never officially tested of course, were thought to produce  50 to 70 more horsepower than their rivals in 2014.   That means that using the same amount of fuel they were able to show an efficiency improvement of 7 to 8%.    That extra efficiency allowed the Germans more flexibility in fuel and aero loads but has been difficult to explain how this might be attained through conventional means.

The problem.

One way to produce more power is to burn more gasoline but, as you know, there is a strict limit of 100kg of fuel and a maximum instantaneous fuel flow limit of 100kg/hr.  You might have more "powerful" fuel but that too is strictly regulated.

The theory

To achieve a more efficient burn, Mercedes is injecting small quantities of hydrogen into the combustion chamber.  Hydrogen injection is known to improve burn velocity and to allow an engine to run leaner  and reduce emission to boot.
Scientific research on the benefits of hydrogen injection was started in the 1970s at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and continues to this day,

Wow, win-win?

Not so fast,  F1 technical regulations forbid injecting stuff other than fuel and air into the combustion chambers.   Article 5.14.2 states:

"Other than engine sump breather gases, exhaust gas recirculation, and fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine, the spraying of any substance into the engine intake air is forbidden"

Hang on, spot  potential loopholes?

That's right, "Other then engine sump breather gasses" is one.

What is not as regulated and is a seldom discussed area of great development in F1 is lubricants.  Companies like Petronas have invested huge sums in advanced research related to F1.  The theory is that they have figured out how to produce lubricants that, via a process of catalytic reforming,  produce hydrogen that is then injected with the fuel.

If not via the lubricants, the other possibility cited is that Mercedes is extracting hydrogen from gasoline.  It's not sci-fi, in fact Mercedes holds a patent for a similar process which you can read here.



So, that's it then?

Ah, no.   The theory is based on several very large assumptions which we discussed with an F1 engineer friend of ours.

The first is that all cars have a comparable aero efficiency.   This is simply not the case,
there is no such thing as a method of comparing drag,  Red Bulls are way more draggy than others for example so any calculations based on top speeds is potentially flawed.

Also there is the assumption that Mercedes is able to produce enough enough hydrogen to make a difference over a whole race and without a substantial weight penalty.

Occam's razor

The third assumption is that Ferrari and Renault did not simply blow their calculations in 2014,  that they did not just underestimate the importance of certain parameters in the Power Unit equation.   Ferrari certainly underestimated the role of the energy store when they sacrificed it in the name of reliability and an aero efficiency.

This would explain why Renault and Ferrari both pushed for more flexibility in engine innovation, they realized their basic premise was flawed.

The idea of hydrogen is intriguing,  cool technology.

Is Mercedes using it in their F1 cars?  Not likely.

But who knows, maybe Toto called this guy!

Ferrari's on a roll?: Scalabroni on the SF15-T front suspension.

Last season, we really enjoyed Peter Windsor's videos with Enrique Scalabroni drawing and explaining F1 tech details,  we're lucky he's he's doing more.

In this latest one, Scalabroni explains the effects a high front roll center had on the 2014 (and earlier) Ferrari. Looking back on it, it explains a lot.

This year's car addresses the issue while maintaining some of the aero advantages of having suspension arms less in the way of the airflow.

What it does not explain is why Ferrari stuck with the older arrangement for so long, perhaps it suited Alonso?

What the FRIC is going on?

XPB photo: AutoMotorSport

At Hockenheim, Mercedes will not run the suspension it has spent two and half years perfecting.

Faced with a ominous yet vague  message from the FIA, Championship leader Mercedes is not willing to risk being penalized according to an article published on Auto Motor ind Sport.  Red Bull may do the same.

FRIC, as you know, is the acronym for Front, Rear InterConnected (or Interactive Control) suspension,  think an evolved version of the circa 2002 Audi RS6 suspension, or the more recent Mclaren MC12c where front and rear are interconnect hydraulically to keep the car's attitude, in roll and pitch, constant.

In the current era, the system was first tried by Lotus and perfected by Mercedes and Red Bull but the basic idea itself is far from new having been first seen in the early 90's on a Minardi,  the engineer in charge then ...wait for it...  Aldo Costa, now engineering director at Mercedes AMG F1.

Most teams on the grid are said to run a more or less successful version of it.  It is set to be banned as of 2015 and replaced, eventually, with active electronic suspension which is actually less expensive to develop then the current "analog" system.

What the FIA have intimated is that they might consider banning the system effective immediately, despite it having been seen as perfectly legal for the past nine races.  The impetus behind this move, according to the article, are possible protests (or requests for clarification) from Mclaren, Ferrari and Caterham.

The argument against it is similar to the Renault mass damper issue of 05/06, that the suspension, by keeping the wings at a fixed angle, is effectively a movable aero device.

It's not very likely that a FRIC-less Mercedes will all of a sudden be within reach of Mclaren, and Ferrari in Germany, a smooth fast track.  Hungary may be a different story.

Mercedes Power: more than just a split turbo.

With time, more of the secrets giving Mercedes AMG their undeniable advantage are gleamed.

   

When the split turbo strategy first came to light, some "in the business" we discussed the subject with were not convinced it alone was enough to explain the performance gap.  The big advantage for the Mercs, they argued, is in their energy store charging strategy which allows them to not have to coast at the end of the straights to recover energy, like Renaults for example  ("please match he beeps"  remember that radio message to Daniel Ricciardo?).  If that's not enough, the Mercedes unit also has an advantage in drivability and power.

These two characteristics would seem to be incompatible: If Merc is not coasting, they must get a lot of their charge from the MGU-H,  so a big turbo.  But a big turbo means turbo lag and more energy spent trying to spin it when it is being driven.    And it is here that it's thought Andy Cowell and the team in Brackley came up with another brilliant engineering detail.

According to ex Ferrari engineer Claudio Lombardi in an interview on SkySportsF1 Italy, Mercedes have in place a system which can momentarily de-couple the turbine side from the compressor side.  This allows the compressor to be free of the resistance of the turbine when it is being driven by electric power, making it more responsive when delivering power on corner exit.    

The advantages of a small turbo while using a big turbo to produce more power and energy.

Brilliant.

Horse Power and Fuel Saving.

We're loving these pre season promotional videos.  This one, from Shell, gives a glimpse behind the scenes at the Scuderia, albeit one revealing almost nothing of the new power units.

We don't know how this new formula will play out for the sport but there is no doubt that preparation for it has been, a monumental challenge on the engineering side.

Take for example the latest speculation about some innovative gearbox management at Ferrari.

In testing some have remarked how quiet, compared to other cars, the red cars were in the corner entry phase.  Usually a car braking while approaching a corner will be downshifting through the gears and  computer controlled gearboxes will automatically blip the throttle to match engine revs and smooth the shifts.  Problem is, with this fuel critical formula, any unnecessary throttle action is a no no.
 
According to Autosprint Ferrari have worked around this by using electrical power from the MGU-K rather than combustion power to match revs on downshifts.  It is a small saving but, considering there might be as many as 70 gearshifts per lap, it adds up over the course of a race.

As with anything there will be pros and cons, less fuel but more stress on electrical components and less power to drive the wheels.

Just another fascinating tidbit to follow.

Red Bull Transformer

Red Bull Content Pool

Dammit, Red Bull even does CGI well....so well they even included their Renaults blowing up! Humor aside, a pretty amazing video.

From the accompanying press release:

"A new clip from Red Bull sees Daniel Ricciardo and Sebastian Vettel explain the 2014 Formula One regulations – which are arguably the most complex the sport has ever seen.

At the start, thousands of car parts simultaneously assemble around Dan to form the RB10. As Dan races to catch up Seb in his RB9, the World Champion’s car becomes transparent while travelling at full speed. The film then presents a visual sequence that shows the 2014 regulation changes taking shape and coming to life, as Seb’s car transforms from an RB9 into an RB10.

As well as providing information on the new technical changes for 2014, the clip also presents a unique view of the technology at work inside this year’s Formula One cars."

Mercedes and Renault are already protesting Ferrari's engine (Updated)

Ferrari Power Unit

Just a day after the presentation of the F14-T and there is news both Mercedes and Renault are raising objections to the way Ferrari has chosen to interpret the 2014 regulations.

At the heart of the matter is article 5.18.5 of the 2014 F1 Technical regulations which states :

5.18.5 Measures must be taken to ensure that in the event of failure of the turbine wheel any resulting significant debris is contained within the car.

Mercedes: note MGU-H in the middle of the turbines

Renault and Mercedes have addressed this by constructing a casing mounted around the turbo, as part of the engine.   As Auto Motor ind Sport explain, this means it they have a ballistic shield covering the turbo which can weigh, our sources tell us, as much as 5 kg.    That is an enormity in F1 especially considering where it is located, high on top of the engine.

Renault and Ferrari have the MGU-H in the "V"

What is Ferrari doing differently?  Here it gets murky but logic would dictate Ferrari would not simply ignore a regulation but made a ballistic cover incorporated into the bodywork.   The advantage in this interpretation and what must worry competitors if it's the route chosen at Maranello,  is that this extra weight will not count towards the 145 kg minimum engine weight.    Why is this crucial? All manufacturers have been struggling to meet that minimum weight and it's easy to see why they would rather have extra mass to reinforce critical engine parts rather than be used for a heavy prophylactic shield.

Of course, one wonders, how did Renault and Mercedes know how Ferrari was packaging the F14-T before it was even presented?

(with Filippo Zanier/ItaliaRacing.net)

UPDATE
the FIA has issued clarifications on both Lotus' fork nose and Ferrari's turbo.  Both are legal.  Ferrari's argument was that the particular construction of the turbo they use meets the regulation's requirements.

F1 Tech: push and pull in 2014.

In 2012, Ferrari used a pullrod front suspension, gambling the cleaner airflow it allows would overcome the disadvantages in higher loads and difficulty in setup.  Results were mixed but Ferrari stuck with it last season.  Mclaren inexplicably went the same route in 2013 and had their worst season in decades.

There was some logic to that choice with the previous regulations but, with the new lower nose, the aero advantage of a pull rod in the front is negated.   Oddly there have been rumors Ferrari might still choose the pull route in front.

While (ex Ferrari and Williams designer) Enrique Scalabroni may not be the most concise explainer there is, the man can draw and don't  you wish you could be there in the room with him ogling the schematics and discussing roll centers over a couple of bottles of Malbec?

Perhaps, after a few bottles of red, Scalabroni might even tell you why he though it would be a great idea to design an F1 car with the wheels in a rhomboid configuration...

Thanks Peter Windsor.  Part 2 after the break

And yet it moves: the RB9 yields another secret.

Finding the "secret" to the Red Bull RB9's seemingly unstoppable performance in the second part of the season has been quite a quest for specialists and fueled much discussion among fans.

Towards the later part of 2013 interest began to focus on the T-tray area,  the flat section under the driver's seat which channels air to the the diffuser.   There was much discussion about images seen via the FIA's thermal cameras,  it was thought Red Bull had come up with a system which would allow movement once the oddly large amount of titanium fasteners were heated by friction.  This theory was championed by BBC's Gary Anderson and it raised enough interest for the FIA to perform a special test, applying heat along with the required 200kg force to the part.   It did not budge.

As it turns out Anderson was getting warmer.  He wasn't the only one, many were curious as to why Red Bull mechanics were both very protective of and yet constantly adjusting something in that area.    Giorgio Piola, along with Franco Nugnes at Omnicorse now shed some light on how Red Bull was able to run what is a completely forbidden moving aerodynamic device, perfectly legally!

First off, let's be clear that if a car passes FIA technical regulations as written it is by definition, legal. Making an end run on regulations and getting away with it is part of the essence of racing and engineering: the "Unfair Advantage", read it.

Newey, argues Piola, has always been a designer who has tended to miniaturize and willing to risk reliability to do so (case in point the size and placement of the KERS batteries which have caused many issues but were never changed).  It was a surprise then when in Brazil, thanks perhaps to the team being a bit more relaxed, a photographer was able to snap a picture which showed the inside of the t-tray and keel assembly.    It revealed a very large (for F1, 30cm) structure, bow shaped and hinged in the middle.

The structure, it is said, worked as a spring but only at values above the FIA's test.  A force above 200 kg applied to one side of the lever would raise the front of the t-tray enough to allow Red Bull to run the car lower and with more rake without worrying about wearing though the compliance skid plate.  

Combine this with the better exhaust blowing Renault engines were able to produce and the better way Newey  channeled  that energy to seal the raked rear and Vettel's ability to figure out how to take full advantage of the package and you understand how Red Bulls were able to regularly trounce their rivals.

So How is Red Bull running traction control legally?

You might have noticed a number of articles here and there trying to rationalize Vettel's crushing advantage in Singapore.   The guy is quick but 2 seconds a lap quicker the everyone else, based on talent alone, nobody's buying that one.  The secret is in the car,  or rather the car and driver package.

One theory revolves around engine mapping.  As you know, F1 cars used to get huge downforce by "blowing" the diffuser on the off throttle,  having fuel mix combust in the headers rather than on top of the pistons and thus keeping the exhaust flow energized.   This was banned after 2011.

In 2012 it became clear that where you come up with a rule, designers will figure a way around it.  So Coanda effect exhausts and even more work on engine mapping  made engines honk much like when they were "blowing" , which of course, they cannot anymore.



That first car by in the clip, published by Autosprint, is Vettel in Singapore.  One thing is certain, his RB9 is the only car making that distinctive sound.  Webber's RB9, the fourth car in the clip, sounds "normal".
But is that really the secret, it's still pushing exhaust pressure on the off throttle?  I'd say no way Red Bull would try to get away with something that blatant.  What you are hearing are cylinders being shut off, something Mr Whiting gave a pass to Renault last year as long as it's no more than 4 at a time (Renault pleaded reliability).  Red Bull's software has been checked and re-checked by the FIA because other teams have raised the issue  so, if they are "blowing", they are doing it by "cheating" legally, so to speak.

The biggest advantage for the RB9 is slow corner traction, Singapore is the most extreme example of a point and squirt track. Montreal is also a point and squirt track and, if you remember, there was more than a few questions about traction control there as well,  along with the same honky engine sounds being heard at times.

Of course if the "buzz" were traction control, it would not happen mid corner but on corner exit,
so, how might a form of traction control, or perhaps, Torque Control work?    All manner of theories have been bouncing around online,  one has been given a big boost in credibility by an article in Racecar Engineering:  the use of KERS charging to modulate power.

KERS has a defined amount of power it can store and discharge but there is no obligation on when to charge it so, the theory goes that Red Bull has figured out a way to use the charging phase to modulate output torque on corner exit.  If this were controlled in response to wheelspin,  it would be traction control and illegal.  What Racecar Engineering is speculating is that it is controlled by sensors in the shocks: shock is compressed means more grip then you have full power, shock is extended then you might get less torque (because it's charging KERS) and less potential wheelspin.    In effect a form of traction control which seems to be legal by the letter of the rules.  Remember Webber's tire marks in Montreal?

You might imagine  a system like this would require extra sensors and controllers While the KERS system is separate from the auxiliary electrical system, it is also known that the RB9 places especially high demands on its alternators which led to failures in the past (as constructed, materials were not up to demands).   A connection?

There are of course a bunch of other theories out there about what Newey might have come up with, these are more in the "there was no moon landing" category but, for fun...

- there are electrical heating elements placed behind the diffuser "intake" holes which, using battery power, superheat the airflow providing the same effect as exhaust blowing.
-Red Bull is able to "package" the rear of the car so tightly because they are using a "Peltier effect" heat pump to cool the exhaust.

As I said, sci-fi, but fun.

What is going on is Red Bull have come up with something that works, but works perfectly because Vettel knows how to take full advantage of it.  The car is build around him, what he's good at and what he knows how to fully exploit.   Webber may very well have precisely the same car but he, for whatever reason, is not able to extract that same advantage consistently.

Optimizing the package and pushing the rules,  that's what F1 is all about, love it or hate it.

F1 is back and what was Mercedes up to with their wheels?

Before the summer break, Mercedes AMG showed it had come to terms with its Achilles heel, tire wear, could clever wheels have helped?

The summer break is finally over, this week end Formula One is back at the best track, Spa.  Twitter feeds fired up, press releases, articles are written...all is good with the world!

Hot Gas Management

One of the few area free for engineers to tinker on F1 engines but one seldom discussed are exhausts.    Teams change configurations all the time looking for an edge, often to suit the circuit, none more so than Red Bull.  

Check out a package Red Bull brought to Silverstone.   Note the coated headers and the heat shield cladding over the whole engine.  This is likely all designed with an eye to keeping the internal aero workings of the car efficient and the exhaust plume as energized as possible.

Another development this week end is from Lotus who are finally deploying an reconfigured "double DRS",  a way to stall the rear wing  like the old "F-Duct" used to but without intervention from the driver (as mandated by regulations).

The air is collected in scoops next to the engine air inlet and then blown at low speed in the "monkey seat"  zone.  At high speed the flow is diverted to the periscope structure you see in the picture and up under the wing, making it stall.     As you can imagine tuning this system has to be a mighty challenge but Silverstone will be the perfect testing ground.

2014 Renault Energy-F1 Power Plant Revealed.

Is that an intercooler in your sidepod or are you just happy to see me?

It's back to the future for the team responsible for the 1980s turbo revolution as Renault revealed their 2014 Formula 1 hybrid power plant.

The new engine is a 1.6 turbo v6 with direct injection and the new dual system Energy Recovery System mandated by the 2014 FIA engine regulations.    This evolution of the current KERS will produce 160 hp, twice as much power as the current engine assist.  The system is now divided between ERS- Kinetic ( similar in function to the current KERS ) and ERS-Heat which recovers energy via the exhaust.  

For more details on the 2014 ERS read THIS.

The official name is Renault Energy-F1 and is expected to produce about the same power as today's 2.4 liter engines.   New regulations are aimed at fuel economy, limiting rpm to 15000 and while leaving teams free to use any amount of turbo boost they choose, cuts flue flow by 40% over current spec engines.   Cars will also be allowed to carry only 100 kg of fuel per race, verses the current 160kg.

So, big space saving for the engine block, big fuel savings, as you can imagine, not a very big cost savings.  For example we're told a single turbo for one of these engine costs in the $100,000 range!

WHEN IS TRACTION CONTROL NOT TRACTION CONTROL?...

...When they can't figure out how you do it and you don't get caught.

Traction control has been banned from Formula 1 for years now but anyone sitting by the hairpin turn in Montreal was well aware of Red Bull's superior traction out of  corners.  Vettel certainly smoked everyone off the line at the start and had gained a 2.5 second advantage on Lewis Hamilton by the end of the first lap. There is no doubt the RB9 is hooked up.

A sharp eyed reader of Autosprint noticed Vettel's Webber's car was leaving the curious set of tire marks you see in the picture:  It looks like traction control, it smells like traction control, it certainly sounded like traction control.

What's going on here?  As you can well imagine, if a viewer can spot this on TV, rival teams have been all over it for a while,  complaining to FIA repeatedly we're told.  Despite the best efforts of FIA technical personel, nobody has been able to come up with anything illegal on the RB9.   

Traction control as a specific component is banned but its function is now duplicated by all, with different degrees of success, via engine maps that manipulate torque curves and use partial firing of cylinders to achieve the a similar result.   Mapping is  one of the black arts of modern racing and one essentially impossible to police.  

Even with the insane tech of today's F1 the old maxims still apply: " if you 'ain't cheating, you ain't trying" and " it's only cheating if you get caught".

Carry on.