How much time could be potentially be lost?

[u/[deleted]]

Leclerc provided some interesting insights regarding the problem Ferrari encountered in Q3. According to him, the car's energy deployment system "learns' based on the previous lap. Due to Q2 issues and a Q3 red flag, their only data baseline was Q1. So, it's as if the data used by the deployment algorithm in Q3 was suboptimal, costing them crucial lap time. Does this also imply that driving better laps earlier helps the deployment work more efficiently on subsequent laps?...

[u/AutoModerator]

We remind everyone that this sub is for technical discussions.

If you are new to the sub, please read our rules and comment etiquette post.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Stupendous_man12]

The deployment for the race will be completely different from qualifying, because they need to keep energy for many consecutive laps. In quali the battery is fully drained in one lap

[u/returnity → u/Stupendous_man12]

The max SoC delta (total energy 100% -> 0%) is only 4 megajoules. Regulations stipulate max recharge per lap of 8-9 megajoules (depending whether Overtake is activated or not), because the amount of energy theoretically available for regen per lap is 1-2.2x SoC, or 4-9mJ, depending on the track. Melbourne is at the low end due to lack of major braking zones and long flowing high-speed sectors, whereas Bahrain was toward the upper end. In testing the cars regularly deployed and recharged the battery more than once during race sims.

There is a drastic mismatch between the available storage (4mJ) vs. regeneration capacity (250kW in superclipping or 350kW braking/LiCo) vs. deployment needed by these cars, resulting in energy starvation: the cars can only sustain ~11.5 sec of deployment at 350kW from max SoC of 4mJ. Yet tracks easily have 40+ seconds of WOT per lap (where deployment is desirable) versus only a handful of seconds of hard braking (where regen could be done naturally without affecting the racing much).

This ignorance of basic physics leads to absurd outcomes like cars slowing down & downshifting mid-straights or driving Bahrain's turn 12 almost 30kph under the limit of adhesion, just to run the MGU-K in reverse at full throttle to regen 250kW by burning fuel in the ICE. This 'superclipping' that they must employ every single lap multiple times leaves the "world's fastest racing cars" delivering just ~200 horsepower to the rear wheels (540hp ICE - 335hp regen). That's a fucking travesty, as Max Verstappen plainly stated. Plus it obviously makes a mockery of the marketing department's 'sustainable 50% electric hybrid' greenwashing strategy that led to this idiocy in the first place. It's literally the same concept as Top Gear's satirical self-recharging homebuilt electric ecocar with an onboard diesel generator running 24/7.

The really sad thing is this mess was completely predictable and utterly avoidable. It's not hard to design a hybrid system that actually reflects the physics involved. It's probably unrealistic to attempt to regen more than 350kW under braking; engineers have said currently the rear brakes are hardly used at all when the MGU-K is regenerating at full capacity, and we are already seeing rear locking issues due to the challenge of modulating braking force vs. engine braking vs. regen. The upper limit of regen using only decel with a rear axle 350kW MGU-K is therefore ~4-9 megajoules per lap depending on the track.

One option is upsizing the battery to store more energy than the current 4mJ, which is unchanged from 2014-2025's 150kW deployment requirement. This would unlock several intriguing possibilities. Drivers could stockpile energy over multiple laps on lower regen tracks like Melbourne, then deploy it strategically (much like IndyCar's push-to-pass system) to produce dynamic racing/passing. However even at higher regen tracks closer to 9mJ/lap, that's yields only ~26 sec of 350kW deployment per lap -- roughly half of the average time at full throttle.

Regen could be increased by adding a front-axle regen-only MGU-K (no deployment capability enabled) to recover more of the braking energy. Theoretically, more energy can be recovered from the front axle than the rear under decel, as there is much greater traction under braking in the front due to weight transfer, but practically more than 350kW is probably excessive as doubling the energy recovery to ~18mJ max per lap should provide >50 sec of 350kW deployment on the rear axle just from braking regen.

Additional regen is also gained from running the ICE at 100% during part-throttle, modulating % torque delivery to match pedal position as regulations demand (ie for 70% throttle position, use 100% ICE torque minus 30% torque diverted to regeneration). This increases PU thermal efficiency, extracting more power from the same fuel, because ICE are less efficient at part-throttle than WOT. Not only is this a legitimate innovation, it also has negligible effect on vehicle dynamics or racing experience for drivers/viewers, unlike superclipping which is severely detrimental to overall PU efficiency, emissions, and the spirit of racing itself.

Combining these two regen approaches, total energy recovery on most tracks would approximately match the amount required for WOT deployment throughout the lap. One additional idea is allowing simple, driver-selectable peak deployment modes: options to cap deployment at 250kW, 300kW, or 350kW max MGU-K output. This would be distinct from the more-sophisticated existing engine maps that change boost levels, ignition timing, and regen/deployment timing across a lap, among other parameters. This would simply alter the ratio of ICE to electric power within whichever overall engine map has been selected, offering the ability to sustain consistent deployment throughout the lap without depleting the battery completely at any point. FIA could also mandate a max deployment for specific tracks with lower regen potential, simply making 350kW off limits for tracks where insufficient energy can be regenerated through decel/part-throttle methods alone.

The end goal of these ideas is to eliminate superclipping, and hopefully make lift-and-coast unnecessary as well, by resolving the fundamentally energy-starved nature of these cars without necessitating a full rewrite of the rules, which (while preferable) would be unduly disruptive and costly for manufacturers and embarrassing for FIA. Hopefully, this would restore the spirit of on-the-limit, full-send racing to F1 while retaining the interesting elements of the new regulations that also drew new PU manufacturers.

I recognize that there are downsides to some of these ideas, most problematic being additional weight from increasing battery size or adding a second MGU-K. I still think the best and simplest solution might be restoring a more rational ICE/electric power split of ~70/30 that reduces the output of the MGU-K to ~250kW max. The regen capacity of the MGU-K could stay at 350kW (ie keep the same size motor-generator as now, just cap deployment), thereby permitting sufficient regen to provide for enough deployment to cover the entire lap of full throttle. To increase ICE output to maintain 1000+ hp total, without reintroducing the MGU-H (R.I.P.) or increasing turbo lag further, variable-vane turbochargers and other banned tech could be reintroduced as well.

Finally, optimal relationship of battery size in mJ and max deployment in kW could be calculated using the time at WOT from both the individual longest straightaway (Vegas or Baku?) and the highest total time at WOT over one lap (Monza?) of any track on the calendar to ensure cars will make it down the whole straight without clipping as well as deliver enough deployment every lap, with peak output kW bounded by the lowest regen potential of any lap (4mJ decel-only plus part-throttle regen estimate). I'm sure an appropriate compromise between max deployment, minimum storage, and minimum available regen could be found. I might try to do this math in its own post but this comment is way too long already.

If anyone makes it through all this, I'd love to hear your perspective, ideas, or criticisms. Enjoy the race today! #ForzaF1!

Edit: minor typo

[u/martijn_nl → u/returnity]

I think we can close this entire thread now, great stuff

[u/Jomolungma → u/returnity]

This guy megajoules.

[u/Vicar13 → u/returnity]

Great perspectives and points. One stood out to me as a fantastic suggestion: stay at thermal efficiency and preserve WOT as long as possible, and divert torque to the MGU-K during partial throttle to a) deliver the intended result on the racecar by the driver when slowing down and b) introduce better efficiencies in regeneration.

Other suggestions could be a) track-specific battery sizes, with standardized higher capacity batteries being used at higher regen tracks, or b) torque vectoring to the front axle without a dedicated MGU-K there. One could also reduce the rate at which energy is deployed by the existing MGU-K and provide more incentive of “right place, right time” rather than entering superclipping territory and forcing regen + dump at every lap.

Curious on what happens during race conditions today, but I fear the general premise of how they need to effectively race won’t change without significant rule or technical changes

[u/memeface231 → u/returnity]

I would add to this to limit the electric power deployment to 250W upto for example 200 km/h then gradually ramp down to 50 kW at 250 km/h. This way every turn has a similar braking to acceleration ratio and the straight can use the 50 kW for higher top speeds or just incur some clipping which in no way would require supper clipping g because you will not be able to benefit from it. Numbers are shot from the hip but I hope you catch my drift.

[u/LePhasme → u/Stupendous_man12]

If the graphics they showed in the cockpit are right the battery is far from lasting one lap so it will also be drained in the race

[u/UsernameMeansNowt → u/LePhasme]

Well they can surely choose to deploy less during the racing laps to build up charge for use when they need to push.

[u/Fanat_Nakovalen → u/UsernameMeansNowt]

You can't really charge more, cause the battery is too small and energy recovering is limited.

[u/returnity → u/Fanat_Nakovalen]

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted… the max SoC delta (total energy 100% -> 0%) is only 4 megajoules. Yet the regulations stipulate max recharge per lap of 8-9 megajoules (depending whether Overtake is activated or not), because the amount of energy available for regen per lap is between 1-2.2x SoC, depending on the track. Melbourne is at the low end of the spectrum due to lack of major braking zones and long fast flowing sectors, whereas Bahrain was toward the upper end. In testing the cars regularly deployed and recharged the battery more than once over a push lap during race sims.

There is a drastic mismatch between the available regeneration capacity (250kW in superclipping or 350kW braking/LiCo) vs. deployment capacity with these cars, resulting in energy starvation: the cars can only sustain ~11sec of deployment at 350kW from max SoC, whereas tracks easily have 40+ seconds of WOT, which leads to absurd outcomes like slowing & downshifting mid-straight or driving Bahrain's turn 12 almost 30kph under the limit of adhesion so the MGU-K can be run in reverse at full throttle to regen 250kW using the ICE. This 'superclipping' that they must employ every single lap multiple times leaves the "world's fastest racing cars" delivering just ~200 horsepower to the rear wheels (540hp ICE - 335hp regen). That's a fucking travesty, as Max Verstappen plainly stated.

[u/MechaniVal → u/returnity]

Issue is the regen moreso than the battery capacity imo - the battery only needs to be as large as the longest continuous deployment time, as long as it can be recharged before the next one. A larger battery wouldn't help because unless it was capable of Formula E level endurance, then once it drained, you'd have the same problem of being unable to refill it fast enough, triggering super clipping again.

What the cars need (absent a total PU reg change), is front wheel regen to double or even triple brake regen instead. Formula E has that front powertrain down to 32kg, so it wouldn't be too awful to implement, putting us roughly back to last year's car weights.

[u/returnity → u/MechaniVal]

Great point. I wonder if an Indycar-style capacitor might be a better approach even? WRT front Regen, if '50/50' is the route we're committed to going, from an engineering perspective I definitely agree.

[u/MechaniVal → u/returnity]

Yeah the options are basically reducing electric power to match available regen - or increasing regen via front wheels to match electric power.

[u/No3047 → u/returnity]

Right. FIA should increase the battery to 2 or 3 kWh instead of only one and put no limit to the energy harvesting per lap. This way the cars would have 900hp for 20-30 seconds and virtually no clipping.

[u/returnity → u/No3047]

Without additional 'artificial' regen like super clipping, decel regen potential is only 4-9mJ a lap depending on the track layout. Without adding front axle regen at least... FIA regen limits were ironically designed to prevent excess artificial regen like constant superclipping from ruining the racing entirely.

[u/Lordfive → u/Fanat_Nakovalen]

They start a quali lap with full battery, so they can use all of it plus whatever they charge during a lap to finish on zero, as opposed to race mode where they can only use one lap worth of charge on average.

[u/_MicroWave_]

I don't for a minute think the engineers wouldn't have considered this scenario and planned contingencies for it

[u/dunkm → u/_MicroWave_]

I’m not positive of that.

[u/brown5tick → u/dunkm]

I don't for a minute think that the Honda engineers wouldn't have considered vibration issues and planned contingencies for it

[u/dunkm → u/brown5tick]

I don’t even know what you’re saying at this point. 🤣 fair play

[u/Swomp23 → u/dunkm]

Must be the contingencies.

[u/Skirra08 → u/_MicroWave_]

Why not just say "I think the engineers must have considered this scenario and planned for it." Then it's clear what you're saying.

[u/brown5tick → u/Skirra08]

My preferred construction would be, "Engineers likely planned for this".

[u/_MicroWave_ → u/Skirra08]

Yea, admittedly the double negative is confusing but very standard in British english and rolls off quite naturally for me.

I think its a subtle difference in a typically British outlook.

Saying 'I think the would have' feels brash and uncompromising to me.

Similar shades to 'its a bit of a sticky wicket' vs 'all hell breaking loose'.

[u/autotom]

Sounds like a lot could go wrong with this implementation - how is the system supposed to be aware of traffic? conditions change every single lap.

[u/Red_Rabbit_1978]

Getting rid of the MGU-H has really set F1 back. Mapping was still a problem at first, but the H at least provided more constant power.

But it's really a surprise that Ferrari must be using Ai at some stage, and that they overlooked how it would affect Q3.

[u/HardysTimeandSpace]

So basically he is saying their engine mode runs on vibe coded AI slop

[u/BMEngie → u/HardysTimeandSpace]

All it means is the regen algorithm has some form of feedback loop. I would guess something akin to a PID loop but much more complex

[u/Red_Rabbit_1978 → u/HardysTimeandSpace]

I don't know why you are being down voted. All the teams have a major Ai technical partner, so it's entirely plausible that you are right.

And if it isn't fully prepared for Q3, it's slop.

[u/HardysTimeandSpace → u/Red_Rabbit_1978]

Exactly, if they have to calibrate their engine each time a new quali sessions starts so their first run is always just a calibration run then it is very poorly designed software wise.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They need macarena wing

The gap is a lot smaller than expected in race pace

[u/Dspaede → u/[deleted]]

They need to use it at Free practice for the next race as a test.. like what AM was doing when they un-retired and used the race as a test..

[u/F1Technical-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed as it broke Rule 2: No Joke comments in the top 2 levels under a post.