Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

V6T vs V8 NA


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:41

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/101774

Martin whitmarsh says the V6T would need a gain to keep up if they allow V8s to be run in 2014.

I have been given the impression over time now that they would not be so bad.

How much less fuel give or take will they start with?

And wouldn`t the locked gear ratio rule hurt the V8s badly?

Edited by MatsNorway, 12 August 2012 - 09:43.


Advertisement

#2 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 13:27

That is, assuming that any of this still will happen. I believe they wil stretch the V8's life beyond 2013 and the V6T is a dud.

I'd put money where my mouth is if there was a place where I could place such a bet.

#3 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 August 2012 - 16:25

I never understood why they just didn`t go with DI on a V8. New head only.

#4 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 15:13

That is, assuming that any of this still will happen. I believe they wil stretch the V8's life beyond 2013 and the V6T is a dud.

I'd put money where my mouth is if there was a place where I could place such a bet.


if by dud you mean. Not going to happen. i take that bet. Turbo is going to happen.

Stretching the V8s?

No more than to start of 2015 tops.

Edited by MatsNorway, 13 August 2012 - 15:13.


#5 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 August 2012 - 20:59

Yep, that's what I mean $10 on the rule as it is being delayed over and over and falling into oblivion.



#6 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 22:12

In the RC thread the Renault article says they would be ready to supply the V6s to 7 teams if needed, so there's at least one manufacturer that is very bullish.

Ferrari were able to change the plans from I4s to V6s, so I assume they are going along with the plan.

The only doubt I have is with Mercedes, but not really about the engines as much as the company being unhappy with the whole situation in F1. If they commit to the new Concorde before the end of this year as it's supposed to be the case, then there will be no questions in my mind that the new engines are coming in 2014.

#7 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:00

How much less fuel give or take will they start with?

A bit hard to say because there is no information on average fuel consumption. Only peak values are known because the flow will be limited to 27.8 g/s. I reckon they will start with something like 110 kg, which is a significant reduction. The plan is to reduce the fuel use to 50% in a relatively short time frame, say 2016. This means they will allow developments targeted at efficiency increases if cost allows them to do so.


#8 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:53

A bit hard to say because there is no information on average fuel consumption. Only peak values are known because the flow will be limited to 27.8 g/s. I reckon they will start with something like 110 kg, which is a significant reduction. The plan is to reduce the fuel use to 50% in a relatively short time frame, say 2016. This means they will allow developments targeted at efficiency increases if cost allows them to do so.


thank you.
And how many kg do they start with now?

And would that offset be enough to go faster in the race against a V8?

Edited by MatsNorway, 15 August 2012 - 10:57.


#9 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 19:51

thank you.
And how many kg do they start with now?

And would that offset be enough to go faster in the race against a V8?

I believe that they carry something like 180 kg now. But there are massive differences in terms of energy recovery as well. My guess in case of an equivalency formula will be a separate fuel limit for the V8s which will be higher than the V6 limit but not high enough to make them superior. Say perhaps the V8 would be allowed 33 g/s maximum flow and they will have to comply with the new control mode of the KERS system. They are likely to keep the KERS as it is in terms of the energy transormation but the control will have to be modified to true dual torque mode like the ERS of the V6s.

In general I agree with Whitmarsh that an equivalence formula makes no sense. It creates many problems and has no real advantages. Every team that would be prepared to run the V8s would agree to fall back to the end of the field. That isn't very likely unless the manufacturers push the price into the stratosphere.


#10 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:43

I would never allow a separate fuel flow limit. Same or give them a air restrictor.

110kg vs 180kg

how much was a 1kg pr lap in time?

#11 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 September 2012 - 21:23

I don't believe the new formula will happen, at least not in 2014, I guess the FIA hoped it would lure more manufacturers, but it seems to be less now when Cosworth and PURE is out?

Besides, the development of the new recovery systems will be the costly part, which is not a very timely thing considering the general state of the automotive industry at this time.

The V8s on the other hand has become a rather cost-effective and proven concept now, even if I think they should loosen up the development restrictions.

Edited by Rasputin, 19 September 2012 - 21:38.


#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:20

Allowing new heads to fit DI would be a natural evolution.

#13 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 September 2012 - 19:59

Allowing new heads to fit DI would be a natural evolution.


I think so.

#14 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 20:13

I don't believe the new formula will happen, at least not in 2014, I guess the FIA hoped it would lure more manufacturers, but it seems to be less now when Cosworth and PURE is out?

Besides, the development of the new recovery systems will be the costly part, which is not a very timely thing considering the general state of the automotive industry at this time.

The V8s on the other hand has become a rather cost-effective and proven concept now, even if I think they should loosen up the development restrictions.


The issue here is the introduction of a suitable sales price cap and a development cost or resource cap. If they introduce a sales cap that only moderately exceeds the present engine prices it could be workable. Lets say you have to pay 150% in 2014, 130% in 2015, 115% in 2016 and by 2016 you are back to today's engine price for the customer teams. This pricing model would allow an independent low cost manufacturer to invest € 20m initially and recoup it with two to three customers. Naturally the manufacturings teams and sponsors such as Renault would spend more. But their development budget or resources would be capped at three times what an independent low profit manufacturer would invest.

Allowing new heads to fit DI would be a natural evolution.

It would not make sense in my view to do any development on the V8s. If an equivalency formula is needed they should set the fuel allowance in such a way that the V8 performance is below the worst turbo V8.


#15 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:44

It would not make sense in my view to do any development on the V8s.


"we need to go as green as possible therefore NA V8s makes no sence"

But if the idea is to get more green without destroying F1. who we are kinda talking about here. DI with fuel flow limit on the V8s is probably the safest step towards greener motors.

"How big a chance would that be?"

well it means new cams, new heads, at minimum. To get the development to become actually any greener a fuel flow limit would be needed.

next step X years later would be to open up the stroke and bore ratios.

X years after that again allow charged motors.

X years after that allow free engine size and cyl count.

Edited by MatsNorway, 03 October 2012 - 13:45.


#16 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 16:46

"we need to go as green as possible therefore NA V8s makes no sence"
But if the idea is to get more green without destroying F1. who we are kinda talking about here. DI with fuel flow limit on the V8s is probably the safest step towards greener motors.

You kind of forget that the industry is about to test drive the new turbo engines that have been specifically designed to have all the latest technology on board. They probably collectively spend more than €200m on the project and they are not very keen to do all this for the scrap yard.
This thread is about the equivalence of the two engines as I understand it. Clearly the more sensible option is to move on with the new engines and to let the poor teams have the old clunkers with a higher fuel allowance but without any costly modifications other than the fuel restrictors. I fail to see how that would "destroy F1". On the contrary it would be a sensible way out of the current mess.


#17 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 03:31

Fact of the matter is that nobody wanted these "silly little engines" to begin with, not the teams, not the engine manufacturers and certainly not MrE.

If was just one of Masochist-Maximilian's follies about a "green" and spec-F1, he ws even serious about a single enginesupplier at one point.

I believe that Ferrari i still against it, while Mercedes and Renault have started a cooperation on roadcar-engines, why I think the idea is dead now.

I find it obvious that PURE pulled out after Gilles Simon getting tipped-off by Jean Todt that they would continue with the V8's.

Why you couldn't apply the same fuel-flow regulations on the V8s is beyond me, it would be most exciting with free developments again?

Edited by Rasputin, 05 October 2012 - 04:21.


#18 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:18

With a fuel flow limit I'm not really seeing why you'd need any further engine regulations at all. Maybe a claiming rule to put an absolute cost ceiling in place. It'd probably actually be cheaper to build to over the long term once an optimal solution was arrived at since at that point there'd be little or no reason to ever mandate scrapping existing developments and force the teams to build to new formulae every few years. I'd like to see the engines have to meet current smog regulations for road cars as well if there were any practical method of enforcing that. If the engines ever become too powerful, simply lower the allowable fuel flow rate. Or perhaps instead of fuel flow restrictions, simply limit allowable CO/CO2 in the exhaust.

#19 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:49

With a fuel flow limit I'm not really seeing why you'd need any further engine regulations at all.
...


My sentiments precisely!

Advertisement

#20 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:02

This new engine rule and everything that comes with it is bulldump anyway.
If F1 wants to go green then there is a easy solution: go back to the old group c rules! Take whatever engine you want, the amount of fuel for the official practise and the race is restricted to x amount of litres and see how you get through the weekend.
If you look back the engines had pretty much the same power no matter if it was a 2.5l Porsche flat 6 with turbo or a Jaguar 6l V12 or anything inbetween.

#21 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:05

I swear the FIA is run by people that, for all their qualifications (I'm assuming), are really not particularly smart.

#22 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:11

I swear the FIA is run by people that, for all their qualifications (I'm assuming), are really not particularly smart.


:up:

#23 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 October 2012 - 17:00

s and to let the poor teams have the old clunkers with a higher fuel allowance but without any costly modifications other than the fuel restrictors.


If they move on that would be a ok solution. Personally i would give same fuel flow and same development freedoms. out of prinsipp. Yes that would most likely make them way slower. and make no sense for the smaller teams as a option.


But if they claim its cheaper in the long run to turn around and go back to developing the V8s thats still a better solution. cost wise.

I think most worry about the sound and some about the power output.

Power can easily be fixed. Its a turbo engine

When it comes to the sound it will probably be one of the best sounding Turbo V6s of all time.

Especially if they are allowed more wild materials than before.

Prior to the life increase in the engines they where developing a distinct sound on full tilt. It reminded be of the razpy sound of a two stroke. sadly we did not get to hear that fully mature. but im sure a fine tuned F1 engine like they will be
will sound good.

Personally i must say would have choosen a I5 easily over a S4 or V6.

http://www.youtube.c...tailpage#t=217s
http://www.youtube.c...etailpage#t=11s
http://www.youtube.c...r0_TDWqlM#t=47s

Slight OT
http://www.youtube.c...detailpage#t=7s

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 October 2012 - 17:11.


#24 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 October 2012 - 21:53

Well, turbo would allow for a much smaller mechancal package for a given displacement, mechanical friction down. Pumping loss at such high rp/m's would also be reduced by a significant margin with a turbo assisting it so this new engine would be a lot more efficient at full power than the V8. I would allow twin turbocharging so engineers have freedom to make them work in sequence or go for a single VGT like those on AUDI Ultra Le Mans effort or even maybe run a sequential twin set up with VGT. Since efficiency is the target why not reintroduce some flexibility with cams.

:cool:

#25 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 625 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 October 2012 - 22:16

I'd like to see the engines have to meet current smog regulations for road cars as well if there were any practical method of enforcing that.

I'd like to see that, too. There are roadside automated smog stations in some places, so I think it is quite practical.

I swear the FIA is run by people that, for all their qualifications (I'm assuming), are really not particularly smart.

I used to wonder if they were actually smart people having all their ideas cancelled out and corrupted by committees and political processes and such, but then Mosley, among others, would say things that were just facepalm stupid, so I think it's the simpler explanation that they're just not too bright.

#26 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:32

...
When it comes to the sound it will probably be one of the best sounding Turbo V6s of all time.
...

I doubt it, when power is governed by fuel-flow, nobody will rev outside the lowest possible gear-shift window with full power, max 12 000 Rpm.

Boost will also be very low, less than one Bar I dare to guess, and a low-boost turbo V6 is not exactly a stradivarius-tone.

#27 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:18

Peak fuel flow starts at 10K?

thats peak power then.

but even if peak power is there. they will go past it. Because when they shift they go below it. And the highest average power over one gearshift is what one will aim for.

if the power curve is even on both sides it means peak power should be halfway through the selected gear.

Now. Will the increase in fuel flow give more power than the higher efficiency lower down where fuel flow is lower?

Will they make the engines only efficient at peak fuel flow?

Why not? it should be the fastest way.

back to Rasputins comment.

They will also go higher rpms during overtakes since they would still gear the cars for max speed without slipstreaming. Most likely all the way up to 15000rpm if DRS and KERS is still around then.

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 October 2012 - 11:19.


#28 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:32

Will the fuel flow be delivered in steps?

If its very sudden it can provide a very uneven and strange power curve.

I must assume its ramped up steadily. Following a smooth grafh.

#29 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:20

Will the fuel flow be delivered in steps?

If its very sudden it can provide a very uneven and strange power curve.

I must assume its ramped up steadily. Following a smooth grafh.


I believe fuel flow will vary linearly with rpm until 10,500rpm, after which it will remain constant.

#30 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:50

ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT
5.1 Engine specification :
5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.
5.1.2 Engine cubic capacity must not exceed 1600cc.
5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly
coupled to the same shaft.
5.1.7 All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° “V” configuration and the normal section
of each cylinder must be circular.
5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine
component must be circular.
5.1.9 Engine exhaust gases may only exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder
bore centre line and not from within the “V” centre.
5.1.10 The crankshaft may only have three connecting rod bearing journals.

#31 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,064 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:57

ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.



DAMN !

There goes all my millions of $ i spent on developing my turbocharged Ford Essex F1 engine

#32 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:19

A spec engine with different valve-covers?

5.3 Power unit dimensions :
5.3.1 Cylinder bore diameter must be 80mm (+/- 0.1mm).
5.3.2 The crankshaft centre line must lie on the car centre line and 90mm (+/-0.5mm) above the
reference plane. The power unit may only transmit torque to the drive train by means of a
single output shaft that must be co-axial with the crankshaft. The output shaft must rotate
clockwise when viewed from the front of the car.
5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.
5.3.4 Any timing gear between crankshaft and camshaft must not be less than 8mm wide.
5.3.5 The entire power unit (with the exception of the items listed in Article 5.3.8) must be installed
between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line separated by 700mm or in a box
150mm long, 250mm wide and 800mm high which lies symmetrically about the car centre line
immediately ahead of the front vertical plane.
5.3.6 Power unit mountings may only comprise six M12 studs for connection to the survival cell and
six M12 studs for connection to the transmission.
The mounting faces of the studs for connection to the survival cell must lie on the forward of
the two planes described in Article 5.3.5 and be located at Y215/Z15(2), Y340/Z260(2) and
Y175/Z420(2).
The mounting faces of the studs for connection to the transmission must lie on one vertical
plane normal to the car centre line and be located at Y100/Z15(2), Y150/Z140(2) and
Y255/Z345(2).
The distance between the two planes is fixed at 500mm.
A tolerance of +/- 0.2mm will be permitted on all of the above dimensions.
No additional load path from the survival cell to the gearbox, with a connection to the power
unit, is permitted.
5.3.7 The ES must be installed wholly within the survival cell.
5.3.8 When establishing conformity with Article 5.3.5 the power unit will not include :
- Energy store.
- Flywheel, main driveline clutch and the actuation system.
- Electronic Control Units or any associated devices containing programmable
semiconductors.
- Wiring between the ES and any Electronic Control Unit.
- Exhaust pipes beyond the turbine exit and beyond any waste gate exit.
- The intake system up to the compressor inlet.
- Heat shields.
- Studs used to mount the power unit to the chassis and gearbox.
- Water system accumulators.
- Heat exchangers and their associated hoses, pipes and other accessories.
- Hydraulic system.
- Fuel feed pumps and their associated accessories.
- Any ancillary equipment associated with the engine air valve system.
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 155kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference
plane.
5.4.3 The longitudinal and lateral position of the centre of gravity of the power unit must fall within
a region that is the geometric centre of the power unit, +/- 50mm. The geometric centre of the
power unit in a lateral sense will be considered to lie on the centre of the crankshaft and at the
mid point between the centres of the forward and rear most cylinder bores longitudinally.
5.4.4 The total weight of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping
plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not
exceed 25kg.


#33 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,064 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:58

Its all archaic tosh
It would have been fascinating to see what the F1 technicians could come up with if they had simply been given a fixed quantity of energy for a race distance .
Any energy source - any engine type ,
could then incrementally reduce the energy quantity for each season

might even see a reduction in downforce to reduce drag

but of course the Motor manufacturers wouldn't be interested
F1 is marketing not motor racing

Edited by carlt, 09 October 2012 - 16:32.


#34 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 09 October 2012 - 14:48

If you'd told an F1 fan of 40 years ago that the cylinder count, V angle, number of valves/cylinder, bore spacing, engine weight, COG height etc. etc. should all be stipulated by the regulations, the reply would've been "That isn't F1!" That F1 fan would have been correct.

#35 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 15:44

Somebody better than me needs to sit down and make a spread sheat with kW, efficiency and fuel flow.

Someone here knows how much power the peak fuel flow translates to.

From there its only about making efficiency estimates and removing it from the power output.

i could if someone gives the values

Just as an example
Posted Image

Edited by MatsNorway, 09 October 2012 - 16:15.


#36 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 16:30

That's easy enough Mats, 100 kg/h equals 27.7 g/s, gasoline has an energy density of 47.2 kJ (kWs) per g, meaning power input is 1307 kW.

Power output is of course Power input times efficiency, where 35% means 458 kW (622 Hp), pretty constant between 10 500 and 15 000 Rpm.

#37 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 19:12

Posted Image

The efficiency will be the tricky part. Spit out your thoughts people.

Personally i find 0.4 at 12-15k a bit high but i dont know shit.

Edited by MatsNorway, 09 October 2012 - 19:18.


#38 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 20:13

Mats, you do make me laugh! Thanks.

#39 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:41

Interesting curve Mats, but I doubt if the efficiency will fall that dramatically, from 0.32 to 0.23, between 10.5 and 15 kRpm?

Anyway, another sketchy but at times useful "Lazy-dog" is; 17 Hp per liter, 1000 Rm and absolute inlet pressure in Bar.

Todays 2.4 V8s will thus have 735 Hp, which I think is there or there-abouts?

Applied on a 620 Hp from a 1.6 liter turbo, the boost will vary from 1.17 (2.17 abs) at 10.5 to 0.52 Bar (1.52 abs) at 15 kRpm.

Is there really need for an intercooler at such a low boost?

Edited by Rasputin, 10 October 2012 - 05:46.


Advertisement

#40 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:03

A bit high drop of perhaps.


0.32 -0.28 ?

The most interesting part is what they will accomplish lower down tho. As we can se they got a lot more freedom and potensial. However as asked before. Will those values low down be of no interest? because thats not where the engine will be working for most of the time.

735hp? Is that teoretical output found by efficiency?
I think its above the lower end of the grid. 720-740. depending on how much they lose by mild engine settings. compared to 2008-10 spec.

Intercooler?

Well the higher the compression you can run so why should they not?

Whe had this discussion earlier. very good thread. Don`t remember its name.

Edited by MatsNorway, 10 October 2012 - 06:15.


#41 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:20

My point is that if you can keep boost below 1.0 Bar (14 psi), if you can run without an intercooler, aerodynamic and packaging reasons might outweigh the compression benefits?

#42 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:45

aerodynamic and packaging reasons might outweigh the compression benefits?


So did i think about KERS a year or two ago. It might still be right tho. We have seen how important aero is this season.

Edited by MatsNorway, 10 October 2012 - 13:52.


#43 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 00:31

Intercooling has another efficiency benefit. Compressor power is reduced which means a greater percentage of the turbine power can be harvested and converted to electricity.

OTOH exhaust energy (temperature) is reduced so there is less total turbine power - swings and roundabouts but I think on balance the overall efficiency will be higher with an intercooler. Rememnber also that the weight penalty of an intercololer will be offset somewhat by a reduction in radiator size. Drag penalties of intercoolers and radiators are zero or less with careful design allowing the heat to create a "propulsive" effect.

#44 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:32

Drag penalties of intercoolers and radiators are zero or less with careful design allowing the heat to create a "propulsive" effect.


I know it works, to an extent, on aircraft travelling at 400mph, but does that work with cars travelling at 100-200mph?

Bearing in mind that in aircraft where it works there are adjustable inlets, outlets, or both, which is not allowed in F1.


#45 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:39

It works well enough to cancel some or all of the drag penalty normally associated with extra scoops & ducts - at least over some range of road-speed.

#46 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:43

Intercooling has another efficiency benefit. Compressor power is reduced which means a greater percentage of the turbine power can be harvested and converted to electricity.

OTOH exhaust energy (temperature) is reduced so there is less total turbine power - swings and roundabouts but I think on balance the overall efficiency will be higher with an intercooler. Rememnber also that the weight penalty of an intercololer will be offset somewhat by a reduction in radiator size. Drag penalties of intercoolers and radiators are zero or less with careful design allowing the heat to create a "propulsive" effect.


First of all, with a boost as low as 0.5 to 1.0 Bar, inlet temperature will not be very high, making for a very inefficient intercooler.

Secondly, I fail to see how an intercooler will have a "propulsive effect" with these low temperatures and speed, teams like RedBull
is hard at work with reducing the drag of the water-radiators as it is, even eliminating the fins, running long profiled tubes only.

But there's also the packaging to consider, with the 2014 turbo location rules, an intercooler will make it a something of a mess.

Edited by Rasputin, 11 October 2012 - 04:45.


#47 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:53

What sort of temperatures could you expect from 1 bar boost?

IIRC the last Honda V6 turbo had inlet temps around 70C. So I guess there wouldn't need to be much intercooling to get to that.

As far as the intercooler, if they use a liquid:air intercooler they could gain some flexibility over its location.

Edited by Wuzak, 11 October 2012 - 05:53.


#48 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:23

Todays 2.4 V8s will thus have 735 Hp, which I think is there or there-abouts?

Applied on a 620 Hp from a 1.6 liter turbo, the boost will vary from 1.17 (2.17 abs) at 10.5 to 0.52 Bar (1.52 abs) at 15 kRpm.

Is there really need for an intercooler at such a low boost?

First of all, with a boost as low as 0.5 to 1.0 Bar, inlet temperature will not be very high, making for a very inefficient intercooler.

Secondly, I fail to see how an intercooler will have a "propulsive effect" with these low temperatures and speed, teams like RedBull
is hard at work with reducing the drag of the water-radiators as it is, even eliminating the fins, running long profiled tubes only.

But there's also the packaging to consider, with the 2014 turbo location rules, an intercooler will make it a something of a mess.


I thought I'd better go back and check your assumptions.

The 2.17 number you quote is the DENSITY RATIO required for the 1.6T to make 620 hp @ 10.5 kRPM, assuming the same VE and TE as the 2.4 V8. The pressure ratio required to achieve this density ratio (at 80% compressor efficiency and no intercooling) is about 3.25 ie 3.25 bar abs boost. Discharge temperature is about 190*C.

With a typical intercooler, the pressure ratio required will be about 2.3 and compressor discharge temperature about 140*C.

The cars will need intercooling.

What sort of temperatures could you expect from 1 bar boost?

About 125*C

Edited by gruntguru, 11 October 2012 - 06:26.


#49 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:30

Liquid-air i don`t think we will se. But it would be cool.

It does have some benefits like the packaging mentioned. and a shorter route giving better response and better flow.

Perhaps if they loosen up how the fuel flow is delievered. So that turbo response becomes a bigger challenge.

Grunt, Wuzak got some comments to the graph? estimates. don`t be a chicken.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 October 2012 - 06:33.


#50 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:07

I have to agree with Rasputin. Around 35% TE from 10,500 to 15,000. I think we will eventually see close to 40% TE at 10,500 for nearly 700 hp.

The Honda RA168E had a peak TE of 28% at 12,000 rpm in 1988 and no recovery turbine.

Edited by gruntguru, 11 October 2012 - 07:09.