236 replies to this topic

[MatsNorway]

I'm 99% confident that you must have liquid cooling for the kind of compactnes that we see here. Mind you that there may be more than one cooling circuit.

Cooling it might need but that looks more like wires. i would assume cooling entry would be at the exhaust entry and go towards the compressor and exit.

[Wuzak]

Cooling it might need but that looks more like wires. i would assume cooling entry would be at the exhaust entry and go towards the compressor and exit.

Surely the other way? Keep the coolant at a lower temperature for longer.

Edited by Wuzak, 14 January 2013 - 23:00.

[Wuzak]

One thing I am not clear on is the energy caps.

Does the 2MJ harvesting/4MJ distributing per lap include the recovered energy from the turbine?

Surely the turbine could, on some circuits, harvest more than 2MJ per lap on its own?

[MatsNorway]

Surely the other way? Keep the coolant at a lower temperature for longer.

hmm. i guess i didn`t think it through.

ideal motor temp

In a heat exchanger the best is flow from each entry towards the other entry i believe (crossflow) for highest efficiency (best heat transfer)

The ideal is maintaining a even temp all over the motor right below maximum of what the motor insulation can take.

This means that by going from the cool side to the exhaust side there might be a hot sone on the motor end.

But going inn on the hot side will distribute the heat over the motor.

So less flow over the cool side is a good idea. full cooling effect is not needed there.

Optimum cooling distribution
Optimum would be a even distribution of water all over the motor but with different flows.

I guess a tapered sylinder design around the motor would give higher waterflow towards the hotside and take care of that. Another option is more cooling vanes towards the hot sone. This might be a lighter design due to the lesser internal volume needed. Or a combo of both.

Does this make more sense?

Edited by MatsNorway, 15 January 2013 - 16:33.

[WhiteBlue]

One thing I am not clear on is the energy caps.

Does the 2MJ harvesting/4MJ distributing per lap include the recovered energy from the turbine?

Surely the turbine could, on some circuits, harvest more than 2MJ per lap on its own?

There is a diagram in the 2014 regs that shows all the energy flows. From, MGU-H to MGU-K there is no limit.

[MatsNorway]

Does this make more sense?

I guess i did not..

Surely the other way? Keep the coolant at a lower temperature for longer.

how about this.... Yes



Renault has dropped some more photos of their engine.
http://www.auto123.c...ne?artid=153076

Thats a big exhaust turbo, They are not spooling that unit up without the Turbo KERS.

http://www.ausmotive...6-engine-01.jpg



interesting turbine shape.
http://img3.auto-mot...b2a8-663802.jpg
http://img4.auto-mot...cc66-663800.jpg
http://www.auto-moto...fotoshow_item=8

Edited by MatsNorway, 26 February 2013 - 21:11.

[Wuzak]

I think the turbo shown in the photos is a prop.

The diagrams they have released show a two entry turbo - with an entry pointing each way to be fed by each bank. The turbo in the photos is single entry.

Also, the complete engine view shows exhausts that look like they would be going to the twin entry turbo like the diagram.

[MatsNorway]

Could be for test purposes only.

[carlt]

that's off one of the paddock trucks in for a service

[MatsNorway]

Sounds ok for me.

Edited by MatsNorway, 21 June 2013 - 15:11.

[Rasputin]

I think there are a lot of decoys and smokescreens published at the moment, as an example I very much doubt the Renault's exhaust and massive intercooler.

I'm sure that turbo has nothing whatsoever to do with the new F1 engine, looks primitive and way too big for the purpose.

[MatsNorway]

The one in the picture above probably was used during testing.

[Rasputin]

The one in the picture above probably was used during testing.

I doubt it, besides, the image looks staged, no engineer would have a real-life turbo sitting on his documents like that.

[MatsNorway]

Pr stuff then. Either way the finished engine has dual exhaust intakes. Did you see the picture in the video?

[Rasputin]

Well, I've listened to the sound of something resembling a vacuum cleaner on roids and I've seen those animated images which I don't believe in.

That humongous intercooler and wide exhausts, all for a one bar boost, doesn't look credible and as a bitch to package, Newey would go ballistic.

[MatsNorway]

Are they allowed to split the air out from the compressor? having dual intercoolers and stuff.

[MatsNorway]

This is not animated.
http://s4.paultan.or...-f1-2014-05.jpg
http://www.f1fanatic...013-470x313.jpg

Edited by MatsNorway, 29 June 2013 - 19:06.

[Rasputin]

Walk this way;

http://www.fia.com/s.....n_category:82

[Rasputin]

This is not animated.
http://s4.paultan.or...-f1-2014-05.jpg
http://www.f1fanatic...013-470x313.jpg

I'm not totally convinced, have you seen "Avatar"?

[MatsNorway]

Yea. Its crap.

I do not think the engine is trickery. So i take that bet.

[TailG]

Quick question (probably already discussed a million times here): what's the max torque of these new engines? Current engines are around ~275NM, new engines should have much more thanks to turbos.

[MatsNorway]

Right around 500Nm at 5000-6500 should be doable. Unless they drop focus on that rpm range and sacrifice some of that potential to get more further up. And that is not unlikely.

There is a thread about fuel flow where this gets kinda discussed.

i cant find it.

Edited by MatsNorway, 13 July 2013 - 10:48.

[Wuzak]

This gets back to the whole Torque vs Power thing.

Ultimate power wil be much the same as it is now - ~720hp ICE + 80hp KERS = 800hp vs 640hp ICE + 160hp MGU-K. So at max speed the torque at the rear wheels will be the same, or at least similar (max speed will be different due to different aero regs).

What wil matter more is that the power band will be much wider in the new engines, so there will be at the rear wheels compared to now when not at peak power. Which is just as well, as they will have fixed ratios for the whole season.

The engine + MGU-K torque will probably require a heavier and sturdier gearbox than is used now.

[gruntguru]

The engine + MGU-K torque will probably require a heavier and sturdier gearbox than is used now.

That would depend on gearbox input shaft speed. If they turn the gearbox at the same revs as presently and the power is the same, the torque will be the same.

Do current F1 drivetrains have a primary reduction gearset? Motorcycles running similar (actually lower) rpm usually do.

[MatsNorway]

That would depend on gearbox input shaft speed. If they turn the gearbox at the same revs as presently and the power is the same, the torque will be the same.

Do current F1 drivetrains have a primary reduction gearset? Motorcycles running similar (actually lower) rpm usually do.

Primary? in front of the gearbox? surely its more to gain by having higher speeds internaly both for quicker shifts and less loads. aka. step down after the box.

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 July 2013 - 23:24.

[gruntguru]

OTOH all clutches, shafts, gears and bearings have a speed limit so primary reduction gears are normal for high revving engines.

[MatsNorway]

18k too much? surely thats not so much. you have turboes with ballbearings. And do they usually have a reduction set prior to the shifting mechanics?

[saudoso]

I fail to see how designing bearings for a gerabox at 18k rpm is harder than designing ones for a crankshaft and connecting rods.

[murpia]

Do current F1 drivetrains have a primary reduction gearset? Motorcycles running similar (actually lower) rpm usually do.

No, they don't. Even when the V8s did 21,000rpm the primary shaft ran at crankshaft speed.

Regards, Ian

[gruntguru]

Thanks Ian. So the new engines will need a tougher transmission or a primary step-up (unlikely).

[WhiteBlue]

I think it is very likely that we will see a new gearbox design for almost twice the toque we have now. This would be in line with the reports that all mid and back field customer teams seem to take the gearbox from their power unit supplier if he supplies one. At least that is what I have noticed about the Ferrari and Mercedes deals that have lately been announced.

[MatsNorway]

https://www.youtube....p;v=ebpkJXJ7CFo

Mercedes sound. All those gears is just silly..

[Lightknight]

This gets back to the whole Torque vs Power thing.

Ultimate power wil be much the same as it is now - ~720hp ICE + 80hp KERS = 800hp vs 640hp ICE + 160hp MGU-K. So at max speed the torque at the rear wheels will be the same, or at least similar (max speed will be different due to different aero regs).

What wil matter more is that the power band will be much wider in the new engines, so there will be at the rear wheels compared to now when not at peak power. Which is just as well, as they will have fixed ratios for the whole season.

The engine + MGU-K torque will probably require a heavier and sturdier gearbox than is used now.

Yes the power band will be very different - far more torque and a spread of it. I guess the overall reduction ratio will be lower but the torque as much as a factor of 2 higher or more so it is a substantial gearbox change. Correctly it should be the "ERS Torque" as it isn't just the MGU-K contributing to it.

[Wuzak]

Yes the power band will be very different - far more torque and a spread of it. I guess the overall reduction ratio will be lower but the torque as much as a factor of 2 higher or more so it is a substantial gearbox change. Correctly it should be the "ERS Torque" as it isn't just the MGU-K contributing to it.

MGUK is the only one directly connected to the engine and prividing power.

[Rasputin]

Yes the power band will be very different - far more torque and a spread of it. I guess the overall reduction ratio will be lower but the torque as much as a factor of 2 higher or more so it is a substantial gearbox change. Correctly it should be the "ERS Torque" as it isn't just the MGU-K contributing to it.

Listen to the man, engine torque has no relevance, it's wheel torque that matters, in between engine and wheels is gearbox and final drive.

But you are correct, input torque to the gearbox will be massively higher, as much as 60% more.

[MatsNorway]

Listen to the man, engine torque has no relevance, it's wheel torque that matters

He did not say anything wrong..

[Rasputin]

I'm terribly sorry Lightlnight, way too quick there, I'm just so used to that "torque" argument from kitchen-table engineers that I've become a Pavlov's dog about it.