Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

V6T vs V8 NA


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#201 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 18:43

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.

Advertisement

#202 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:00

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.


#203 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:19

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?

#204 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 January 2013 - 16:27

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.


#205 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:38

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.


#206 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 21:01

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
Posted Image


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.


#207 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 February 2013 - 21:40

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.

#208 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:12

Could be for test purposes only.



#209 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 17:29

Posted Image


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

#210 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 21 June 2013 - 13:07

Sounds ok for me.

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


#211 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 14:47

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.

#212 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 June 2013 - 15:34

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

#213 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 15:43

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. ):

#214 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 June 2013 - 16:00

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

#215 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 16:06

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.

#216 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 June 2013 - 18:56

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

#217 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:03

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.


#218 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:04

Walk this way;

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

#219 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:08

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"?

Advertisement

#220 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 June 2013 - 19:33

Yea. Its crap.

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

#221 TailG

TailG
  • Member

  • 926 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:43

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.

#222 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 July 2013 - 10:46

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.


#223 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 July 2013 - 12:25

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.

#224 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 July 2013 - 23:19

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.

#225 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 July 2013 - 23:23

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.


#226 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 July 2013 - 23:46

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



#227 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:29

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?

#228 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 July 2013 - 19:18

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

#229 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:26

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


#230 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:06

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

#231 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 18:06

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.

#232 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 August 2013 - 11:49

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

Mercedes sound. All those gears is just silly..

#233 Lightknight

Lightknight
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:32

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.

#234 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:38

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.

#235 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 August 2013 - 17:10

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.

#236 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,042 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 August 2013 - 19:39

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


He did not say anything wrong..

#237 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 August 2013 - 19:47

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.