Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

2014 Power Units


  • Please log in to reply
1459 replies to this topic

#251 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,211 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:53

This is quite obvious, but keep the following in mind. The energy flow from the ES through the MGUK to the wheels should be considerably more efficient most of the time then the one running through the MGUH and should in general arguably have precedence. It is no surprise thus to me that the rules are limiting that transfer and not the one between the MGUH and the ES. In any way the generator doing a similar anti-lag job in a different way like the supercharger in the video. As I said before the mapping should be extremly interesting and will be subject to the exact rulings concerning fuel-flow and overall fuel mass, apart from many other aspects.

I already mentioned that, the regs permitting, the driver will have almost certainly have the ability to deploy some of the energy of the ES KERS-like, both to defend and to attack and possibly to pit-pass.

I think there was a Rally car during the 'Group' formula that combined a turbo and a supercharger, it may have been the Lancia Delta but I'm not sure.

Advertisement

#252 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 January 2013 - 19:05

I think there was a Rally car during the 'Group' formula that combined a turbo and a supercharger, it may have been the Lancia Delta but I'm not sure.


This combination is indeed hardly new. I expect a pretty large/broad turbiner as the downside of it's (inertial) mass will be greatly lessened by the MGUH while the large exhaust gas volume with high rpm of an F1 ICE will be more efficiently used to charge the air and to harvest energy. Basically instead of redirecting the large exhaust volume toward the middle of the blades like in the current VGT to avoid too much boost the initial more efficient configuration should be kept longer. The MGUH will resist the kinetic energy of the turbine and charge up the ES, avoiding too much boost on the intake side.

As I have written before IF the exhaust gas still plays a significant role in providing downforce, especially in the slow turns, by some fancy tricks a 'waste'-gate could prove to be not wasteful at all. A lot depends on the specific regs and their interpretation...

Edited by H2H, 23 January 2013 - 19:15.


#253 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 January 2013 - 19:58

BTW the Austrians (ORF + Sport) are showing right now a certain Rosberg leading Prost and Lauda, which has just overtaken Senna in a racetrack in the dunes. The engines sound great, despite being turbos...

Lots of defect turbo units during the early part of the race. It's a bit sad that we don't have the twin turbos with two exhausts but the clever 2014 stuff is already complex enough. Love also the 'fast' pitstops which look incredibly sloppy and slow for eyes used to the stuff seen in 2012. And Keke is out of the race with a smoking engine...

Edited by H2H, 23 January 2013 - 20:01.


#254 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 19:59

Sure, they can open the budget limits if you enjoy watching 10 cars driving around the circuit.


I didn't write open the budget limits. I said restrictions, as in the engineering limitations.

illing to take a leap of faith and actually believe the people that has heard it and trust they will still sound amazing.


I also think record reviews are pointless, but YMMV.

You mentioned you're a musician. You, most of everyone, should be able to appreciate that an instrument played softer and with more finesse will sound so much better than a rookie clumsily blowing the shit out of a trumpet. Sure, the rookie engages your senses, but the pro engages your emotion.


Jimi Hendrix would not be "JIMI F. HENDRIX" if he had only been known for playing through a 10 watt amp before the Who played. Not to mention we live in a world of Autotune "music" and non-subtle music; and plenty of visceral entertainment options. The impact of volume from a distance is a novel thing F1 cannot afford to lose.


#255 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:01

How many races per season do you actually attend, because none of this is going to matter a dot on TV?


My point is that if less people choose to attend - and less people become fans - F1 won't be a dot on any screen at all.


I think you are over-reacting, and like most traditionalist arguments about "change", there will be no moaning after a couple of races.


There is no moaning still about how narrow the cars are? That the wings still look funny? That we no longer have V10s?



#256 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:02

Electric cars for all the hype are massively in efficent and there is no such thing as Zero emissions. Power has to come from somewhere.


They massively more efficient. But this isn't the place to debate the issue.




#257 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:03

There are other rules too. Why not have whinge about those?


Because this thread is titled "2014 Power Units"....




#258 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:08

A MotoGP bike (250hp) produces roughly the same decibels as an F1 car.


Again: db is not going to tell you what is going to be louder a mile away. Just saying "the same decibels" with no other qualifications doesn't really say anything - there are a lot of things that will make a 120db noise.



#259 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:15

So which electric car are you buying?


That's my point. Ultimately, one day I *will* be buying an electric car, and it will probably originate from China. Alternately I will have a converted car, like many have done. Just because the major manufacturers are not throwing in the towel on IC doesn't mean it's not doomed. That is part of the reason for the screwball regs IMO: it protects the likes of Mercedes and Renault from any upstarts, either from an electrical side or an existing, V8 design (Cosworth), or a situation like PURE.


This sums up what annoys me about this hating on roadcar relevance... In the real world, I drive a turbo diesel everyday,


Do you live in the states? Because here, "for some reason", you couldn't even buy the VW turbo diesels until recently (I think) - why is that? VW just decided "hey, let's not sell our best fuel economy car in the biggest auto market"? Why is that?

There is more to it, and more MONEY involved, not practical reason.

Advertisement

#260 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:18

and solar is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity


So, if I could put solar panels on my roof and eliminate by grid power needs for the cost of 1 years' power bill, and run with that for 10 years... that still isn't "zero emissions", right? That's not of interest to *anybody*, *anywhere*, right?

Just wait...




#261 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:19

, don't you think a few millions of that will go into battery research?


What happens to that research? Look up what happened to the battery designs Toyota came up with, and who owns them now...





#262 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:21

Yes, they can and will (I believe) use the MGU-H to spool up the turbo. They will have to, because the turbine will be oversized - to get the energy recovery.



That will be interesting; that should sound neat at low rpms, the turbo should be out of sync with the engine revving.



#263 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:39

Do you live in the states? Because here, "for some reason", you couldn't even buy the VW turbo diesels until recently (I think) - why is that? VW just decided "hey, let's not sell our best fuel economy car in the biggest auto market"? Why is that?

There is more to it, and more MONEY involved, not practical reason.


AFAIK the reason is simply that in the US the tax on diesel is not lower than the one on gas, which is why - combined with historical reasons (not as dense a distribution network at least in some areas, I think) - diesel in the US is more expensive per gallon than gasoline.

Edit:

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. On average, as of January 2013, state and local taxes add 30.4 cents to gasoline and 30.0 cents to diesel, for a total US average fuel tax of 48.8 cents per gallon for gas and 54.4 cents per gallon for diesel.

-- Wikipedia

Fuel taxes in Germany are €0.4704 per litre for ultra-low sulphur Diesel and €0.6545 per litre for conventional unleaded petrol, plus Value Added Tax (19%) on the fuel itself and the Fuel Tax. That adds up to prices of €1.42 per litre for ultra-low sulphur Diesel and €1.55 per litre (approximately USD 8.10 per US gallon) for unleaded petrol (November 2011).

-- Wikipedia

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 23 January 2013 - 20:46.


#264 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:40

What happens to that research? Look up what happened to the battery designs Toyota came up with, and who owns them now...


I don't dispute that, but it's a different claim than the one you had made in the post I replied to.

#265 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,447 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 January 2013 - 23:23

The MGUH will resist the kinetic energy of the turbine and charge up the ES, avoiding too much boost on the intake side.


The MGUH will power the MGUK directly much of the time. While there is no restriction in transfer between the MGUH and ES and the MGUH and MGUK there is a restriction of energy transfer between the ES and MGUK. Mainly, I think, the energy stored in the ES from the MGUH will be used to spool the turbo. Any more than that will be sent to the MGUK.


As I have written before IF the exhaust gas still plays a significant role in providing downforce, especially in the slow turns, by some fancy tricks a 'waste'-gate could prove to be not wasteful at all. A lot depends on the specific regs and their interpretation...


Rules require one exhaust outlet. So any bypass has to feed back into the exhaust pipe.



#266 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:11

Because this thread is titled "2014 Power Units"....


Go post on the other threads then.

#267 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:18

Again: db is not going to tell you what is going to be louder a mile away. Just saying "the same decibels" with no other qualifications doesn't really say anything - there are a lot of things that will make a 120db noise.


So......all you're asking for is noise pollution?

Your sentiments do not demonstrate love of motorsport or motorsport purity. You are actually driving the sport you 'love' into the ground.

#268 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:10

Euro diesels have not come to North America in big numbers largely because they could not meet the stringent criteria emissions requirments. The tailpipe emission limits for diesels in Europe are far higher than allowed in N.A. The situation is slowly changing and there will be more diesels offered over the next while, but they won't be inexpensive.

The Europeans lowered diesel fuel costs (taxes) to encourage adoption and get lower GHG emissions. It worked. The consequence was poorer air quality and many believe that it was a bad trade off.

Edited by uffen, 24 January 2013 - 12:11.


#269 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2013 - 13:23

The MGUH will power the MGUK directly much of the time. While there is no restriction in transfer between the MGUH and ES and the MGUH and MGUK there is a restriction of energy transfer between the ES and MGUK. Mainly, I think, the energy stored in the ES from the MGUH will be used to spool the turbo. Any more than that will be sent to the MGUK.


I have pretty much the same opinion, although I think that a significant part of the recovered energy of the MGUH will be fed into the ES. This will be often the case during non-full throttle parts and when the engine hits the limiter on the longer straights, in short when you can not make more effective/efficient use of additional power and torque. All that will depend alot on the specific variables.

Rules require one exhaust outlet. So any bypass has to feed back into the exhaust pipe.


Of course. Still the exhaust plume will have considerably more energy to be used to create downforce, if the designers find solutions to direct them where it gains them enough performance.

#270 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 15:35

So, if I could put solar panels on my roof and eliminate by grid power needs for the cost of 1 years' power bill, and run with that for 10 years... that still isn't "zero emissions", right? That's not of interest to *anybody*, *anywhere*, right?

Just wait...


I'm pretty sure that solar panels cost alot more than 1 years power bill. The avaerage combined bill for gas and electric in the UK is £1200 and about 40% of that is gas. So if you know where to get solar panels installed for around £750 then let everyone else know. As far as I'm aware to install solar panels cost a few thousand pounds and they don't supply enough power to power everything in your house. As high demand for a house is around 4-5kw.

#271 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 15:53

I don't dispute that, but it's a different claim than the one you had made in the post I replied to.


No it is not, citing that car companies are spending millions on developing an electric car research is not the same as saying they're spending millions on *battery* research. All the same, all of the car companies seem bent on working on electric cars. Why is that, if that isn't the future?

If the engineering effort that was spent during the early 2000's was applied to electric motors and battery systems, combined with the arena of F1, you would quickly see gains not found in the street car industry, if for nothing else because of the 1:1 application of effort to visible results testing. The streamlined production cycle of Formula One is completely different than a commercial car endeavor.




#272 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 15:56

I'm pretty sure that solar panels cost alot more than 1 years power bill.


I DIDN'T SAY OTHERWISE.

Please notice the use of the word "if" in my original post, in the context of a future scenario involving such a (almost assuredly possible via Chinese manufacturing scaling) thing.


Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 24 January 2013 - 15:58.


#273 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 18:03

No it is not, citing that car companies are spending millions on developing an electric car research is not the same as saying they're spending millions on *battery* research. All the same, all of the car companies seem bent on working on electric cars. Why is that, if that isn't the future?


Shall I tell you why that is? CO2 fleet averages, its alot cheaper to make an electric car and put it up for sale which brings down your fleet average. Than pay the fine per vehicle you would have to pay if your fleet average is over 130g/km CO2. You sell an electric car that produces 0g/km it will really help pull that average down.

That is the only reason car manufacturers are all trying to make an electric car.

Read the second paragraph

EU regs

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 24 January 2013 - 18:06.


#274 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 21:04

No it is not, citing that car companies are spending millions on developing an electric car research is not the same as saying they're spending millions on *battery* research. All the same, all of the car companies seem bent on working on electric cars.



Well, you hadn't talked about "car companies", but about "private companies", and I gave you a link to a dedicated battery research project by IBM, which includes cars as targets. You are correct, though, that my links to investments by car companies did not mention batteries in particular, but IMHO if a car company is going to invest 5 billion into electric car research, it's safe to assume that battery research will be included, since batteries are by far the biggest problem for electric cars. To satisfy you, I spent literally 5 seconds to find a link to battery research by car companies.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 24 January 2013 - 21:06.


#275 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 January 2013 - 17:05

Shall I tell you why that is? CO2 fleet averages, its alot cheaper to make an electric car and put it up for sale which brings down your fleet average.


This is true, but that doesn't negate the idea that one day, China is going to pop up selling $5,000 electric cars that get effectively 100 mpg, and nobody in the auto industry will have an answer for it.










#276 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 January 2013 - 17:39

since batteries are by far the biggest problem for electric cars. To satisfy you, I spent literally 5 seconds to find a link to battery research by car companies.


Uhm... that doesn't cite what they're spending, and doesn't that at the same time confirm my point about the future going electric - when both Toyota and BMW are so interested in electric drive trains?

Which runs full circle back to electric and F1: it's too bad Toyota is out of F1; and that the rules are not wide open for electric.

If Toyota *was* still in F1, and the regs said there were no limitations to power output, etc. THEN - proving my point - Toyota would have a great research platform to spend money on something with direct road car relevance. Were they spending an F1 engine budget on battery research 5 years ago?

Toyota spends more on R&D than any other global company in the world; close to $8 billion. They were spending close to a billion on their F1 program. An open electric power regulation would have been a unique opportunity to throw the engineering resources of an F1 team onto something that would have real road car relevance. Instead we've got 3 major car companies spending who knows how much designing an IC engine that will never end up in a road car.

IMO, *real*, tangible TODAY road car relevance, or ENTERTAINMENT. IMO it's absolutely a rubbish, moronic idea to sit on the fence and dilute the entertainment side of things for some sort of "road car relevance" myth that doesn't even really exist. Unless you call Mercedes or Ferrari making a supercar with "an engine based on their F1 car!" "road car relevance", YMMV.




#277 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,613 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:15

so unless they take a complete part off an F1 car and put it directly on a road going car you will keep on saying its of no relevance?

Shame you ignore things like sequential gear boxes that are used on many road going cars and the many many different ideas that have been developed on F1 cars then move on to road going cars.
Or what about Williams who have taken their Ker's system and made a company to market it to the manufactures or the fact Porsche now use that Ker's system fitted to one of their road going cars.
The cross over is clearly seen you just need to have an open mind and eyes to see more often than not its not complete parts but ideas and knowledge that is passed over.
But if you are not willing to accept someone working on the project saying their race and road car devisions are talking and sharing the same information because its relevant to their road car too it seams you will ignore any proof that does not fit in with your preconceived opinion, which is a shame

A flappy paddle gearbox is an improvement? KERS on a road car, where? Hybrid racing car,, what a Prius!
F1 is supposed to be the ultimate in motorsport, fast powerfull cars, the best drivers. So a V6 turbo hybrid sure dont cut that.
F1 needs simple hard and fast rules, eg 4l normally aspirated or 2.2 forced induction. Real rules on downforce in a flat bottomed car with a mininum ride height. Wider but not huge tyres, eg 15" bag. And a maximum amount of fuel and no refueling. Then you may have cars that look different, sound different and race different.
How you limit the budgets is beyond me but that would also be an ideal.


#278 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 14:47

Uhm... that doesn't cite what they're spending


2 euros and 78 cents :rolleyes:


#279 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,448 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 29 January 2013 - 14:55

A flappy paddle gearbox is an improvement? KERS on a road car, where? Hybrid racing car,, what a Prius!
F1 is supposed to be the ultimate in motorsport, fast powerfull cars, the best drivers. So a V6 turbo hybrid sure dont cut that.
F1 needs simple hard and fast rules, eg 4l normally aspirated or 2.2 forced induction. Real rules on downforce in a flat bottomed car with a mininum ride height. Wider but not huge tyres, eg 15" bag. And a maximum amount of fuel and no refueling. Then you may have cars that look different, sound different and race different.
How you limit the budgets is beyond me but that would also be an ideal.

Tell me you're just kidding.

Edited by Timstr11, 29 January 2013 - 14:56.


Advertisement

#280 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 29 January 2013 - 15:35

"Tell me you're just kidding."

Why? F1 cars are turning into overly complex beats that are, arguably, less and less meaningful to many folks.
This is because they occupy a singular niche in the auto world. They are built to a formula, for one, a formula that is increasingly limited and offers only meagre marketing tie-ins for manufacturers. They also have a specific purpose - to go around a track fast for a short time. Many things, such as those dreaded flappy paddles, were added to F1 cars not because they had road car uses (F1 really doesn't care about that, although some Marketers might) but because they made the cars a little faster around a lap. However, once everyone got the system any competitive advantage was negated.

Norbert Haug didn't lose his job at M-B because there wasn't enough tech transfer going on, he is gone because M-B wasn't winning. The cars weren't fast enough.

#281 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,590 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 17:22

(...)However, once everyone got the system any competitive advantage was negated.(...)


Every competitive advantage was negated when the second guy moved on from this.
Posted Image

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 29 January 2013 - 17:22.


#282 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,922 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 29 January 2013 - 17:43

I'd love to know how reliable these new engines will be. Modern dynos and rigs help with simulating the real forces on the engine but there is always real world issues. Hot batteries and melted turbo maybe?

#283 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,135 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 January 2013 - 17:46

I'd love to know how reliable these new engines will be. Modern dynos and rigs help with simulating the real forces on the engine but there is always real world issues. Hot batteries and melted turbo maybe?


I'm expecting a record haul of grid penalties.

#284 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 17:49

I'd love to know how reliable these new engines will be. Modern dynos and rigs help with simulating the real forces on the engine but there is always real world issues. Hot batteries and melted turbo maybe?


I'm sure all the engineers will have thought of all the "real world issues", they are after all extremely smart people for work tirelessly to ensure the engines are the best they can be. I can't imagine one of them suddenly realising during the first shakedown that they forgot to allow for the ERS unit when calculating the cooling or something like that.



#285 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,135 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 January 2013 - 17:54

I'm sure all the engineers will have thought of all the "real world issues", they are after all extremely smart people for work tirelessly to ensure the engines are the best they can be. I can't imagine one of them suddenly realising during the first shakedown that they forgot to allow for the ERS unit when calculating the cooling or something like that.


They won't forget about it, but that doesn't mean they will get it right. We have seen plenty of KERS issues the last few seasons, and the ERS breaking has far more of a knock on affect.

#286 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 21:04


I just wanted to add that charging the KERS happened of course not only under breaking but also during the heavy exhaust blowing, at least starting from the very first races of the 2011 season. The reason is of course quite simple and it beautifully dovetailed with the EBD. To get as quickly through the (slow) corner the driver wants much downforce and relative little torque. Thus we had all those clever mappings trying to create a lot of much hot gas without delivering much torque and the KERS could take up some of that superfluous torque and convert it into reusable energy.

Now the future ERS would be able to harvest away even more torque but I don't think that the FIA will allow a waste-gate, as it would quite literally open up another loophole for more exhaust blowing. With the MGUH attached to the turbine and a clever management it shouldn't be needed.

#287 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 04 February 2013 - 20:34

Very interesting article about the 2014 engine http://gb.zinio.com/...416241241/pg-46

- The engines will probably not run as fast as the allowed 15,000rpm because the efficiency game is about making the power at the lowest possible RPM for friction reasons. The way that the fuel flow curve is developed, the engine will run ataround 12,000rpm.
- Main difference between direct injection for the F1 engine compared to road car engines: The F1 engine spends 70% of its time at full throttle, at which the fuel consumption and performance are crucial, which is not the case for road car engines. Road cars are about keeping the engine alive, but for the F1 engine you can't afford to use fuel at full throttle to keep things cool which is a classic aproach in road car engines.
- The rules stipulate that the turbo can only go in front or behind the engine, and as the exhaust has to exit at the back of the car probably nobody will put the turbo at the front (but you should never rule anything out).
- The pressures inside the cylinders will be much higher compared to the V8 engines (because of the turbo and direct injection). Because of this the pistons are completely different animals from a design point of view. The balance between pressure and inertia forces is much more in favour of the pressure forces with the V6 pistons, while on the V8 pistons the inertia forces were dominant.
- The use of an intercooler (which will (most likely) be used by all manufacturers) creates a number of challenges for the aerodynamicists and designers to achieve the thermal efficiency they are seeking to get. In order to make use of the fuel flow limit, the boost pressure is likely to be in the range of 2-3 bar. The compressor outlet temperatures will be in the range of 140-150degC, and you would not want the air in the plenum to be at that temperature for reasons of volumetric efficiency and detonation resistance. Cooling the air down will bring a direct engine efficiency which - with the fuel flow limited - is a direct power improvement. Therefore there is an immediate benefit to trade off against the weight and aero downside. Some degree of charge air cooling will be part of the optimal solution.
Since it's another cooling package on the car, there will be a performance trade-off to determine the aero- weight and packaging advantages vs the engine performance advantages.
- The fuel flow limit and tanks size on the new cars will result in much lower downforce levels, with the cars running Monza levels of downforce at Monaco.
- The turbocharger means that the current trend towards blown diffusers will come to an end as the engines simply will not produce enough mass flow from the exhaust to create the effect.

- Although lag is an issue with all turbo engines (when the driver requests an output torque form the car, he puts his foot down. The engine itself will make the torque it makes, the turbo will be at that point accelerating, and once it reaches a steady state than the torque will be higher than it was initially; the classic turbo lag scenario), you will not hear the WRC-style gunshots of anti-lag systems. If there is a difference between the torque that the engine can deliver and the amount that the driver requires, the shortfall can be filled with electrical power via the MGU-K (KERS). But the energy stored in the battery can also be used to accelerate the turbo, increasing the boost pressure via the MGU-H (exhaust turbine) and making up the shortfall that way.
- There is a lot to learn and decide about how to use the different types op energy (fuel and electric) and the three torque actuators (IC engine, MGU-H and MGU-K). Each time you recover energy you get to choose whether you use that power to drive the other MGU or whether you store that energy in the battery. From an efficiency point of view it is better to directly drive the other MGU. However, it can be better overall to store the energy and save it for later use, either because it's quicker in terms of lap time - even with the efficiency loss of (dis)charging batteries - to deploy the energy later in the lap, or if you want to tuse it later on, not for accelerating the car directly but for accelerating the turbo.
The management of so many variables, in addition to real world situations like overtaking or defending a position, and other complexities like DRS creates a substantial headache for the trackside engineers. You have to consider the performance optimisation of the longer timeframe in the same way as with KERS today. In 2014 there will be different strategies for overtaking or laptime and for racing and qualifying in terms of how the fuel is used around the lap. There is performance that is driven by the fuel flow rate and the maximum amount of energy you are allowed to take out of the battery per lap.
This is perhaps analogous in a qualifying situation, but not sustainable if that results in fuel consumption that will exceed the amount of fuel available for the race, or because the maximum amount of energy you can take out of the battery per lap is greater than the amount of energy you can put in per lap. Also, the battery is not allowed to discharge by more than a certain amount, so there is anouther sustainable performance limit there. Then htere will be different modes within those modes mentioned to deal withtactical situations like pit stops, etc. Then ther is the overall energy management problem, which is to get to the end of the race in the shortest possible time and with the best track position with that fixed amount of fuel.
- Because of the testing ban it seems likely that the engines will be fitted to some kind of test mule to get some early tracktime with them (Alain Prost is rumoured to become RenaultSport F1's test driver.)

Edited by F.M., 04 February 2013 - 20:36.


#288 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 21:41

- The fuel flow limit and tanks size on the new cars will result in much lower downforce levels, with the cars running Monza levels of downforce at Monaco.

Doubt it.

- The turbocharger means that the current trend towards blown diffusers will come to an end as the engines simply will not produce enough mass flow from the exhaust to create the effect.

AFAIK the potential for exhaust blowing during the turbo era was actually bigger. I think that even one of the designers from that era confirmed it on Scarbs' blog.

Though anyway a good read with some valid points.

Edited by DrProzac, 04 February 2013 - 21:42.


#289 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 04 February 2013 - 22:11

Doubt it.


Monza levels is probably a bit exaggerated. But it is very well possible that you simply can't go for high downforce because the extra drag it brings means you will need to burn more fuel than you have available to go as fast round the track as with low downforce and low drag but full engine power.
If there were qualifying and race setups, qualifying setups would be very different downforce wise.

AFAIK the potential for exhaust blowing during the turbo era was actually bigger. I think that even one of the designers from that era confirmed it on Scarbs' blog.

Few differences though:
- regulated max fuel flow -> lower massflow
- 'a lot' of the energy in the exhaust gases is used to generate electric energy

Edited by F.M., 04 February 2013 - 22:12.


#290 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,679 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:33

Very interesting article about the 2014 engine http://gb.zinio.com/...416241241/pg-46

- The use of an intercooler (which will (most likely) be used by all manufacturers) creates a number of challenges for the aerodynamicists and designers to achieve the thermal efficiency they are seeking to get. In order to make use of the fuel flow limit, the boost pressure is likely to be in the range of 2-3 bar. The compressor outlet temperatures will be in the range of 140-150degC, and you would not want the air in the plenum to be at that temperature for reasons of volumetric efficiency and detonation resistance. Cooling the air down will bring a direct engine efficiency which - with the fuel flow limited - is a direct power improvement. Therefore there is an immediate benefit to trade off against the weight and aero downside. Some degree of charge air cooling will be part of the optimal solution.
Since it's another cooling package on the car, there will be a performance trade-off to determine the aero- weight and packaging advantages vs the engine performance advantages.


In a road car you would want no more than 60C as an intercooler outlet temp. Probably go for similar in an F1 car but as the article stated, it linearly correlates with engine power. The closer to ambient you get, the more power you get.



#291 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,736 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:42

Very interesting article about the 2014 engine http://gb.zinio.com/...416241241/pg-46

- The turbocharger means that the current trend towards blown diffusers will come to an end as the engines simply will not produce enough mass flow from the exhaust to create the effect.[/b]



I wonder how this principle can be maintained with only a single turbo permitted. With twinturbos, thus an exhaust possible witin each side pod there appears to be more manners to play with the gas stream for aerodynamic purposes. Such was done in the first turbocharged era.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 05 February 2013 - 11:45.


#292 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:51

Few differences though:
- regulated max fuel flow -> lower massflow
- 'a lot' of the energy in the exhaust gases is used to generate electric energy


That potential trade-off is interesting, as I wrote earlier. Almost everything in F1 is a trade-off but for 2014 the variables involved should be far less known.

Edited by H2H, 05 February 2013 - 11:51.


#293 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:10

Monza levels is probably a bit exaggerated. But it is very well possible that you simply can't go for high downforce because the extra drag it brings means you will need to burn more fuel than you have available to go as fast round the track as with low downforce and low drag but full engine power.
If there were qualifying and race setups, qualifying setups would be very different downforce wise.

I expect them to use lower DF levels too, but I think it was grossly exaggerated. Especially in Monaco, where the straight line speeds are low so the drag forces aren't that high even with a high DF setup - that's why they are using all the downforce they can scavenge.

Few differences though:
- regulated max fuel flow -> lower massflow
- 'a lot' of the energy in the exhaust gases is used to generate electric energy

Reasonable. But the quote stated it was down to the turbocharger ;) I think it will come down to other regulations, like the exhaust position etc.

Edited by DrProzac, 05 February 2013 - 18:11.


#294 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 06 February 2013 - 15:42

Teams wanting earlier V6 tests

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said his outfit would be open to an early test. He reckons it would make financial sense to head off any issues promptly.

"I think in many respects it would make sense, but then again it is not something [Red Bull supplier] Renault is crying out for," Horner said.

"There are obviously associated costs with that [test] but ultimately it is probably a good investment in terms of knowing the engines are reliable by the time you get to the first race."


I fully agree that it could make a lot of sense from a financial point of view, as by giving the teams more time you would spread the precious ressources of the suppliers over a longer period and avoid some spikes in that area.

Edited by H2H, 06 February 2013 - 15:44.


#295 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,594 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 20:47

Renault has unveiled its 2014-spec engine.

#296 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,869 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 22:18

It certainly looks better and more refined than mercedes. I'd say approximately 0.6 sec a lap quicker.

#297 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 25 February 2013 - 22:20

It certainly looks better and more refined than mercedes. I'd say approximately 0.6 sec a lap quicker.

but where will the drivers put their lunch? :|

#298 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,869 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 22:37

but where will the drivers put their lunch? :|

Garry anderson will surely have an answer.

#299 windtravels

windtravels
  • Member

  • 901 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 February 2013 - 22:46

Renault has unveiled its 2014-spec engine.


It floats, unfair advantage. circumventing FIA regs. I can see newey's influence in this.

Advertisement

#300 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,448 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:11

AMuS has some nice schematic overviews of the engine with MGU-H, MGU-K and the Turbo + intercooler.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Edited by Timstr11, 26 February 2013 - 07:13.