Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2014 F1 Cars


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#1 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 25 January 2014 - 13:03

Thought I'd start a thread now some images are appearing:

 

http://www.autosport...dex.php/id/3191

 

My first thoughts: the sidepod air inlets are not as big as I expected, given the extra cooling needed for the intercoolers.

 

Regards, Ian



Advertisement

#2 Patrick Morgan

Patrick Morgan
  • Member

  • 208 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 January 2014 - 18:26

A completely non-technical comment but despite the ugliness (of the Ferrari particularly) isn't it wonderful to have cars that look so different? I confess to being very shallow in that aesthetics mean a lot to me but I have to say that I find these cars less offensive than the stepped nose cars of 2012. There is more innovation in these designs, it's not just a case of "well I guess we have to do it and the rules are so restrictive that it's just going to be ugly". I notice on the McLaren MP4-29 thread that someone has done some photoshopping and the car looks pretty good in circa 2004 paint where the appendage looks like the nose and the flared wing pillars look like a different part.

 

It looks really good in Marlboro colours (I have yet to see a car that does not) but I guess they will never be seen again in the real world. 



#3 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 18:32

Nickname? 

 

 

 

 

p1gc.jpg



#4 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 January 2014 - 22:15

Beluga

#5 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 January 2014 - 22:25

bottlenose_dolphin_picture.jpg



#6 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 January 2014 - 22:55

belugawhale.jpg



#7 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 January 2014 - 22:56

So they will be expecting a few wet races this year?



#8 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,823 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:51

It really only looks odd within the context of recent F1 practice from the front bulkhead forward to my eye.  These cars today are 95% designed by the FIA rather than the manufacturers so if the cars look like a mess, it's only because the rulebook is a mess.  The longer and more convoluted the regulations, the uglier the car.



#9 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:46

rule change 2016 as long as it fits into the box all is ok. so it can be a wedge kevlar track with a 10000 hp electric fusion power source and suction corner air side blast assist turning with pilots using g suits to stop blackouts ? just stiring the pot folks



#10 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 January 2014 - 23:44

Thought I'd start a thread now some images are appearing:

 

http://www.autosport...dex.php/id/3191

 

My first thoughts: the sidepod air inlets are not as big as I expected, given the extra cooling needed for the intercoolers.

 

Regards, Ian

The total cooling requirement should be substantially lower given that heat rejection = energy in - useful work done. Energy in (fuel) is less than 2013 and useful work done is similar.



#11 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:58

The debut of the 2014 Torro Rosso generated some boyish titters...

 

 

wgjq.jpg

 

 



#12 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 28 January 2014 - 02:04

It really only looks odd within the context of recent F1 practice from the front bulkhead forward to my eye.  These cars today are 95% designed by the FIA rather than the manufacturers so if the cars look like a mess, it's only because the rulebook is a mess.  The longer and more convoluted the regulations, the uglier the car.

 

That's exactly what Franz Tost of Torro Rosso and Cyril Abiteboul of Caterham said today -- specifically, a mismatch of the chassis height and nose regs. They opine it's too late for 2014 but they would like to see rule changes for 2015 to fix the aesthetics. 


Edited by Magoo, 28 January 2014 - 02:05.


#13 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,823 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 January 2014 - 05:22

They really need to do a clean sheet redo of the F1 technical regs, it's become a 50+ year accretion of near random arcana filling the rulebooks, public and private, to the ceiling like a hoarder's house. It can be done far better. 



#14 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 28 January 2014 - 08:42

The total cooling requirement should be substantially lower given that heat rejection = energy in - useful work done. Energy in (fuel) is less than 2013 and useful work done is similar.

 

You'd think so, but every single article I've read talks about how the teams are trying to accommodate the additional cooling requirements of the new package.  Look how big the sidepods are on this year's cars, they're big compared to last year's.



#15 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 28 January 2014 - 11:40

They really need to do a clean sheet redo of the F1 technical regs, it's become a 50+ year accretion of near random arcana filling the rulebooks, public and private, to the ceiling like a hoarder's house. It can be done far better. 

The rules equivalent to spagueti code. You're right, scratch it and start it over.



#16 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,802 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 January 2014 - 12:01

It really only looks odd within the context of recent F1 practice from the front bulkhead forward to my eye.  These cars today are 95% designed by the FIA rather than the manufacturers so if the cars look like a mess, it's only because the rulebook is a mess.  The longer and more convoluted the regulations, the uglier the car.

 

Have we already forgotten pre-2009 cars?  :p



#17 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 28 January 2014 - 12:56

That's exactly the point:

ferrari_f60_f2008_front-470x168.jpg

toyota_tf109_tf108_front-470x165.jpg

mclaren_mp424_mp423-470x424.jpg

 



#18 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 28 January 2014 - 14:27

Have we already forgotten pre-2009 cars?  :p

 

 

seems like half a decade ago now. 



#19 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,823 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 January 2014 - 19:25

The front wings positioned low in full ground effect look badass.



Advertisement

#20 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 28 January 2014 - 19:28

On this year's cars, I have to say the Mercedes is looking very impressive to me.  The front wing looks really highly developed, the sidepods are very small even compared to the Ferrari and RedBull, and it looks like some interesting work with the big slots in the RWEP and the pinched center section of the diffuser.

 

The Williams is also impressively compact, and has a similarly holistic-looking approach to an outwash FWEP, as opposed to the kind of brute-force turning vanes on the top surface of the Caterham FW.

 

Also interesting that I don't remember noticing one way or another in previous years, is that Williams and Caterham have the rear lower wishbones mounted quite low, presumably to influence flow over the top of the diffuser (or maybe just for kinematics).  Seems like most of the others have the lower wishbone up higher in line with the driveshaft and toe link.



#21 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 28 January 2014 - 23:01

The total cooling requirement should be substantially lower given that heat rejection = energy in - useful work done. Energy in (fuel) is less than 2013 and useful work done is similar.

 

You'd think so, but every single article I've read talks about how the teams are trying to accommodate the additional cooling requirements of the new package.  Look how big the sidepods are on this year's cars, they're big compared to last year's.

 

The engine heat rejection should be lower, but then you have to add the air / air charge cooling. I still think the sidepods & inlets look smaller than I expected.

 

Regards, Ian



#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 January 2014 - 00:06

Charge air cooling is included in the total heat rejection figure.

 

The reason they need more airflow (bigger sidepods) is the lower temperature they need to achieve in the cooled fluid (compressed air in the intercoolers). This leads to a smaller delta-T (air temp exiting sidepods minus air temp entering sidepods) and therefore a higher mass flow to achieve a given rate of heat rejection.



#23 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 January 2014 - 01:49

Beauty is as beauty does, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

0y8u.jpg



#24 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 January 2014 - 01:50

The total cooling requirement should be substantially lower given that heat rejection = energy in - useful work done. Energy in (fuel) is less than 2013 and useful work done is similar.

 

For "energy in", presumably you also need to include (what I gather is) the higher input from regenerative braking this year?


Edited by RogerGraham, 29 January 2014 - 01:51.


#25 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 January 2014 - 03:28

Also, I'm sorry, but the huge, boxy sidepods on the Caterham look pretty depressing to me, and it's too perfect to have "Airbus" written on them.



#26 alexbiker

alexbiker
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:47

The total cooling requirement should be substantially lower given that heat rejection = energy in - useful work done. Energy in (fuel) is less than 2013 and useful work done is similar.

 

You've got to cool the peaks as well as the mean, and the electric motors and batteries don't have the virtue of firing huge amounts of heat out of an exhaust.  There'll be heat generated inputting to the ERS power pack, there'll be heat outputted when it's used through the ERS-K, as the combustion engine is also going flat-chat, there's the heat inputted to the charge air instead of fired out of the back via the exhaust. 

 

Considering the minimum temperature requirements these beasts have and their very tight temperature operating window, it's going to be a huge problem keeping them warm enough at some points and cold enough in others.  A big temperature swing eg sudden rain in a hot climate might make for some interesting issues too.



#27 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:48

Beauty is as beauty does, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

0y8u.jpg

 

Oh Dear . . .



#28 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:20

For "energy in", presumably you also need to include (what I gather is) the higher input from regenerative braking this year?

No, that's only recycled energy that originally came from the fuel so, apart from inefficiencies in the storage/retrieval system, there is no heat generated.



#29 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:35

You've got to cool the peaks as well as the mean, and the electric motors and batteries don't have the virtue of firing huge amounts of heat out of an exhaust.  There'll be heat generated inputting to the ERS power pack, there'll be heat outputted when it's used through the ERS-K, as the combustion engine is also going flat-chat, there's the heat inputted to the charge air instead of fired out of the back via the exhaust. 

 

Considering the minimum temperature requirements these beasts have and their very tight temperature operating window, it's going to be a huge problem keeping them warm enough at some points and cold enough in others.  A big temperature swing eg sudden rain in a hot climate might make for some interesting issues too.

The electric motors and batteries have much higher conversion efficiency than the ICE so much lower heat rejection. It is easier to look at the overall picture ie - total energy input for a race will be perhaps 20% less this year. Energy output as work will be similar, therefore:

 

2013.  100 units input = 25 units useful work + 75 units heat rejected

2014.    80 units input = 25 units useful work + 55 units heat rejected

Heat rejection reduced by (75-55)/75 = 27%



#30 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 January 2014 - 08:31

Beauty is as beauty does, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

0y8u.jpg

I actually like the no shits given here you go FIA attitude this displays.

 

I am going to watch F1 this year. Not for the looks but for the development and the engines.



#31 alexbiker

alexbiker
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 29 January 2014 - 08:42

Grunt guru,

As I said, that's a valid argument for mean cooling, but you've got to cool the peaks as well - and large amounts of energy that were rejected through exhaust gas are now coming back into the system via the turbo.

This is the same argument I have with medical managers at work. We have 1000 admissions a year to the ICU that stay for a mean of 3.5 days, therefore we need 10 beds. . . . . No, no, a thousand times no - because they don't show up like that.

The implication of your calculation is that all the technical directors are lying to us about heat rejection and cooling requirements, or just wrong. Neither seem likely to me.

#32 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 January 2014 - 06:42

Most of the exhaust energy recovered will go into work not heat.

 

The heat rejection peaks will be lower than 2013 cars. Peak power (work) available to the wheels is about the same but a good chunk of that peak is coming from KERS which has a much higher conversion efficiency (90%+ if electric). In addition, the power coming from the heat engine will be at a higher efficiency thanks to turbocompounding. Consequently the rate of heat rejection under peak output conditions will be substantially less than 2013.

 

As I said earlier, the only reason cooling airflow would be higher in 2014, is a lower T (cooling air out).



#33 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,458 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 30 January 2014 - 08:53

Could using a liquid to air intercooler reduce the size of the heat exchanger exposed to the air?



#34 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 January 2014 - 10:23

No, that's only recycled energy that originally came from the fuel so, apart from inefficiencies in the storage/retrieval system, there is no heat generated.

 

I'm reluctant to query you, given your better knowledge!  

 

But to the extent there is more kinetic energy recovery than last year, there is additional (albeit recycled) heat coming into the system that was previously dissipated by the brakes/wheels/etc.  That additional recovered energy must now be dissipated in the energy storage unit or MGU-H or MGU-K or associated electronics?

Is that right, and if not what am I missing?



#35 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 January 2014 - 12:11

Here's MCG's modest contribution to the worldwide media twaddle. Fair and balanced--we report, you decide! 

 

 

http://www.macsmotor...ars-in-history/



#36 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 30 January 2014 - 16:08

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RMaovFFkNLQ

 

What's the veredict around here? Batteries going do sh!t, electronics going crazy on EM interference and heat?



#37 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 January 2014 - 23:29

But to the extent there is more kinetic energy recovery than last year, there is additional (albeit recycled) heat coming into the system that was previously dissipated by the brakes/wheels/etc.  That additional recovered energy must now be dissipated in the energy storage unit or MGU-H or MGU-K or associated electronics?

Is that right, and if not what am I missing?

Brakes convert kinetic energy into heat.

 

MGUK converts kinetic energy into stored energy (battery or flywheel). When needed, this energy is retrieved and converted to kinetic energy in the MGUK to drive the car (or perhaps the MGUH to spool up the turbo).



#38 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 January 2014 - 23:47

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RMaovFFkNLQ

 

What's the veredict around here? Batteries going do sh!t, electronics going crazy on EM interference and heat?

Shakedown issues - who knows what.



#39 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,458 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 30 January 2014 - 23:59

Shakedown issues - who knows what.


I'm guessing that it is mainly mapping issues. At low speeds the MGU-H has to drive the turbo (or the turbo lag will be ~6-7s according to Renault's Taffin) and they haven't, as yet, found a good mapping solution.


However, there have been subsequent software and mapping problems that have affected the working of the Renault power unit turbo and boost control.


http://www.autosport...t.php/id/112368

It seems they won't be able to run properly at all this test.

Edited by Wuzak, 31 January 2014 - 00:02.


Advertisement

#40 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 January 2014 - 01:23

Bear with me!  :)

 

Brakes convert kinetic energy into heat.

 

MGUK converts kinetic energy into stored energy (battery or flywheel). When needed, this energy is retrieved and converted to kinetic energy in the MGUK to drive the car (or perhaps the MGUH to spool up the turbo).

 

Yep, except those storage and retrieval processes aren't 100% efficient.  So a portion of the heat that was dissipated by the brakes is now being dissipated in the electronics/wiring/storage unit, adding to the shedload of cooling those units need.

 

Do you mean that this additional heat is small enough not to be material?



#41 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 January 2014 - 01:39

I'm guessing that it is mainly mapping issues. At low speeds the MGU-H has to drive the turbo (or the turbo lag will be ~6-7s according to Renault's Taffin) and they haven't, as yet, found a good mapping solution.

 

Given the many months that these power unit spent running on dynos, would you expect them to have sorted most of this out even before the cars ran?  Likewise with the issue discovered that was common to all the Renault cars (as opposed to Red Bull's additional, installation-specific problems).
 

Either way it's interesting times, seeing Renault and Red Bull (temporarily?) humbled like this.



#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:59

Bear with me!  :)

 

 

Yep, except those storage and retrieval processes aren't 100% efficient.  So a portion of the heat that was dissipated by the brakes is now being dissipated in the electronics/wiring/storage unit, adding to the shedload of cooling those units need.

 

Do you mean that this additional heat is small enough not to be material?

 

No (see below) but this heat is accounted for in the overall energy balance (energy rejected as waste heat equals fuel energy minus useful work)

 

No, that's only recycled energy that originally came from the fuel so, apart from inefficiencies in the storage/retrieval system, there is no heat generated.



#43 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 594 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 31 January 2014 - 06:22

The debut of the 2014 Torro Rosso generated some boyish titters...

 

 

wgjq.jpg

 

I knew this reminded me of something...proboscis monkey.

 

F1 has gone beyond absurd. Way beyond.



#44 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 31 January 2014 - 10:42

Newey going DIY style:

 

BfTSqkqCQAExS58.jpg

 

 



#45 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:51

Newey going DIY style:

 

BfTSqkqCQAExS58.jpg

 

 

Looks like they have a crack heating and air conditioning man on staff. 



#46 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,580 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 31 January 2014 - 13:48

F1 has gone beyond absurd. Way beyond.

:clap:



#47 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 January 2014 - 15:49

No (see below) but this heat is accounted for in the overall energy balance (energy rejected as waste heat equals fuel energy minus useful work)

 

Agreed.  But it's still heat that was previously dissipated by the brakes, which now has to be dissipated from somewhere under the engine cover.



#48 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 757 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 February 2014 - 07:23

saudoso, on 31 Jan 2014 - 21:42, said:
Looks like they have a crack heating and air conditioning man on staff.


I think he was smoking it when he made this ...

Edited by GreenMachine, 01 February 2014 - 07:24.


#49 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 February 2014 - 23:28

Agreed.  But it's still heat that was previously dissipated by the brakes, which now has to be dissipated from somewhere under the engine cover.

That's one way to look at it . . . . or you could say - hey they're burning a lot less fuel (70% of which energy becomes heat under the engine cover or the exhaust) and instead reusing some of the braking energy to drive the car (and perhaps 30 or 40% of the energy recovered has to be dissipated as heat)



#50 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 February 2014 - 23:53

That's one way to look at it . . . . or you could say - hey they're burning a lot less fuel (70% of which energy becomes heat under the engine cover or the exhaust) and instead reusing some of the braking energy to drive the car (and perhaps 30 or 40% of the energy recovered has to be dissipated as heat)

 

Yep.  I was just looking for additional sources of heat "under the engine cover" compared to last year.  

 

Whether that additional heat compares to the reduced heat from the lower fuel load, could (in principle) be deduced by people with better maths skills than mine!  :)