Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 10 votes

The RB10 - Red Bull Racing's challenger for 2014


  • Please log in to reply
1453 replies to this topic

#451 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 February 2014 - 08:43

I wonder what happened to compositeken?

 

Still a registered user. Has a total of 6 posts.



Advertisement

#452 redviper22

redviper22
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 14 February 2014 - 10:39

i don't get it... are you saying the 2012 Ferrari had serious problems at the start of the season?
 
They seemed to have it sorted in time if you look at the championship table   ;)


?? They wasted the first quarter of the season with an uncompetitive car which effectively cost them the championship.

#453 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 711 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:27

A lot of Jerez flights change at Madrid, or they could just be doing a TV bit for the opening shows of the new season

‏They also had a photo shoot for team merchandise there. I'm still not convinced both drivers and Sky team traveled to Madrid just for these but what do I know.  :blush: 
 
@SimonLazenbySky "The @redbullracing boys on great form in Madrid. @danielricciardo and Seb giving each other a damn good grilling. Look like good pairing." (12 Feb 2014)
 
A few photos https://www.facebook...73.353832762019

1617502_10152196296062020_1013802052_o.j



#454 redviper22

redviper22
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:34

Awww look how happy they are! Judging from this lovely photo, we must conclude that Red Bull have a rocket car and will easily run away with both titles. Why else would the drivers have beaming smiles across their faces?

Edited by redviper22, 14 February 2014 - 11:35.


#455 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:38

Awww look how happy they are! Judging from this lovely photo, we must conclude that Red Bull have a rocket car and will easily run away with both titles. Why else would the drivers have beaming smiles across their faces?

 

Agreed



#456 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:41

Might have been done using electricity?



#457 Mercedestorque1

Mercedestorque1
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:59

Awww look how happy they are! Judging from this lovely photo, we must conclude that Red Bull have a rocket car and will easily run away with both titles. Why else would the drivers have beaming smiles across their faces?

:rotfl:



#458 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 February 2014 - 12:09

Might have been done using electricity

I think they're having trouble with electric systems at the moment. Maybe it was something less likely to go up in smoke?

 

doddy-tickling-stephen-shakeshaft.jpg

 

ticklingstick.jpg?w=584



#459 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 February 2014 - 12:30

Awww look how happy they are! Judging from this lovely photo, we must conclude that Red Bull have a rocket car and will easily run away with both titles. Why else would the drivers have beaming smiles across their faces?

 

I think in case of Ricciardo, it is hard to infer anything from a beaming smile - whether he feels like Massa after the 2008 season finale or Vettel after 2010 can probably only be judged by his dearest fans.   ;)



Advertisement

#460 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 4,855 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 14 February 2014 - 13:55

They say in Hollywood when you have too much botox you lose all expression from your face.  Ricciardo is the exact polar opposite of that, and unlike Webber who had 1001 expression, there is only one.. and it's "OMG I just won the lottery".



#461 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 711 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 14 February 2014 - 14:10

They say in Hollywood when you have too much botox you lose all expression from your face.  Ricciardo is the exact polar opposite of that, and unlike Webber who had 1001 expression, there is only one.. and it's "OMG I just won the lottery".

Or "OMG I just got a proposal from Seb!" expression  :clap:



#462 Crossmax

Crossmax
  • Member

  • 974 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 14 February 2014 - 14:11

They say in Hollywood when you have too much botox you lose all expression from your face.  Ricciardo is the exact polar opposite of that, and unlike Webber who had 1001 expression, there is only one.. and it's "OMG I just won the lottery".

Him and Grosjean could team up for the sequel to "Dumb & Dumber"...

 

dumdummare.jpeg



#463 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 4,855 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 14 February 2014 - 15:39

Funny timing, I don't know if you know, but there is actually a sequal that's already being made and will be released late this year.  With those same two, a proper sequal not a cheesy remake with no name actors.



#464 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 14 February 2014 - 18:03

That's a pic from on-set filming of the sequel.

Edited by Maustinsj, 14 February 2014 - 18:07.


#465 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 4,855 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 14 February 2014 - 18:22

Well there you go.. :lol: Oops.



#466 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 14 February 2014 - 19:12

?? They wasted the first quarter of the season with an uncompetitive car which effectively cost them the championship.

 

The car of 2012 was probably not the fastest in dry conditions, but it looked quit good in the rain. Even Ferrari admitted, that the weather conditions at the beginning of the season were helpful.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/101779

 

On the onboards, the Ferrari looked less nervous than a Red Bull or a McLaren.

Last year's car, although 100 or even 1000 times better than the car of 2012 (according to Massa), never looked as planted in the rain and their performances in the rain were also far less impressive. Alonso even spun in the qualifyings of Spa and Brazil.


Edited by ThomFi, 14 February 2014 - 19:13.


#467 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 469 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:26

Newly admits to packaging problems:

http://uk.eurosport....19861--f1.html?

I am more interested in this:

"Everybody of the three engine manufacturers will have a different target for how hot their charge air is going back into the plenum and Renault have given us a fairly challenging target.
"It has all sorts of advantages if we can get there, but it is not easy to achieve."

What does this mean? Charged air and plenum?? And what advantages are he he talking about? Maybe with more hot air in the plenum (whatever that is) require less cooling to cool the air down and therefore an aerodynamic advantage because of less packaging..

It looks like Renault have an ambitious target and looking for performance gains in that area.

#468 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:32

Newly admits to packaging problems:

http://uk.eurosport....19861--f1.html?

I am more interested in this:

"Everybody of the three engine manufacturers will have a different target for how hot their charge air is going back into the plenum and Renault have given us a fairly challenging target.
"It has all sorts of advantages if we can get there, but it is not easy to achieve."

What does this mean? Charged air and plenum?? And what advantages are he he talking about? Maybe with more hot air in the plenum (whatever that is) require less cooling to cool the air down and therefore an aerodynamic advantage because of less packaging..

It looks like Renault have an ambitious target and looking for performance gains in that area.

Plenum chamber is the chamber above the intake manifold and houses the pressurized air that has gone through the intercooler. 

 

What Newey is saying is that if they can get the charged air cool enough then there is a power advantage to be gained. 


Edited by Gorma, 17 February 2014 - 12:32.


#469 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:33

It looks like Renault have an ambitious target and looking for performance gains

This is what I was thinking right from the start. Renault benefited most from the equalisation and 'reliability' allowances in the last generation of frozen engines, so they'll insitinctively understand the possible long-term benefits of having an engine that detonates for half a season or so but ends up winning for the next four or five years. Also, not being a competitor (in the sense of a team) they could choose that strategy and suffer much, much less reputational damage than, for instance, Mercedes would if they took the same path.

 

Time will tell.



#470 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 469 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:50

Plenum chamber is the chamber above the intake manifold and houses the pressurized air that has gone through the intercooler. 
 
What Newey is saying is that if they can get the charged air cool enough then there is a power advantage to be gained. 


Okay, thanks. So a power advantage in terms of more horse power if the charged air is cool enough?

#471 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:54

Okay, thanks. So a power advantage in terms of more horse power if the charged air is cool enough?

That's right. 



#472 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 3,928 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:01

Newly admits to packaging problems:

http://uk.eurosport....19861--f1.html?

I am more interested in this:

"Everybody of the three engine manufacturers will have a different target for how hot their charge air is going back into the plenum and Renault have given us a fairly challenging target.
"It has all sorts of advantages if we can get there, but it is not easy to achieve."

What does this mean? Charged air and plenum?? And what advantages are he he talking about? Maybe with more hot air in the plenum (whatever that is) require less cooling to cool the air down and therefore an aerodynamic advantage because of less packaging..

It looks like Renault have an ambitious target and looking for performance gains in that area.

Charged air that he's talking about is the air that has left the turbo passed thru the intercooler and going into the engine itself. The cooler the air the more dense it is and the better for the engine.



#473 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:04

This is what I was thinking right from the start. Renault benefited most from the equalisation and 'reliability' allowances in the last generation of frozen engines, so they'll insitinctively understand the possible long-term benefits of having an engine that detonates for half a season or so but ends up winning for the next four or five years. Also, not being a competitor (in the sense of a team) they could choose that strategy and suffer much, much less reputational damage than, for instance, Mercedes would if they took the same path.

 

Time will tell.

No, Renault lost the most during that period. Mercedes and Ferrari introduced power updates along with their reliability updates, Renault didn't. That is why they were allowed equalise the situation afterwards. I know a lot will tell that is BS, but considering it was Red Bull that demanded the equalisation in the first place it's quite trustworthy information. Since they are the only people in F1 that had two teams with two different engines they could see the other team's engine gaining power while the other one wasn't.

 

I don't see any idea in building an unrealiable engine, because manufacturers can introduce performance updates with the next years engine.



#474 Mercedestorque1

Mercedestorque1
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:08

Him and Grosjean could team up for the sequel to "Dumb & Dumber"...

 

dumdummare.jpeg

:rotfl:



#475 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:09

Okay, thanks. So a power advantage in terms of more horse power if the charged air is cool enough?

Cooler air is denser, so there is more oxygen for the same amount of volume. Cylinder volume is limited to 1.6L, so colder air inside means more oxygen inside the same limited capacity than if it were hotter air.

However, you always need to have the correct ratio of fuel to oxygen. So if you have more oxygen in your cylinders, you'll need to inject more fuel too. This gets you more power.

The interesting thing is that boost isn't limited, so you could in theory have as much oxygen as you like in your cylinders at any time, by running a higher boost pressure. You could make the same power with less charge cooling.

Ultimately both are limited by a fuel flow limit. So although cooler charge air is normally the domain of more power, with unlimited boost AND limited fuel flow, the emphasis is shifted somewhat.

A cooler charge will put less strain on the engine internals, as well as helping to manage temperatures. It will also be less likely to knock or auto-ignite. It will also mean less energy is needed to keep the turbo spinning, meaning the MGU-H can extract more energy from the exhaust, as the boost pressure is lower. The size of the turbos they're using, as they don't have to worry about lag, will also be very efficient at high boost pressures. Efficiency in turbo terms usually means amount of boost versus amount of heat. A smaller turbo working harder will add more heat to the charge than a larger one working slower.

So it could be that the cooler charge temperature IS about more power, but in a round and about way through the MGU-H, compared to traditional forced induction tuning.

With the fuel flow limit, and unlimited boost, I think the charge temperature is more about reliability and possibly MGU-H->MGU-K harvesting than it is about ICE power and efficiency. Or at least it's not the only concern as it is with traditional intercooling.

I should clarify that race engines tend to run richer than they need to as the fuel itself is used to cool the combustion chamber to stop knocking. So a cooler charge means you can get away with putting less fuel in for the same power.
But as power is all about oxygen atoms in cylinder, cooler charge by itself doesn't make more power if you can manage heat in other ways.

ECU's for turbo cars tend to read absolute pressure and are aware of charge temperature. With those two bits of information they can work out precisely the weight of oxygen in cylinder, and send fuel to match. Cooling systems and engine strength aside, the ECU can then make sure a fixed amount of oxygen is entering, regardless of charge temperature or altitude, by adjusting when the wastegate opens, and thus how much boost pressure is reached. This is why turbo cars don't slow down at altitude.

In other words, given two identical engines with a fuel FLOW limit, both are capable of making the same peak power regardless of charge temperature, providing the cooling system is sufficient, and the engine is robust enough.
If the charge air is hot, it will just spin the turbo up faster and increase the boost pressure to get the same oxygen in cylinder.

The targets will be efficiency ones rather than power ones I think. The engines I think are all going to make around the same power. What will differentiate them is power per unit of fuel. Power per unit of fuel doesn't translate to more horsepower, but it does translate directly to laptime.

There will be a sweet spot with intercooling, where you're trading it off against aerodynamics of the sidepods. If the engine cooling systems themselves are good enough, there'll be a point where a cooler charge won't make any difference, as you're limited by fuel flow ultimately.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 17 February 2014 - 14:28.


#476 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:09

No, Renault lost the most during that period. Mercedes and Ferrari introduced power updates along with their reliability updates, Renault didn't. That is why they were allowed equalise the situation afterwards. I know a lot will tell that is BS, but considering it was Red Bull that demanded the equalisation in the first place it's quite trustworthy information. Since they are the only people in F1 that had two teams with two different engines they could see the other team's engine gaining power while the other one wasn't.

 

I don't see any idea in building an unrealiable engine, because manufacturers can introduce performance updates with the next years engine.

Between the equalisation and 'reliability' upgreades, Renault went from being considered the worst (of the Merc, Ferrari and Renault engines) to the best overall package, introducing 'reliability' upgrades that gave all sorts of benefits in various areas of performance.

 

As for performance updates, they'll only be allowed in certain areas, which will be reduced year by year. So targeting maximum performance from the parts that will be frzen in year 1 would make sense, and that's where you'd expect to see the biggest trade off of reliability for performance, as reliability can be added later, while performance (theoretically) can't.

 

Who knows, maybe they just got it a bit wrong. Or maybe they're being clever. Or maybe both. Probably both, at a guess.



#477 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:29

Cooler air is denser, so there is more oxygen for the same amount of volume. Cylinder volume is limited to 1.5L, so colder air inside means more oxygen inside the same limited capacity than if it were hotter air.

However, you always need to have the correct ratio of fuel to oxygen. So if you have more oxygen in your cylinders, you'll need to inject more fuel too. This gets you more power.

The interesting thing is that boost isn't limited, so you could in theory have as much oxygen as you like in your cylinders at any time, by running a higher boost pressure. You could make the same power with less charge cooling.

Ultimately both are limited by a fuel flow limit. So although cooler charge air is normally the domain of more power, with unlimited boost AND limited fuel flow, the emphasis is shifted somewhat.

A cooler charge will put less strain on the engine internals, as well as helping to manage temperatures. It will also be less likely to knock or auto-ignite. It will also mean less energy is needed to keep the turbo spinning, meaning the MGU-H can extract more energy from the exhaust, as the boost pressure is lower. The size of the turbos they're using, as they don't have to worry about lag, will also be very efficient at high boost pressures. Efficiency in turbo terms usually means amount of boost versus amount of heat. A smaller turbo working harder will add more heat to the charge than a larger one working slower.

So it could be that the cooler charge temperature IS about more power, but in a round and about way through the MGU-H, compared to traditional forced induction tuning.

With the fuel flow limit, and unlimited boost, I think the charge temperature is more about reliability and possibly MGU-H->MGU-K harvesting than it is about ICE power and efficiency. Or at least it's not the only concern as it is with traditional intercooling.

I should clarify that race engines tend to run richer than they need to as the fuel itself is used to cool the combustion chamber to stop knocking. So a cooler charge means you can get away with putting less fuel in for the same power.
But as power is all about oxygen atoms in cylinder, cooler charge by itself doesn't make more power if you can manage heat in other ways.

The targets will be efficiency ones rather than power ones I think.

I'm no kind of engine guru, just thinking out loud so please let me know if this is stupid...

 

Reading what you said, is it possible that the Renault engine is designed to (eventually) run using a larger volume of relatively hot air fed back in via the plenum rather than a smaller volume of cooler air, which will ultimately reduce the cooling requirements of the engine, but may place more demand on heat management (and potentially need more 'ad hoc cooling while the systems are being optimised)?



#478 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:35

I'm no kind of engine guru, just thinking out loud so please let me know if this is stupid...
 
Reading what you said, is it possible that the Renault engine is designed to (eventually) run using a larger volume of relatively hot air fed back in via the plenum rather than a smaller volume of cooler air, which will ultimately reduce the cooling requirements of the engine, but may place more demand on heat management (and potentially need more 'ad hoc cooling while the systems are being optimised)?


I'm no engine guru either! I just don't see how with a fuel flow limit in place, a colder charge equals more peak power. Unless they aren't limited by fuel flow, but engine temperatures.

As for running hotter charge, so as not to need a big intercooler in the sidepods; the problem then is the internals of the engine itself may overheat, and so you'd need bigger coolant radiators, or you might have to run even richer so as to cool the cylinders with pretty much neat fuel splashing on them. At this point, you may have skinny sidepods, but need 10% more fuel to make the same power as a cooler running engine, and thus not be quicker over a Grand Prix.

I think there will be a balance between all of these things, and maybe Renault do have something special up their sleeve. Maybe they have worked out the perfect ratio of charge cooling, to coolant cooling, to sidepod inlet size, to cylinder cooling via fuel.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 17 February 2014 - 13:37.


#479 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:43

I'm no engine guru either! I just don't see how with a fuel flow limit in place, a colder charge equals more peak power. Unless they aren't limited by fuel flow, but engine temperatures.

As for running hotter charge, so as not to need a big intercooler in the sidepods; the problem then is the internals of the engine itself may overheat, and so you'd need bigger coolant radiators, or you might have to run even richer so as to cool the cylinders with pretty much neat fuel splashing on them. At this point, you may have skinny sidepods, but need 10% more fuel to make the same power as a cooler running engine, and thus not be quicker over a Grand Prix.

I think there will be a balance between all of these things, and maybe Renault do have something special up their sleeve. Maybe they have worked out the perfect ratio of charge cooling, to coolant cooling, to sidepod inlet size, to cylinder cooling via fuel.

Yeah, you'd have thought that the fuel flow would be the limiting factor re power rather than charge temperature. As for the balance between efficiency and the various cooling requirements, I guess that's the real big challenge they're all facing. Would there even be a theoretically perfect solution? I suppose that comes down to the package it needs to fit in, and what's inside it.

 

I'm confusing myself now. I'm going to stop thinking about this for a bit  :lol:



Advertisement

#480 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:46

I'm no engine guru either! I just don't see how with a fuel flow limit in place, a colder charge equals more peak power. Unless they aren't limited by fuel flow, but engine temperatures.

As for running hotter charge, so as not to need a big intercooler in the sidepods; the problem then is the internals of the engine itself may overheat, and so you'd need bigger coolant radiators, or you might have to run even richer so as to cool the cylinders with pretty much neat fuel splashing on them. At this point, you may have skinny sidepods, but need 10% more fuel to make the same power as a cooler running engine, and thus not be quicker over a Grand Prix.

I think there will be a balance between all of these things, and maybe Renault do have something special up their sleeve. Maybe they have worked out the perfect ratio of charge cooling, to coolant cooling, to sidepod inlet size, to cylinder cooling via fuel.

 

Yeah, you'd have thought that the fuel flow would be the limiting factor re power rather than charge temperature. As for the balance between efficiency and the various cooling requirements, I guess that's the real big challenge they're all facing. Would there even be a theoretically perfect solution? I suppose that comes down to the package it needs to fit in, and what's inside it.

 

I'm confusing myself now. I'm going to stop thinking about this for a bit  :lol:

 

Is the problem more significant because of the low temperatures at Jerez? If they're struggling to get low charge air temp at 14 degrees, will the problem be even worse at say 40 degrees or does it not work that way?



#481 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,158 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:57

 

Is the problem more significant because of the low temperatures at Jerez? If they're struggling to get low charge air temp at 14 degrees, will the problem be even worse at say 40 degrees or does it not work that way?

It does work that way.



#482 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:02

Yeah, you'd have thought that the fuel flow would be the limiting factor re power rather than charge temperature. As for the balance between efficiency and the various cooling requirements, I guess that's the real big challenge they're all facing. Would there even be a theoretically perfect solution? I suppose that comes down to the package it needs to fit in, and what's inside it.
 
I'm confusing myself now. I'm going to stop thinking about this for a bit  :lol:


This is where we need someone like TC3000 with his maths and graphs, and also real knowledge. I (think I) know the basic principles, but have no idea on specific figures or anything like that. But I think this problem has too many variables that would require real testing to work out.


It seems to be a circle of things all depending on and feeding back to each other.

I'm going to use completely made up numbers now, but if you had an ICE design that could run at 500 degrees charge temperature, but needed to run 5% rich to stop auto-ignition; and then modified the intercooler to cool the charge down to 250 degrees, and found you only needed to run 0.5% rich to stop auto-ignition. That might seem worth it. But if cooling the charge down to 125 degrees meant you could now only run 0.25% rich, it might have meant a much bigger intercooler surface area for insignificant fuel saving. It could be that the drag from the size of this super intercooler now slows you down and makes you use way more fuel that you would have done with 250 degrees charge.

Again, completely made up numbers.

To me the target efficiency thing hinted at by Renault sounds more like efficiency for fuel saving (which is laptime over a race distance) rather than outright power as others have suggested. The cooler your charge, the less rich you need to run as far as I can see. The fuel flow limit throws away the rule book on normal turbo tuning, where it is limited by heat management mostly.

Edited by RoutariEnjinu, 17 February 2014 - 14:05.


#483 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:03

Is the problem more significant because of the low temperatures at Jerez? If they're struggling to get low charge air temp at 14 degrees, will the problem be even worse at say 40 degrees or does it not work that way?


Who said they were struggling with charge temperature at Jerez? It could have been nice and cool, but they calculated it should have been cooler, and so anticipated problems later on at the hotter tracks.

#484 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:09

This is where we need someone like TC3000 with his maths and graphs, and also real knowledge. I (think I) know the basic principles, but have no idea on specific figures or anything like that. But I think this problem has too many variables that would require real testing to work out.


It seems to be a circle of things all depending on and feeding back to each other.

I'm going to use completely made up numbers now, but if you had an ICE design that could run at 500 degrees charge temperature, but needed to run 5% rich to stop auto-ignition; and then modified the intercooler to cool the charge down to 250 degrees, and found you only needed to run 0.5% rich to stop auto-ignition. That might seem worth it. But if cooling the charge down to 125 degrees meant you could now only run 0.25% rich, it might have meant a much bigger intercooler surface area for insignificant fuel saving. It could be that the drag from the size of this super intercooler now slows you down and makes you use way more fuel that you would have done with 250 degrees charge.

Again, completely made up numbers.

To me the target efficiency thing hinted at by Renault sounds more like efficiency for fuel saving (which is laptime over a race distance) rather than outright power as others have suggested. The cooler your charge, the less rich you need to run as far as I can see.

That all makes sense. The number of trade-offs and what can be gain and lost at each point is pretty interesting. I wonder how much difference there will be between the solutions and outcomes? Will there be big variances, or is it going to be a lot of juggling to get to roughly the same place? Or will the advantages fall in areas like packaging and, as you mention, fuel saving? I guess it'll be one of those times where either an inspired decision on the path to take and/or a lot of very small, hard won advantages could add up to something significant in one way or another, even once everyone's got their ideas broadly ironed out and functioning.

 

But, as you say, I think we've kind of gone to the end of what we can do with theorising, and need someone with a bit of real knowledge. Preferably someone who's had their paws on all three engines - any FIA technical delegates on here?  :wave:



#485 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:12

Who said they were struggling with charge temperature at Jerez? It could have been nice and cool, but they calculated it should have been cooler, and so anticipated problems later on at the hotter tracks.

 

That was one of the inferences I took from the Newey article, it's mentioned in the context of overheating in Jerez and the fact that they may have been too aggressive with their packaging. That's how I read it, it may not be correct but since he mentions it, it would stand to reason that it is relevant.



#486 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:18

Between the equalisation and 'reliability' upgreades, Renault went from being considered the worst (of the Merc, Ferrari and Renault engines) to the best overall package, introducing 'reliability' upgrades that gave all sorts of benefits in various areas of performance.

you're wrong. it was merc&ferrari that gained a lot of performance on "reliability" upgrades, they left renault standing still. that is why renault was allowed introducing some "equalisation" upgrades.



#487 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:19

But, as you say, I think we've kind of gone to the end of what we can do with theorising, and need someone with a bit of real knowledge. Preferably someone who's had their paws on all three engines - any FIA technical delegates on here?  :wave:


There's always the technical forum, but I'm too thick for there.

I think it boils down to the fact the "performance" of an engine isn't just a twisting force when you have limited fuel flow, but a combination of twisting force and how much weight you need to carry to generate that force to last a Grand Prix.

An engine that makes 630bhp might be 2 tenths a lap quicker than one making 620bhp, but if the one making 620bhp is significantly more efficient, it might end up needing "3 tenths in weight" less fuel per lap to reach the end of the GP. Ending up the power unit offering the best "performance" by being a net 1 tenth a lap quicker.

Pretend numbers again to exaggerate a point.

#488 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:20

you're wrong. it was merc&ferrari that gained a lot of performance on "reliability" upgrades, they left renault standing still. that is why renault was allowed introducing some "equalisation" upgrades.

I said 'between' the two sets of upgrades. I don't think many people thought the Renault was the engine to have before the freeze, but a lot of people did after all the updates.



#489 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:24

There's always the technical forum, but I'm too thick for there.

I think it boils down to the fact the "performance" of an engine isn't just a twisting force when you have limited fuel flow, but a combination of twisting force and how much weight you need to carry to generate that force to last a Grand Prix.

An engine that makes 630bhp might be 2 tenths a lap quicker than one making 620bhp, but if the one making 620bhp is significantly more efficient, it might end up needing "3 tenths in weight" less fuel per lap to reach the end of the GP. Ending up the power unit offering the best "performance" by being a net 1 tenth a lap quicker.

Pretend numbers again to exaggerate a point.

Yeah, and there's also the fact that gaining a bit of efficiency could get you a bit more performance for the same amount of fuel. Or needing a bit less cooling could let you package and ballast the car better. And so on. It must be a fun (if slightly stressful) time to be in F1 right now, lots of probletunities.



#490 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 3,928 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:29

I'm no engine guru either! I just don't see how with a fuel flow limit in place, a colder charge equals more peak power. Unless they aren't limited by fuel flow, but engine temperatures.

As for running hotter charge, so as not to need a big intercooler in the sidepods; the problem then is the internals of the engine itself may overheat, and so you'd need bigger coolant radiators, or you might have to run even richer so as to cool the cylinders with pretty much neat fuel splashing on them. At this point, you may have skinny sidepods, but need 10% more fuel to make the same power as a cooler running engine, and thus not be quicker over a Grand Prix.

I think there will be a balance between all of these things, and maybe Renault do have something special up their sleeve. Maybe they have worked out the perfect ratio of charge cooling, to coolant cooling, to sidepod inlet size, to cylinder cooling via fuel.

One of the main things is the intercooler will directly affect the fuel efficiency of the PU



#491 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 14:39

One of the main things is the intercooler will directly affect the fuel efficiency of the PU


That's what I think it boils down to, which distils to a car carrying less fuel ballast, and bottled as laptime.

I don't think it's about more peak power like in traditional turbo-charger tuning.

If Newey is struggling to fit a decently sized intercooler in with his aero philosophy for the sidepods, then he needs to start looking for more efficient charge cooling. The kind of intercooler found even in high end racing cars is far from any theoretical limit. Ferrari might be running a very high tech one that uses "nanotubes" and are hard to manufacture. There is also water-air charge cooling (I used to have a custom built watercooled system on a Polo G40). They carry more of a weight penalty, but offer better throttle response as the charged air path is of a smaller volume for the same efficiency. They need their own water radiator though.

#492 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 15:29

That's what I think it boils down to, which distils to a car carrying less fuel ballast, and bottled as laptime.

 

With the new engines being more efficient and the permitted fuel capped at 100kg, will there still be such a benefit to running as light as possible even if that comes at a noticeable engine performance deficit? Or will the fact that there is less ultimate difference between maximum and reduced percentage fuel load, couple with the fact a given weight of fuel now offers more performance than it did previously, mean this is less likely (or at least likely to be less extreme)?



#493 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 15:42

That's what I think it boils down to, which distils to a car carrying less fuel ballast, and bottled as laptime.

I don't think it's about more peak power like in traditional turbo-charger tuning.

If Newey is struggling to fit a decently sized intercooler in with his aero philosophy for the sidepods, then he needs to start looking for more efficient charge cooling. The kind of intercooler found even in high end racing cars is far from any theoretical limit. Ferrari might be running a very high tech one that uses "nanotubes" and are hard to manufacture. There is also water-air charge cooling (I used to have a custom built watercooled system on a Polo G40). They carry more of a weight penalty, but offer better throttle response as the charged air path is of a smaller volume for the same efficiency. They need their own water radiator though.

I don't think any cars are going to run the race with less than 100kg of fuel on board. It'll be about efficiency won't it? A car with better efficiency will be able to get more bang for their buck out of the 100kg so more efficiency means lap time as they can run their engines at higher rates and have to conserve fuel less? That's my expectation anyway...



#494 rage2

rage2
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 17 February 2014 - 15:45

I should clarify that race engines tend to run richer than they need to as the fuel itself is used to cool the combustion chamber to stop knocking. So a cooler charge means you can get away with putting less fuel in for the same power.But as power is all about oxygen atoms in cylinder, cooler charge by itself doesn't make more power if you can manage heat in other ways.


One thing I'd like to add, when running a leaner fuel mixture (less fuel) it does generate a bit more power, as well as more exhaust energy, while using less fuel. On the downsides you have much higher exhaust temperatures, more prone to detonation, etc. A cooler intake charge will let you reduce some of the downsides. It's all a balancing act.

#495 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 15:59

With the new engines being more efficient and the permitted fuel capped at 100kg, will there still be such a benefit to running as light as possible even if that comes at a noticeable engine performance deficit? Or will the fact that there is less ultimate difference between maximum and reduced percentage fuel load, couple with the fact a given weight of fuel now offers more performance than it did previously, mean this is less likely (or at least likely to be less extreme)?


Of what I've read from brainer forum members, for a lot of the tracks they could be targeting full power (limited by flow rate) for the whole race and still come in at under 100kg. Monaco being the obvious one. Again, the flow rate limit is the game changer. For a lot of the tracks it might end up being no different to any other year, where they deliberately under fuel anyway.

I think there's always a gamble that you won't be able to run full engine all the time, due to safety cars, or traffic, or tyres degrading etc.

If they fuel the car up for the theoretical maximum power for 100% of the race, and the tyres start scrubbing, or you get caught in traffic, or a safety car comes out then the guy that gambled on lower fuel would have been consistently faster than you every single lap the entire race.

If there are no issues then you'd need to fuel save a bit. It seems all the teams gamble on traffic etc and under fuel their cars.

From what Brundle was saying, there's a pretty linear relationship between a KG of fuel and lap time. Whether that's the difference between 100kg and 99kg, or 2kg and 1kg, so if that's true, the fact they're running less fuel won't change the relationship.

On the tracks where it will be tight, I guess everyone's in the same boat.

What I've said depends on a lot of 'ifs', but I think if it's true there is a linear relationship between weight and lap-time, and most of the tracks don't even need the 100kgs to run aggressively, then we'll see under-fueled cars as before. If we hear lots of radio messages about saving fuel, it might not be because the 100kg wasn't enough.


Without the fuel flow restriction, then I think everyone would run the 100kgs for nearly every race maybe, as they could be sure to spend all of it on going faster.
Maybe the fuel flow restriction is there to keep engine development costs down, but I'm quite sure Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari could have made engines that could reliably consume 100kg of fuel efficiently in an hour, and leave it up to the teams and drivers to decide how they spend that energy over a race. It would be more interesting in my opinion.

They should have just gave them a finite amount of fuel for a race and let them run however they like. We'd have had entirely different species of car philosophies duking it out then. A real hare and tortoise scenario. Not to mention loud and monstrous engines from the same layout and capacity.

I suppose that might spark a "reliability improvement" arms race for more power, but if the limit is still 100kg, then surely the maximum power is still finite if the distance of the GP is fixed. It would still put the focus on efficiency.

Maybe they'll open that up once the engines become mature and stabilised.

The ultimate in my mind would have been a finite amount of fuel for a race, and any engine technology they want, but you'd need a budget cap in place to allow this kind of creativity I suppose, or you'd just effectively buy championships.

#496 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 16:08

One thing I'd like to add, when running a leaner fuel mixture (less fuel) it does generate a bit more power, as well as more exhaust energy, while using less fuel. On the downsides you have much higher exhaust temperatures, more prone to detonation, etc. A cooler intake charge will let you reduce some of the downsides. It's all a balancing act.


Yeah, leaner than a mixture set deliberately rich to try and cool the engine and air. The extra fuel pumped in to keep things cool takes up volume that could otherwise be taken up by more of the the perfect ratio of fuel and air.

So yes, in practice a cooler charge can marginally improve peak power, but only for the same absolute pressure.

#497 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 February 2014 - 16:11

I don't think any cars are going to run the race with less than 100kg of fuel on board. It'll be about efficiency won't it? A car with better efficiency will be able to get more bang for their buck out of the 100kg so more efficiency means lap time as they can run their engines at higher rates and have to conserve fuel less? That's my expectation anyway...


I'm just going by what some boffin on the technical forum said with a lot of seemingly clever mathematics.

The formula isn't about getting the most bang for the buck out of 100kg, as there is a fuel flow restriction in place that could mean on tracks where you're not on the loud(ish) pedal very much, this fuel flow limit stops you getting near the 100kgs.

I wish the formula WAS that they had to get the most amount of bang out of the 100kgs though! I think the flow restriction took the fun out of it a bit. Seems very arbitrary and artificial, but doubtless there for cost savings.

#498 0Fritz

0Fritz
  • Member

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 17 February 2014 - 16:15

Between the equalisation and 'reliability' upgreades, Renault went from being considered the worst (of the Merc, Ferrari and Renault engines) to the best overall package, introducing 'reliability' upgrades that gave all sorts of benefits in various areas of performance.

 

As for performance updates, they'll only be allowed in certain areas, which will be reduced year by year. So targeting maximum performance from the parts that will be frzen in year 1 would make sense, and that's where you'd expect to see the biggest trade off of reliability for performance, as reliability can be added later, while performance (theoretically) can't.

 

Who knows, maybe they just got it a bit wrong. Or maybe they're being clever. Or maybe both. Probably both, at a guess.

 

Horner makes a good case that all those other advantages the Renault V8 got, was insignificant to horsepower gains from other teams. Also interesting to reread how other teams blocked 'equalisation', and that Red Bull sought a Mercedes engine for 2010...

 

""I think if you look at basic studies you would say we are about three per cent down on power – which is probably about 30-35bhp," said Horner. "That is as much as four tenths per lap, but until you run all the engines in the same conditions on a dyno and do a fair and proper comparison you can never be sure."

 

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/84911

 

"The Renault engine is a tidy engine; it is a good engine, as is the Ferrari.

"But I think horsepower is such an over-riding element that that would come at the top - you would trade any of those aspects for horsepower.

"In terms of fuel consumption, when you have less horsepower you burn less fuel as you generate less temperature. But if you take more horsepower and you run conservatively, you can end up at the same point, but you've got it for when you need it. It is a key element, absolutely."

 

This would suggest the aim for the new Renault engine was to have as much horsepower as possible, deal with the (car)troubles later. I wonder if this is what Newey was trying to say in the most recent statement about heating problems of the RB10.



#499 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 17 February 2014 - 16:31

blog_79P1918.jpg

 

This car is really growing on me.I say it's the prettiest we've had in F1 for a long long time!(Excluding the fact that it has broken down in the pic)



Advertisement

#500 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 17 February 2014 - 18:08

I'm just going by what some boffin on the technical forum said with a lot of seemingly clever mathematics.

The formula isn't about getting the most bang for the buck out of 100kg, as there is a fuel flow restriction in place that could mean on tracks where you're not on the loud(ish) pedal very much, this fuel flow limit stops you getting near the 100kgs.

I wish the formula WAS that they had to get the most amount of bang out of the 100kgs though! I think the flow restriction took the fun out of it a bit. Seems very arbitrary and artificial, but doubtless there for cost savings.


Really? That is surprising. I thought Monaco was the least at full throttle but was still over 50% of the race. Approx a two hour race then that's 100kg at 100kg per hour. Sure they're cleverer than me though so fair enough...