2014 intercooling

[Blanchimont]

I've put the power curves of the V8 and the V6 together for a better understanding. I used the onboard of the 2013 Monza qualifying lap from F1.com for the V8 and set the gears for the 2014 car in a way that only the rev range between 10500 and 12600 is used in the higher gears. I did set the first gear of the 2014 V6 car that at 12600rpm a velocity of 101km/h is reached.

The V8 curve only shows the power of the ICE, the green one is the V6 ICE alone and the red one is V6 ICE plus MGUK at different power levels. At low speeds (<90km/h) the power curve of the V6 is above the V8, but unfortunately the drivers can not use full power here because the cars are traction limited in this speed range. The important question is how much power can the V6 deliver throughout the race with the 100kg per race limit, will we really see the 600hp that the fuel flow of 100kg/h allows? And at which rate can we use the the MGUH and MGUK, 90kW or 120kW as in the pictures or at lower rates?
The answers to these questions define how close the V8 and the V6 are.

[rscsr]

agreed !
does self-sustaining mean crankshaft power plus mgu-h power only ?
or crankshaft power plus mgu-h power plus sustainable (lap energy limit rule) mgu-k power ?

I would imagine that it means ICE power plus MGU-H power recovered directly to the MGU-K.\

The next (red) curve is that plus battery assistance.

I note that in th e"self sustaining" mode the peak power is higher in teh rev range - 12k vs 11k with the battery.

My hypothesis is that the reduction in boost required allows more enrgey to be recovered by the MGU-H, and this more than overcomes the extra friction from the extra rpm.

I just checked in the issue #072 and wuzak is completely right.
"'Self sustaining' implies that the power fed from the -K to the crankshaft is generated purely through-H operation, and consequently there is no regulatory limit on it.

[Tommy Cookers]

the self-sustaining plot seems to show around 110 kW available directly from the exhaust recovery
(pleasing me, as I suggested 100 kW about 9 months ago)
EDITED - as Wuzak points out later, it is 110 hp/85 kW
PS around when, finding real engine friction data I suggested what wuzak has now identified in the Cosworth paper
(friction increase at somewhat higher rpm would be less than the reduction in supercharging work, so increasing compounded power)

having said all that, maybe Cosworth have modelled race-typical engine behaviour (ie transients), not steady-state behaviour ?
the inertia of the turbo and mgu-h being surely a factor in power under transient conditions ?

anyway, given the presence of power from storage, surely the driver will always have the nominal 120 kW EM power available ?
this was implied all along by the rules ?
(and the 120 kW rule is structured assuming 95% efficiency, so maybe at times 122 kW real EM power can legally be reached)

[wuzak]

the self-sustaining plot seems to show around 110 kW available directly from the exhaust recovery
(pleasing me, as I suggested 100 kW about 9 months ago))

Tommy, the scale is in hp, so it is around 100-120hp, or 74.6-89.5kW. If the MGU-H was generating 110kW the thick white line would be much closer to the red line (ICE + 120kW MGU-K).

[bigpat]

Made a (ugly) Paint drawing showing how the Merc layout is IMO
(Black: the intercooler is above the angine / Green: the intercooler is in the sidepod)
Edit: maybe the green one is closer to the real layout. The upper cooler might just be a water rad for the air-water intercooler
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

The "ram air" from the air box inlet, to me, would be more useful for cooling(specifically the intercooler) than for turbo inlet air, and then after it can be directed towards the "hot side" of the turbo, TERS-MGU, and gearbox rad all in line.

Do we have any idea if they are running an air to air or air to water intercooler?

I understand only Ferrari are running water to air inter cooling, hence the smaller side pods.Not sure about Sauber and Marussia. The Marussia clearly makes the loudest intercooler sound off throttle though!

Off boost the engines sound really bad. Once they spool up, they are nicer, and all the exhaust notes vary somewhat. If we want noise, we need them to run waste gates, and vent the excess exhaust straight out the back. That would give them some bark!!!!

[dren]

They do run waste gates as safeties and dump them out the back through the exhaust.

Also, what exactly does an intercooler sound like?

[PhillipM]

I understand only Ferrari are running water to air inter cooling, hence the smaller side pods.Not sure about Sauber and Marussia. The Marussia clearly makes the loudest intercooler sound off throttle though!

Off boost the engines sound really bad. Once they spool up, they are nicer, and all the exhaust notes vary somewhat. If we want noise, we need them to run waste gates, and vent the excess exhaust straight out the back. That would give them some bark!!!!

So, given you still need to cool the water with a big rad what are your reasons for believing water intercoolers would give smaller sidepods? Water/air intercoolers are generally used only for packaging reasons around an engine bay, they generally result in a larger overall package than air/air....

Also, what does an intercooler sound like, I've never heard one, can you play them like a trumpet or something?

[F1PuertoRico]

intercooler sound

[turbof1]

I understand only Ferrari are running water to air inter cooling, hence the smaller side pods.Not sure about Sauber and Marussia. The Marussia clearly makes the loudest intercooler sound off throttle though!

Off boost the engines sound really bad. Once they spool up, they are nicer, and all the exhaust notes vary somewhat. If we want noise, we need them to run waste gates, and vent the excess exhaust straight out the back. That would give them some bark!!!!

So, given you still need to cool the water with a big rad what are your reasons for believing water intercoolers would give smaller sidepods? Water/air intercoolers are generally used only for packaging reasons around an engine bay, they generally result in a larger overall package than air/air....

Also, what does an intercooler sound like, I've never heard one, can you play them like a trumpet or something?

I got somewhere (I think from Scarbs) that water cooling is smaller, but also a lot heavier.

[PhillipM]

I got somewhere (I think from Scarbs) that water cooling is smaller, but also a lot heavier.

You've still got to reject the heat to the air at some point, only now you have another radiator to package, and probably a water pump, I could understand it if the air piping was hard to package in the sidepods compared to some water lines but given the intercoolers are sat smack side-by-side to the engine/turbo anyway...

[trinidefender]

I got somewhere (I think from Scarbs) that water cooling is smaller, but also a lot heavier.

You've still got to reject the heat to the air at some point, only now you have another radiator to package, and probably a water pump, I could understand it if the air piping was hard to package in the sidepods compared to some water lines but given the intercoolers are sat smack side-by-side to the engine/turbo anyway...

Water is a much better thermal conductor than air, therefore a smaller surface area radiator, can get the same heat rejection from the turbocharger compressor air. You can also reduce the length of piping and with a loss of extra air piping and the air intercooler you get less turbo lag.

[PhillipM]

Turbo lag isn't an issue with a great big motor spooling it up anyway. You're also not going to be much smaller with the main intercooler, as apart from slightly smaller coolant passages compared to intake air, you're always going to be transfer limited by the much slower moving airflow through the sidepod compared to the faster moving and denser engine intake air. Maybe it's enough to make a difference, but given the water pump and intake/water intercooler still needs to be packaged...not a lot.

[trinidefender]

Turbo lag isn't an issue with a great big motor spooling it up anyway. You're also not going to be much smaller with the main intercooler, as apart from slightly smaller coolant passages compared to intake air, you're always going to be transfer limited by the much slower moving airflow through the sidepod compared to the faster moving and denser engine intake air. Maybe it's enough to make a difference, but given the water pump and intake/water intercooler still needs to be packaged...not a lot.

Actually the radiators required for liquid/intercoolers are MUCH smaller than those required for air to air. Go look up the heat rejection rates of water vs air radiators and you'll see. The offset is more weight and higher complexity.

[PhillipM]

Actually the radiators required for liquid/intercoolers are MUCH smaller than those required for air to air. Go look up the heat rejection rates of water vs air radiators and you'll see. The offset is more weight and higher complexity.

Unfortunately, you're still rejecting heat to the slow moving sidepod airflow, not to water.

[trinidefender]

Actually the radiators required for liquid/intercoolers are MUCH smaller than those required for air to air. Go look up the heat rejection rates of water vs air radiators and you'll see. The offset is more weight and higher complexity.

Unfortunately, you're still rejecting heat to the slow moving sidepod airflow, not to water.

Yes but water rejects heat to air much quicker than air rejects heat to air, henceforth the water radiator would be much smaller.