F1technical.net

Posted: **23 Jan 2014, 13:48**

Notice that the new cars dont seem to be much different in sidepods so far?
However the openings are huger.

Posted: **23 Jan 2014, 14:01**

From what I’ve seen the installed cooler area is about 50% bigger, even with double pass and double stacked coolers.

In the sidepods the coolers will run as far back as alongside the engine and be wider as the fuel tank volume has been significantly narrowed. But still the sidepods will need to be bulkier in their mid-section to house the coolers and have the ducts route the air into them and space for them to vent over the engine heat shielding to the tail of the top body. The undercut can still be quite sever as there little underneath the rad\ducting and the tail end can be slim as the exhausts are wrapping up and over the engine.
I’m also told the SIPS are not as wide as some teams exploited last year, so narrow front pods will be a possibility as teams understand the cars actual cooling needs.
Visually the pods will end up looking quite similar to pre-coanda set ups

Posted: **23 Jan 2014, 20:46**

Do you have a diagram of how you think the coolers and radiators will be set up in the pods?

Posted: **23 Jan 2014, 22:13**

Perhaps this is where Ferrari's rumoured overhead/er exhaust configuration will prove beneficial. It will allow cooling systems to run along the side of the engine. The engine cover would have to be much more bulky, possibly obstructing flow to the rear wing.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 05:58**

The horsepower is the same but the EPU package is more efficient so in theory there should be less waste heat. BUT. we have to look at where the heat is going.

Assuming peak power conditions...
Naturally Aspirated V8. assume 60% of energy produced is waste heat. water and exhaust. 30% total goes to water, 30% to exhaust. heat from water is expelled through the side pods. For the exhaust Say, 25% shoots out the back into the atmosphere and 5% actually expelled in the side-pod via the headers. So 35% of total energy is heat in the side-pods. Or 263 horsepower worth of heat.

OK now the smaller turbo engine is interesting. It only makes 600hp so it's heat leaving the engine is 20% LESS than the NA engine.. however for a turbo engine 10 of the 30% that goes to exhaust is used to spin the turbo. Because of the turbo in the engine cover the heat stays for longer under the cowling. Lets assume that the raditation from the turbo is 5% and it is expelled by cooling air in the engine cover.
So overall heat in the side-pod is water 30%, + 5% radiation from the turbo. Very similar percentage. So that is 210hp of heat in the side pods from the engine.

From the KERS and MGU and battery, those are pretty efficient electrical devices so I assume that 10hp is heat maybe 20hp max. So lets say 220hp is heat in the side pods.

So the 2014 side pods should be smaller right?? Well at peak power going 200mph YES. This is true. the 2014 PU is more efficient than the V8 so for a given horse power it gives of less heat. Obvious right?
But! At lower rev range and lower car speeds especially, the 2014 power unit makes much much more horsepower than the outgoing V8. Imagine that at low engine speeds and low air speeds the 2014 power units may be giving off twice the amount of heat than a V8 engine. This is why the SIZE of the 2014 side pod opening was made bigger but the size of the side pod remains the same. So I think designing the 2014 side pods was a matter of getting enough air flow to cool the radiators at low air speeds. as against high air speeds and high revs where the cooling needs would be LESS than the outgoing V8 engines

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 12:06**

Interesting theory.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 12:24**

n smikle wrote:At lower rev range and lower car speeds especially, the 2014 power unit makes much much more horsepower than the outgoing V8.

Can you explain why this should be the case?

Remember that the fuel flow is limited to:

"5.1.4
Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5
Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5."

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 14:22**

Blanchimont wrote:
n smikle wrote:At lower rev range and lower car speeds especially, the 2014 power unit makes much much more horsepower than the outgoing V8.
Can you explain why this should be the case?

Remember that the fuel flow is limited to:

"5.1.4
Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5
Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5."

Just had a quick play with this to see the implications of the above limitation.

Assuming that BHP is directly related to fuel flow rate, 5.1.5 is only going to limit power at 7-9krpm and even then only marginally.

V6T

Code: Select all

RPM kg/h   bhp ftlb
00   006   000  000
01   015   087  457
02   024   141  370
03   033   195  341
04   042   249  327
05   051   303  318
06   060   357  312
07   069   411  308
08   078   465  305
09   087   519  303
10   100   600  315
11   100   600  286
12   100   600  263
13   100   600  242
14   100   600  225
15   100   600  210

assuming that engine makes peak torque at 10krpm, then the fuel flow limit costs 10ftlb between 7krpm and 9krpm. Imagine you could compensate for this with a bit of electrical boost to tidy up any potential flat spot.

just to clarify above table assumes power is directly proportional to fuel flow, I am not suggesting the engine will make 457 ftlbs at 2krpm

I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.

Therefore you are definitely going to have an awful lot more power with the v6t at low rev range. Hence pirelli wanting to increase tyre sizes.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 17:08**

mrluke wrote:I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.

Your calculations seem to be correct, power depends on the maximum fuel flow allowed for 2014.

But why do you compare the torque of the 2013 engine at 16-18k with the torque of the 2014 engine at 6-12k without multiplying with the gear ratio?

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 17:55**

Blanchimont wrote:
mrluke wrote:I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.
Your calculations seem to be correct, power depends on the maximum fuel flow allowed for 2014.

But why do you compare the torque of the 2013 engine at 16-18k with the torque of the 2014 engine at 6-12k without multiplying with the gear ratio?

Just for the sake of keeping with actual data. Here are some charts from the Cosworth V8 and V6. Taken from the Race Engine Technology #72 and #73. (That magazine is really worth reading).

Power Curves for the Cosworth CA (V8):

Power Curves comparison of the V8 and V6 (forecast):

relative fuel consumption of the V6:

P.S.: I'm Sorry for the crappy picture quality, I had to take a photo with my mobile phone and the paper is really shiny.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 18:25**

Thanks rscsr, your second picture is very useful here. If the power curve of the V6 engine would be stretched to the right by a factor of ~17000rpm/11500rpm to account for the different gear ratios, we would see that the power curves are very similar to each other.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 18:33**

Don't get why the engine would produce maximum power at 11.500 rpm instead of 10.500. Are they deliberately waiting to use the max fuel rate till 1000 rpms later than allowed?? Is there any advantage in doing so? A more usable power curve? I would think the engine would be slightly less efficient.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 18:54**

Holm86 wrote:Don't get why the engine would produce maximum power at 11.500 rpm instead of 10.500. Are they deliberately waiting to use the max fuel rate till 1000 rpms later than allowed?? Is there any advantage in doing so? A more usable power curve? I would think the engine would be slightly less efficient.

I guess this has something to do with the combustion efficiency and flow through the combustion chamber. But this is only a guess.

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 19:06**

Blanchimont wrote:Thanks rscsr, your second picture is very useful here. If the power curve of the V6 engine would be stretched to the right by a factor of ~17000rpm/11500rpm to account for the different gear ratios, we would see that the power curves are very similar to each other.

I tried to achieve it, and it seems that the cars will be with KERS at full power be faster than until now. Because the max power is about the same as before (maybe a bit less) but the power delivery is much flatter. But on the other hand the cars are a lot heavier. So it seems possible that Lotus (or was it another Team) said that their car is as fast as their car last year.

edit: changed picture to stretch by multiplying the rpms by 18/15 (as blanchimont below suggested)

Posted: **27 Jan 2014, 19:15**

Thanks again, rscsr. But could it be that you just shifted the curve to the right by ~3500rpm instead of multiplying the rpms by ~11500/8000=1,4375?

F1technical.net

2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling

Re: 2014 intercooling