Are you a chemical engineer now?Just your FIA-loudpeaker talking, the fuel-flow limit will open all sorts of can of worms.WhiteBlue wrote:I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.
The technical claim regarding the limiter is the sort thing that I imagine Max Mosley coming up with.xpensive wrote:Are you a chemical engineer now?Just your FIA-loudpeaker talking, the fuel-flow limit will open all sorts of can of worms.WhiteBlue wrote:I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.
The claimed +/-0.25% precision of the limiter is ridiculous to anyone with measuring xperience.
The fuel regulations are completely different next year and is arguably the biggest differentiator, as it always has been.WhiteBlue wrote:Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.
The game is very much on.
the image is using a current radiator in shape and size as a intercooler, it is not necessary that the same will be retainedtpe wrote:I am not an engineer, so, it might be a silly querstion:
Why on earth is this intercooler so large? Generally, the engine package seems not optimal at all. Is it just my idea, or not?
Indeed it would.wuzak wrote:I would expect that any efficiency number of 40% includes power recovered from the MGUH.
The intercooler is air to air which is very much less efficient compüared to air to water as the radiator works. Hence much more surface is needed.tpe wrote:I am not an engineer, so, it might be a silly querstion:
Why on earth is this intercooler so large? Generally, the engine package seems not optimal at all. Is it just my idea, or not?
Couple of things:bhallg2k wrote:Since you're an engineer, WB, can you explain how we're going to see a ~30% increase in the thermal efficiency of the engines next year? I've read the manufacturer claims, but I can't seem to wrap my head around such a leap in performance. Any insight?
