F1technical.net

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.

Are you a chemical engineer now?Just your FIA-loudpeaker talking, the fuel-flow limit will open all sorts of can of worms.

The claimed +/-0.25% precision of the limiter is ridiculous to anyone with measuring xperience.

xpensive wrote:

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.

Are you a chemical engineer now?Just your FIA-loudpeaker talking, the fuel-flow limit will open all sorts of can of worms.

The claimed +/-0.25% precision of the limiter is ridiculous to anyone with measuring xperience.

The technical claim regarding the limiter is the sort thing that I imagine Max Mosley coming up with.

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 fuel regulations are completely different next year and is arguably the biggest differentiator, as it always has been. The game is very much on.

Not sure where these numbers came from but apparently the Renault engine produces 760bhp in combined output.

http://www.carscoops.com/2013/06/renaul ... er-v6.html

There´s no Renault details to be seen so i wonder where he got that info.

Great pictures though,

Those numbers are far more reasonable, 600 + 160 Hp.

So let´s assume that number is true, 760 combined.

And with the article that started this thread, 860 for Mercedes.
Impossible or maybe possible?

860 would be about what we have today in combined output, 760 merc engine plus 80 horses KERS.

A total of 860 is of course totally unrealistic, 700 Hp from 27.8 g/sec would mean an ICE-efficiency of some 40%

BTE of 40% is not only possible but very probable concidering that Merc are targeting that number and Renault are set to exceed it. I'm totally convinced that we will see BTE between 40 and 45% next year.

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?

I would expect that any efficiency number of 40% includes power recovered from the MGUH.

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?

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?

the image is using a current radiator in shape and size as a intercooler, it is not necessary that the same will be retained

wuzak wrote:I would expect that any efficiency number of 40% includes power recovered from the MGUH.

Indeed it would.

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?

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.

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?

Couple of things:

• down sizing
• down speeding
• turbo charging
• turbo compounding
• direct injection
• high compression
• late injection after compression stroke
• spray guided combustion
• leaner AFR (stoichiometric)

If I keep thinking I will probably find some more points