F1technical.net

Mister wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 21:38

I have a question.

1: is there a maximum boost the turbo can put out?
2: is there a maximum compression ratio for combustion?

Something got me thinking after a post I’ve seen in this tread.

Most of the power gains Ferrari made were after they 3D printed the pistons.

What if they came up with a clever design. Like the rigidity of the piston and/or the shape of the piston. How can a higher boost and compression ratio benefit them? What would ferrari do to make that work and more importantly, what should shell do to have a fuel that can cope with this?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t a higher compression ratio increase knock, exhaust gas temperatures and back pressure?

Cimpressions ratio limited by regulations. And anyway with these turbo engines you dont want it to be too high.

MtthsMlw wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 21:24

I wish some team would still open an investigation just cause I'm interested in some official information instead of remaining in this nebulous state.

yes me too! How can 3 'distinctly different fluids' all be equally good for cooling? Cooling is what, transporting heat, ie a high specific heat and low viscosity isn't it. i.e. water and glycol!! You would only use something else if you wanted it to do something else.

Oh now I look Ammonia is better. But still, whatever's best for cooling why use something else for cooling?

izzy wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 23:16

yes me too! How can 3 'distinctly different fluids' all be equally good for cooling? Cooling is what, transporting heat, ie a high specific heat and low viscosity isn't it. i.e. water and glycol!! You would only use something else if you wanted it to do something else.

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish, some times maximum heat transfer isn't the only consideration. For example an extreme example is a liquid metal cooled reactor vs water cooled.

dans79 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 23:23

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish, some times maximum heat transfer isn't the only consideration. For example an extreme example is a liquid metal cooled reactor vs water cooled.

yes fair enough and I'm not throwing accusations around but i would like to know. And yes it depends what they're trying to accomplish, beyond cooling. i mean they are all packaging, packaging packaging aren't they, so specific heat has to be top of the list, you'd think. I suppose they must have had something credible to say about it, i just can't imagine what

restless wrote: ↑

27 Oct 2019, 12:07

saviour stivala wrote: ↑

27 Oct 2019, 06:09

Energy store (ES) art 1.27. The difference between the maximum and the minimum stat of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ ‘at any time’ the car is on track.
To my mind the above simply means that 4MJ is the maximum that is allowed either to be extracted or returned to the ES ‘at any time’ the car is on track.
Returning 6MJ to the ES and extracting 6 MJ from the ES and splitting it 4MJ to ‘K’ and 2MJ to ‘H’ will exceed the “4MJ at any time the car is on track” rules. This is different from being able to ‘top-up’ the maximum permitted 4MJ for more than one time while the car is on track and or over one lap.

1. return 4MJ to ES
2. extract 4MJ to K&H (2+2)
3. return 2MJ to ES
4. extract 2MJ to K
perfectly legal

Maybe this is the explanation for the weird radio messages in Sochi race from Ferrari pitwall to Vettel after opening lap and after restart phase: K2 off. (Radio transcripts were on Racefans website)

https://twitter.com/SmilexTech/status/1 ... 58182?s=20

Translation: "Mercedes have clear ideas about where the advantage of the Ferrari SF90 PU comes from and are trying to implement it on their PU 2020. Meanwhile, the FIA has examined the cooling system of the SF90 as a preliminary point; no anomalies found."

Mercedes cars still have huge advantage (look at the first half of the season) both from the chassis and engine side and so they are running detuned and with more downforce and they keep saying that after five years of complete engine supremacy they are now at the same level of Honda and Renault with only Ferrari doing a better job (if true it will mean that they have been not only overtaken by Ferrari on the engine side, but that they have lost all their engine advantage versus Renault and Honda all of a sudden).
Doing so they can both try to politically block whatever Ferrari developments and then next year they can show their true level again at the beginning of the championship having diverted attention from what they are doing/developing.

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 22:34

Mister wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2019, 21:38

I have a question.

1: is there a maximum boost the turbo can put out?
2: is there a maximum compression ratio for combustion?

Something got me thinking after a post I’ve seen in this tread.

Most of the power gains Ferrari made were after they 3D printed the pistons.

What if they came up with a clever design. Like the rigidity of the piston and/or the shape of the piston. How can a higher boost and compression ratio benefit them? What would ferrari do to make that work and more importantly, what should shell do to have a fuel that can cope with this?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t a higher compression ratio increase knock, exhaust gas temperatures and back pressure?

Cimpressions ratio limited by regulations. And anyway with these turbo engines you dont want it to be too high.

And yet the limit for compression ratio is 18:1.

zibby43 wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 00:12

https://twitter.com/SmilexTech/status/1 ... 58182?s=20

Translation: "Mercedes have clear ideas about where the advantage of the Ferrari SF90 PU comes from and are trying to implement it on their PU 2020. Meanwhile, the FIA has examined the cooling system of the SF90 as a preliminary point; no anomalies found."

I wonder where these “clear ideas” came from.

LM10 wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 08:16

I wonder where these “clear ideas” came from.

LM10 wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 08:16

zibby43 wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 00:12

https://twitter.com/SmilexTech/status/1 ... 58182?s=20

Translation: "Mercedes have clear ideas about where the advantage of the Ferrari SF90 PU comes from and are trying to implement it on their PU 2020. Meanwhile, the FIA has examined the cooling system of the SF90 as a preliminary point; no anomalies found."

I wonder where these “clear ideas” came from.

Re-claimed clear ideas. If Mercedes have clear ideas where the advantage of the SF90 PU comes from and are trying to implement it on their PU 2020. It only means they are convinced that all is within the rules.

Hamilton said some interesting things in one of his pre mexico weekend interviews, in that they are seeing these boosts even on the older specced engines this year? As in, it’s something that can be used/turned on, even if the engine is already homolgated? Will try to find the interview...

Phil wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 09:32

Hamilton said some interesting things in one of his pre mexico weekend interviews, in that they are seeing these boosts even on the older specced engines this year? As in, it’s something that can be used/turned on, even if the engine is already homolgated? Will try to find the interview...

AFAIK they had this since launch it appeared to get even bigger with the spec 3 engine.
Last year wasn't different.

zibby43 wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2019, 00:12

https://twitter.com/SmilexTech/status/1 ... 58182?s=20

Translation: "Mercedes have clear ideas about where the advantage of the Ferrari SF90 PU comes from and are trying to implement it on their PU 2020. Meanwhile, the FIA has examined the cooling system of the SF90 as a preliminary point; no anomalies found."

In the interests of decoding the worthlessness of twitter 'news', this is a re-stating of what was said on the Sky broadcast on Saturday (during FP3 or Quali, IIRC), and arguably a re-posting of the racefans.net discussion of the matter in several pieces they wrote over the weekend.

So the PU is perfectly legal, what’s next?