F1technical.net

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... ower-unit/



Didnt expect to see this!

Anon123 wrote:

FrukostScones wrote:big trouble:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... ml&act=url

Ferrai thinks there is no need for a turbo-protection-hull, Mercedes and Renault disagree, Ferrari saves some KG in a very sensitive area regarding COG

So Ferrari could be in trouble if they need to add protection?

Sounds like Ferrari found that there is not wording in the regulations requiring the shielding on the turbo, and somehow Mercedes and Renault learned of this, are jealous of Ferrari's much lighter and potentially more compact engine with potentially lower CG, and are trying to make up for their own lack of precision with respect to reading the rules by using the pretense of safety to get the rules changed.

mrluke wrote:http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... ower-unit/

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... worth2.jpg

Didnt expect to see this!

Do you think any teams expressed enough interest to motivate Cosworth to design the 2014 engine? I'd be surprised if they invested in this with no hint of teams being interested. =D> Always nice to see more variety in the sport.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMh_PCf ... 4-overview[/youtube]

real f1 sound the W05 in action, its sounds sweet. Not the deafening noise of the V8. But a mechanic engine sound. I love it.

mrluke wrote:http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... ower-unit/



Didnt expect to see this!

Wow, I don't think anyone did!

And it looks like a work of art!!!

mkable1370 wrote:

Anon123 wrote:

FrukostScones wrote:big trouble:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... ml&act=url

Ferrai thinks there is no need for a turbo-protection-hull, Mercedes and Renault disagree, Ferrari saves some KG in a very sensitive area regarding COG

So Ferrari could be in trouble if they need to add protection?

Sounds like Ferrari found that there is not wording in the regulations requiring the shielding on the turbo, and somehow Mercedes and Renault learned of this, are jealous of Ferrari's much lighter and potentially more compact engine with potentially lower CG, and are trying to make up for their own lack of precision with respect to reading the rules by using the pretense of safety to get the rules changed.

If Ferrari don't have a shield but have to add one it may be a problem for them. However, if that shield isn't counted as part of the power unit weight then it really isn't an issue, nor is it if the weight is part of the PU but Renault and Mercedes can't get to the minimum weight (which I believe is the case).

Holm86 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cY2E3ZZr00

That's a low idle speed. Doesn't sound anywhere near 4000 rpm.

Renault engine:

Turbo uses two inlets on the turbine housing.
Standard short length shaft connection between compressor and turbine wheel

Mercedes engine:

Uses one inlet on the turbine housing.
extended length shaft connection between compressor and turbine wheel


Interesting. I'm guessing the extended shaft connection on the Mercedes engine helps to keep the compressor side of the turbo cooler.

I wonder which system in regards to the number of inlets on the turbine housing is better? and what the benefits of each are.

Cosworth & Pure designs both show dual turbine housing inlets. Ferrari have yet to show their hand.

With this ERS system it seems like Turbo lag won't be a problem...

Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.

WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.

If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.

djos wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.

If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.

Has there been a rumor elsewhere?

WilliamsF1 wrote:

djos wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.

If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.

Has there been a rumor elsewhere?

We may have just started it

djos wrote:
If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.

Has there been a rumor elsewhere?[/quote]

We may have just started it [/quote]


Way offtopic - but did you see the 2015 mustang? looks like a modded Aston

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-c ... tang1.jpeg

copperkipper1 wrote: ......
I wonder which system in regards to the number of inlets on the turbine housing is better? and what the benefits of each are.
Cosworth & Pure designs both show dual turbine housing inlets. Ferrari have yet to show their hand ....

FWIW I suggested the exhaust pipe length on one bank should be about 5"/12 cm longer than on the other bank (for single inlets ?)
delivering to the turbo relatively even spacing of exhaust pulses (at the most important rpm)
so then conserving pulse (presure/velocity) energy by minimising pulse interference/merging
(firing of one bank relative to the other is of course uneven by 30 deg in these engines due to the mandated 90 deg V angle)

the images are a bit distorted, but it looks to my (biased) eyes that the pipes do have this length difference ??
P.S. Smith's book on early Renault single-turbo F1 has a verbal description supporting different pipe lengths, but no pictures