F1technical.net

Excusing turbocharger/MGU-H reliability for a second, the increased pressure ratio required by the ICE to compensate for altitude will show an increase in compressor outlet temperatures. This can create problems for the PU's that seem to be the most knockI limited (appears to be Renault at present).

I'm curious to see how teams will compensate for this. More open bodywork with larger intercoolers will be the traditional and most obvious route. Especially considering the lower density air may create cooling problems outside of just inlet air temperature.

For those teams running an air-water intercooler setup they may use a larger intercooler coolant tank. This is not really ideal and comes with a weight penalty and the penalty that once all the water has heated up you are in the same position as everybody else. However it can be used to give a few laps extra at a higher power setting (assuming the intercooler isn't enlarged)

trinidefender wrote:For those teams running an air-water intercooler setup they may use a larger intercooler coolant tank. This is not really ideal and comes with a weight penalty and the penalty that once all the water has heated up you are in the same position as everybody else. However it can be used to give a few laps extra at a higher power setting (assuming the intercooler isn't enlarged)

Or they could up teh coolant flow rate, or slow it down. Whichever way works best.

Taffin

Nestled at over 2200 meters above sea level, slightly less than half of Mont Blanc, the circuit is by far the highest of the season. In comparison, Sao Paulo is only 800m. With aspirated engines, this would have led to a loss of power by 22%, but the turbo blocks produce the same power as the tracks located at sea level, such as Abu Dhabi. To achieve this, the rotation of the turbo will be 8% higher compared to Abu Dhabi.

wuzak wrote:

trinidefender wrote:For those teams running an air-water intercooler setup they may use a larger intercooler coolant tank. This is not really ideal and comes with a weight penalty and the penalty that once all the water has heated up you are in the same position as everybody else. However it can be used to give a few laps extra at a higher power setting (assuming the intercooler isn't enlarged)

Or they could up teh coolant flow rate, or slow it down. Whichever way works best.

That seems the less likely option given the coolant loop will be the most restricted.

Blackout wrote:Taffin

Nestled at over 2200 meters above sea level, slightly less than half of Mont Blanc, the circuit is by far the highest of the season. In comparison, Sao Paulo is only 800m. With aspirated engines, this would have led to a loss of power by 22%, but the turbo blocks produce the same power as the tracks located at sea level, such as Abu Dhabi. To achieve this, the rotation of the turbo will be 8% higher compared to Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi race air (oxygen) density is 97% (of the notional 100% reference)
ie AD turbo rpm would be 2% higher than reference
so Taffin's (8% higher than AD) turbo rpm is 10% higher than reference

reduced atmospheric pressure in Mexico makes a contribution towards increasing ICE power of about 1%
and the increase in mgu-h recovery power increases PU power (gg suggested 8 kW - about 2%)

yes, an assumption that the compressor must fully compensate for reduced air density is slightly pessimistic
but there's no big discrepancy between Renault's figures and ours/mine

anyway, they seem to have no hard limiting factors preventing their running 10% more turbo rpm than the reference

Guess the answer was, Renault made the biggest gains, so their turbo had more headroom left. But during the race, Max Verstappen got overheat problems.

Which would point to an efficient ERS system (esp. MGU-H), and Renault's problems stem from combustion, where tey are not up to par.

NL_Fer wrote:Guess the answer was, Renault made the biggest gains, so their turbo had more headroom left. But during the race, Max Verstappen got overheat problems.

What gains did you notice? They've been just as far back than they have been entire season. Just look at the SC restart. No chance for kvyat to defend anything, bottas just sails past. Ricciardo on new tires needed close slipstream + drs to stay within striking distance, and even then bottas was pulling away until ~300 kmh.

An article on fuel and lubrication for the Turbo V6 hybrids:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/f1 ... r-of-fuel/

I must concede that I was wrong about McLaren using Petronas fuel in their Mercedes engine in 2014. The quotes from the Motorsport technology manager at Mobil, Bruce Crawley confirmed that they used Mobil one fuel in the car.

Hmm maybe someone should make a thread with just the articles posted alone.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

re: "Broadly, the more energy you put into the fuel, the worse the knock resistance is."

Well, this is a classic fuel trade-off, even in road fuel.

It means the more you can mitigate knock, the more "fuel power" your friendly F1 fuel supplier can provide.

So this is a big development area.

Big change from atmo era where knock wasn't even present.

When Cosworth published simulations showing knock mitigation can degrade lap time (less heat to MGU-H), they would have been showing this at constant fuel formulation?

Juzh wrote:

NL_Fer wrote:Guess the answer was, Renault made the biggest gains, so their turbo had more headroom left. But during the race, Max Verstappen got overheat problems.

What gains did you notice? They've been just as far back than they have been entire season. Just look at the SC restart. No chance for kvyat to defend anything, bottas just sails past. Ricciardo on new tires needed close slipstream + drs to stay within striking distance, and even then bottas was pulling away until ~300 kmh.

Maybe you are right. It could be just down to Redbull traction on the slippery Mexican tracksurface. During the race, the racing line got faster, because of the layed down rubber of the tyres. The must have lost all advantage by the end f the race.

Juzh wrote:

NL_Fer wrote:Guess the answer was, Renault made the biggest gains, so their turbo had more headroom left. But during the race, Max Verstappen got overheat problems.

What gains did you notice? They've been just as far back than they have been entire season. Just look at the SC restart. No chance for kvyat to defend anything, bottas just sails past. Ricciardo on new tires needed close slipstream + drs to stay within striking distance, and even then bottas was pulling away until ~300 kmh.

here a view of how bad Kvyat handled the restart , rather than getting stuck into rosberg tail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFsazGZ4RCw

Guys, i was wondering how much torque do these engines have? We've seen them spin wheels in 5th gear in corners and massive acceleration in quali mode. I know the horsepower figures are at 900-ish HP, but as far as i know, no one has ever said anything about torque values, which are very very important

Closer to 700 NM --at least the Merc engine

Drica wrote:Guys, i was wondering how much torque do these engines have? We've seen them spin wheels in 5th gear in corners and massive acceleration in quali mode. I know the horsepower figures are at 900-ish HP, but as far as i know, no one has ever said anything about torque values, which are very very important

Drica wrote:Guys, i was wondering how much torque do these engines have? We've seen them spin wheels in 5th gear in corners and massive acceleration in quali mode. I know the horsepower figures are at 900-ish HP, but as far as i know, no one has ever said anything about torque values, which are very very important

what propels the car is rear axle torque not crankshaft torque
the two are related by the gearing, which is now very different to the N/A cars gearing
to make eg 900 hp at 10500 rpm the engine now will need twice the crankshaft PU torque of eg a 900 hp 21000 rpm (N/A type) engine
so the current high values of crankshaft torque do not indicate a correspondingly high propulsive ability

power and torque are immutably linked by rpm
eg for any combination of values of power and car speed there is only one value of axle torque
so if you know the power and speed you know the torque

torque and power are engineering terms with clear meaning, unlike the words of race commentators (in this regard)