F1technical.net

Mudflap wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:09

Nah, its more likely that they use turboencabulators

They still can't effectively prevent side fumbling, so I highly doubt they are using turboencabulators.

Re: vortex tubes, the requirement for an open port in the system to function seems antithetical to maintaining pressure in the plenums. Could the compressor compensate?

hurril wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 19:51

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 19:33

According to this they can cool the intake charge below +10 degrees ambient, wonder if that's why the rules state IAT must be 10+ degrees above ambient. I wonder if they wanted a heat exchanger arms race because this is how you get one. If these intercoolers are that efficient, then they can be sized smaller and smaller in order to meet the 10+ ambient requirement. Which has obvious benefits.

They also say that using microtubes saves on cost because there's no welding, but I can't imagine these are cheap either.

How could they possibly cool to something below ambient? Is there a compressor involved?

Again you misunderstand, the regulations forbid you to cool the IAT less than 10 degrees above ambient. So if ambient is 22c IATs can't be less than 32c. These micro tube intercoolers can keep IATs from going over 6 or 7 degrees over ambient. Which means they can make them smaller and less efficient so they meet that 10+ ambient IAT rule.

roon wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:22

Mudflap wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:09

Nah, its more likely that they use turboencabulators

They still can't effectively prevent side fumbling, so I highly doubt they are using turboencabulators.

Re: vortex tubes, the requirement for an open port in the system to function seems antithetical to maintaining pressure in the plenums. Could the compressor compensate?

I would think that running a Diesel turbo on a petrol engine should get you there...

Zynerji wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2018, 00:01

roon wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:22

Mudflap wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:09

Nah, its more likely that they use turboencabulators

They still can't effectively prevent side fumbling, so I highly doubt they are using turboencabulators.

Re: vortex tubes, the requirement for an open port in the system to function seems antithetical to maintaining pressure in the plenums. Could the compressor compensate?

I would think that running a Diesel turbo on a petrol engine should get you there...

we all know renault are using the turbo from the espace 1.6 dci

One has to wonder, Renault or Honda can't possibly not know about this, ditto for all teams really. If these are so efficient then cooling shouldn't even be an issue.

Only real question is what benefit would the tube and fin have over this compact micro tube One? Why would Red Bull(not that they do not do I claim to know) run a conventional air to air?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2018, 00:51

One has to wonder, Renault or Honda can't possibly not know about this, ditto for all teams really. If these are so efficient then cooling shouldn't even be an issue.

Only real question is what benefit would the tube and fin have over this compact micro tube One? Why would Red Bull(not that they do not do I claim to know) run a conventional air to air?

Because it is always a trade off going water to water. You add a lot more weight and parts to the car. Air to Air is simpler and less to go wrong.

And besides most of the teams get their radiators / Intercoolers / oil coolers from the same company. They all know of the same tech and options.

Yup. Air to water is a luxury item. If your chassis is light enough you can take advantage of its better packaging for aero benefits. There is also additional heat capacity with water (like a bulk cooling reservoir) so temeprature variations of the intercooler are minimized and you have more consistent charge temperatures... Though it is quite marginal because the reservoir of water used is quite small anyway to keep weight down.

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2018, 02:59

Yup. Air to water is a luxury item. If your chassis is light enough you can take advantage of its better packaging for aero benefits. There is also additional heat capacity with water (like a bulk cooling reservoir) so temeprature variations of the intercooler are minimized and you have more consistent charge temperatures... Though it is quite marginal because the reservoir of water used is quite small anyway to keep weight down.

MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2018, 02:42

Because it is always a trade off going water to water. You add a lot more weight and parts to the car. Air to Air is simpler and less to go wrong.

And besides most of the teams get their radiators / Intercoolers / oil coolers from the same company. They all know of the same tech and options.

MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 17:24

This will explain a lot of it for you:
https://mezzotech.com/why-micro-tubes/

Mr PH your Mezzo link claims a weight saving over air - air.

Water lines are much thinner than charge lines. Look at McLaren radiator pics. Maybe 10-15mm dia for engine coolant.

Water radiators are typically thinner than air-air radiators. Very noticable in the Renault installation. Filled with coolant, but again, thin tubes and channels minimize coolant weight.

The Mezzo unit is compact so I can see how the whole system adds up to equal/less than an air-air system.

Pieoter wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2018, 16:37

5.14.2 The addition of any substance other than fuel, as described in Article 5.10.3, into the air destined for combustion is forbidden. Exhaust gas recirculation is forbidden.

https://www.fia.com/file/64927/download ... n=XN2hTEj2

Interesting addition to the 2018 regulations. Before, EGR was explicitly permitted. Now it is explicitly disallowed.

Was EGR a dead end, or was EGR employed for a now-nixed performance benefit? A delayed post-combustion fuel injection moment could enrich the exhaust gas intended for recirculation. EGR containing fuel vapors could provide a port injection effect upon the intake charge. In this arrangement, a portion of the max useable fuel per cylinder is injected normally via the DI, while the remainder is injected after the combustion event to enrich the EGR charge.

The first sentence is yet another reference to non-fuel injection within the 2018 ruleset. Whether this means oil, oil mist, or something else, still no one seems to know outside of the teams and the FIA.

Maybe they want to make F1 more attractive for VW?

What if the EGR was the way the "oil" was being pulled into the intake?

If the EGR pipe has two valves on either end to open and close it and a connection to the crankcase it would be an easy way to control when the vapors were making it into the intake.

1158 wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2018, 22:18

What if the EGR was the way the "oil" was being pulled into the intake?

If the EGR pipe has two valves on either end to open and close it and a connection to the crankcase it would be an easy way to control when the vapors were making it into the intake.

Could be. It crossed my mind that EGR could have some interplay with the oil-air separator and/or crankcase ventilation. It's interesting to think about; there are many variables.

If EGR was developed, so too would have been the chemical composition of trace elements within the exhaust gas. This being a result of fuel composition and combustion properties.

Oil and/or oil vapor chemistry are also a suspected performance benefit.

Chemical reactions between exhaust gas, fuel, and oil, may be worth considering. Typically SI petrol exhaust is primarily composed of nitrogen, water vapor and CO2. Oxygen content may be higher given the high air:fuel ratio.



Could beneficial compounds be synthesized on the fly, which otherwise could not practically, or legally, be carried on-board the vehicle?

I've never seen anything resembling EGR pipework on the PUs, so it could be well obscured, or simply done in-cylinder via valve timing. For example, a portion of the exhaust could be made to backflow and partially fill the intake runner by opening one or both intake valves during the exhaust stroke. As long as in-cylinder pressure at that moment is greater than intake manifold pressure.

Furthermore: if the exhaust valves close early, and one or both intake valves open early (before TDC on the exhaust stroke), then the exhaust 'charge' would effectively be segregated into:

-exhaust bound for intake manifold backflow
-exhaust bound for the turbine/wastegate

The intake backflow portion would thus be the EGR. Fuel could be injected into this portion of the exhaust without waste because the exhaust valves would be closed; this is the portion bound for re-injestion, the 'EGR charge.' Injecting fuel into the EGR charge could promote fuel homogenization mimicking port injection, and allow for any beneficial exhaust-fuel chemical reactions to take place. Since fuel would be injected at the end of the exhaust stroke, there is provided a few more degrees of crankshaft rotation within which fuel injection moments can be spaced.

Given the a:f ratios which provide excess oxygen, along with turbo-assisted gas flows, there may be scope for playing around with valve timing, EGR, and early EVC/IVO specifically.

Interesting, and what about multiple valve closing or opening events?