F1technical.net

So as I gather we'll still stick to the familiar format of two sidepod cooling intakes - and a chassis in the middle
How do we see teams approach cooling? Obviously there is now two systems for cooling, surely? Whereas we only use a radiator now, would they not use an intercooler as well in 2014?

Do we see teams using one sidepod as intercooler and the other as radiator? Or perhaps half of each sidepod for both items?

Best guesses?

maybe radiators at the bottom of each side and intercoolers at the top of each side to try keep the weight of the coolant as low as possible

The decision whether to use a single or dual charge air cooler has to do with the plumbing. A single turbo V6 would probably work best with a single charge cooler. Less flow losses and lighter weight.

Judging by pictures I've seen of 2014 engines, it looks like they are going to use where the current air intake is (roll hoop) for an intercooler. The turbo charged engines won't benefit from the air ram effect so the change makes sense.

tim wrote:Judging by pictures I've seen of 2014 engines, it looks like they are going to use where the current air intake is (roll hoop) for an intercooler. The turbo charged engines won't benefit from the air ram effect so the change makes sense.

Won't they?

If the ram air pressurise the air some it means the compressor doesn't have to work as hard to deliver the air pressure to the cylinder, and thus there is more power available for the MGUH.

Maybe it is only a minor amount, but it could be worth it.

Whatever they do there is likely to be a negotiation process between the chassis designer and the engine guys for the size of inter cooling. I expect Newey to be the toughest of the leading designers once again with regard to packaging requirements and aero ambitions. So Renault will probably go for a small intercooling capacity.

I foresee reliability problems for RBR if Newey gets his way.

mx_tifoso wrote:I foresee reliability problems for RBR if Newey gets his way.

Or, instead - Renault anticipates Newey's "downforce at all costs" approach and makes the Renault as efficient as possible (in terms of needing least cooling)

raymondu999 wrote:

mx_tifoso wrote:I foresee reliability problems for RBR if Newey gets his way.

Or, instead - Renault anticipates Newey's "downforce at all costs" approach and makes the Renault as efficient as possible (in terms of needing least cooling)

All engine supliers will want to make their engines as efficient as possible in all areas. The trouble is that if you go crazy in one of those areas it'll hamper the others, such as power, reliability,... .

One thing you can bet on though is that Renault does not need to anticipate. Their f1 engine department will have received aprox. 2 years ago a very detailed note from Newey on what he wants. The engine will be designed for the RBR chassis, not the other way around. And why shouldn't Renault do so? The last 4 years are one of their most succesful era's as engine supplier, and all of that is thanks to RBR. The biggest chance they have of continueing that is designing what that team wants.

you cannot go for a small cooling capacity..you got a certain amount of waste energy and just have to get rid of it ,end of story.
this is where a clever brain can make a difference -how reducing the inevitable losses when you have to transfer heat from your powertrain to the air you are just cutting through at constantly varying speeds but maximum load.
The real challenge is the slow stuff not travelling at vmax The ultimate test is the soak encountered after a slow formation lap standing in the grid waiting for the last car to find its slot or even harder : a pitstop that went wrong.It´s only a few seconds ,true but cooling wise the car is relying on ground speed as a shark ....
Are the teams really ahead of current radiator technologies as available at Modine Visteon Behr to name a few-The cost for development of radiator tube and fin layouts and tools may or may not be in reach for a top team ..there might be some potential with nano fluids to improve heat transfer -not really something worthwhile in the real world to pursue but with F1 s power levels and detailcrazyness I´d think someone is already looking at it if not using it already...
and then there is graphite and carbon ...but is there enough budgets for tackling something like this ?

I´m not entirely sure but is phase change cooling an option for Formula 1? I have it on the back of my mind this is prohibited in the rules...but maybe only for engine cooling ? But maybe it is a ways for all the ancilliaries this story looks very intriguing:

http://www.bitrode.com/testimonials/blog

and some chaps evaluating cooling concepts including graphite foam ...
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... sequence=1


and some basics:
http://www.ijeat.org/attachments/File/v ... 022313.pdf

marcush. wrote:.....Are the teams really ahead of current radiator technologies as available at Modine Visteon Behr to name a few-The cost for development of radiator tube and fin layouts and tools may or may not be in reach for a top team ..there might be some potential with nano fluids to improve heat transfer -not really something worthwhile in the real world to pursue but with F1 s power levels and detailcrazyness I´d think someone is already looking at it if not using it already...
and then there is graphite and carbon ...but is there enough budgets for tackling something like this ?

I´m not entirely sure but is phase change cooling an option for Formula 1? I have it on the back of my mind this is prohibited in the rules...but maybe only for engine cooling ?

marcush- Last time I checked, F1 regs only allowed water for engine coolant. I also recall that the max pressure in the coolant system was limited to something like 2 bar.

Regarding the manufacture of custom core designs, this cost is well within the reach of any F1 team budget. As for core designs that are more efficient than the conventional tube/fin, in terms of drag, flow losses, volume or weight, there is at least on new concept. Rather than tubes and fins, the core design uses a large number of closely spaced, very small diameter tubes, having extremely thin walls. The principle behind it is that there is a much more efficient heat transfer from liquid to air across the extremely thin tube wall.

The design of oil heat exchangers is a bit different than coolant heat exchangers. The pressure drop across the core is of great concern with oil coolers. For this reason, it is usually desirable to keep the tube length of oil cooler cores as short as practical.

wuzak wrote:

tim wrote:Judging by pictures I've seen of 2014 engines, it looks like they are going to use where the current air intake is (roll hoop) for an intercooler. The turbo charged engines won't benefit from the air ram effect so the change makes sense.

Won't they?

If the ram air pressurise the air some it means the compressor doesn't have to work as hard to deliver the air pressure to the cylinder, and thus there is more power available for the MGUH.

Maybe it is only a minor amount, but it could be worth it.

Would it not be a bit moot by combining both Ram air intake, with compressed air later on in the system? Once the air reaches the compression chamber, it wouldn't matter the speed it arrived at. 1.6 Turbos with 100kg fuel flow per hour limit will not require masses of air either. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have a compressor?

A turbo compressor would benefit from a well designed ram air inlet duct. The compressor would give better performance from an intake duct that provides a supply of cool, dense air at an increased pressure, and with an optimized flow direction and velocity. An intake duct that provides optimum airflow conditions for the turbo compressor performance allows it to run at max efficiency, which then results in the minimum amount of heat transferred to the intake air from the compressor work, and which then minimizes the amount of intake charge cooling needed.

Yesterday, Adrian Newey said at the FIA press conference that 2014 cars will have bigger sidepods due to significantly increased cooling requirements. I think from that you could conclude that additional cooling devices will be located in the sidepods. At least for Redbull.

But bigger how ? larger (bigger frontal area) ? larger but undercut ? larger with no undercut (like 2002-2003 cars for example) ?
higher ? longer ?

The removal of the beam wing and the exhaust exits* might, IMO, encourage some teams to sacrifice airflow above the sidpods and add air intakes similar to the Benetton B189
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... t_1990.jpg

In one hand you have an enginethat has 2 cylinders and more than 5000 tr/min less, and in the other hand you have a the Turbo and the energy recovery units that will need more fresh air for power and cooling... so it's difficult to imagine how the 2014 car breathing system will look...