2014 intercooling

[gruntguru]

Well, it doesn't because more heat is absorbed by the higher density air mass. And more energy is wasted getting that air to flow through the engine too.

Any combustion heat absorbed by the working fluid can be converted to work. It doesn't matter what mass of working fluid is present in the combustion chamber. The benefit of additional working fluid is that more of the available heat goes into the working fluid and less is lost to the chamber walls.

Much of the energy you say is "wasted" producing higher boost can be recovered in the turbine where higher exhaust pressure and mass flow will be available.

[ringo]

I used 13.6 because it's a known ratio. I have no information or knowledge of what is being used currently, so i worked with what existed in the turbo formulas of the past.
Yes i know the new engine is fuel limited, but it's still a bench mark for comparison to the old days.

Back to intercooling, now that it is known that ferrari has water to air. Which radiator is the for the turbo system, and does anyone have an idea of the benefits or drawbacks to their system?

[aussiegman]

Back to intercooling, now that it is known that ferrari has water to air. Which radiator is the for the turbo system, and does anyone have an idea of the benefits or drawbacks to their system?

Down sides of air-to-water is it is typically heavier (when you include all components and fluids), more complex than air-to-air and can suffer from heat soak and efficiency drops off very quickly. Upside is usually shorter intake path resulting in better throttle response and shorter time to reach peak boost, which given the MGU-H can be electrically driven is less of a concern.

Drag racers use air-to-water as the use time is low and the thermal mass of coolant can draw the heat away very quickly. Similarly marine applications like it as they have easy access to a cooling liquid (the water in which it is running) to cool the system.

As it also typically uses a much smaller heat exchanger than an air-to-air system, this might be one of the reasons Ferrari use it, to limit the aero impact. Also it might help with initial power for the start and over the first few laps prior to the system being heat soaked or reaching full operating temperatures.

[gruntguru]

Unlike airflow limited engines, charge air temperature is not critical from an air density standpoint. Thermal efficiency may also benefit from reduced intercooling. The only possible downside of running higher charge air temperature (say 70*C as in Honda RA128E) is detonation.

At 70*C it would be possible to share the engine cooling system. A larger radiator and some extra coolant versus the smaller heat exchanger would probably bring the weight back on par with an air-air system.

[langwadt]

Unlike airflow limited engines, charge air temperature is not critical from an air density standpoint. Thermal efficiency may also benefit from reduced intercooling. The only possible downside of running higher charge air temperature (say 70*C as in Honda RA128E) is detonation.

At 70*C it would be possible to share the engine cooling system. A larger radiator and some extra coolant versus the smaller heat exchanger would probably bring the weight back on par with an air-air system.

I believe they all run the coolant temperature at the upper pressure limit of ~130'C

[gruntguru]

That figures. Hotter cylinder walls means reduced heat loss from the working fluid and higher thermal efficiency.

I guess the point you are making is that charge air temp would not be close enough to jacket temp for the system to be shared and that is probably right - unless they are running charge air up near 130*C.

[aussiegman]

An ideal intake temp is going to be very dependent on engine specifics, fuel composition, charge boost levels, compression ratio, ambient temps and the DI systems abilities.

IMHO, 130C would seem far too high for post intercooler IAT. Given the fuel efficiency requirements, I would imagine the intake temps may vary anywhere from 40C to 70C depending on ambient temp, fuel flow rates, efficiency vs. power requirements, fuel composition etc.

Having the intercooler medium so close to the intake helps packaging and reduces inherent lag due to system volume however another downside is it may raise the centre of gravity of the engine package as the liquid filled chargecoolers weight would likely sit high in the engine package.

Port injection allows some of the fuel components to evaporate and allows a cooling effect for the intake charge. This is one reason alcohol fuels like E85 work so well in forced induction systems.

A DI has limited ability to allow the fuel to evaporate and it generally runs higher in cylinder temps as it is usually run leaner from what I have seen. A fuel that has good enthalpy of vaporization like methanol or ethanol removes heat from the intake charge as it vaporizes.

The "in cylinder intercooling" effect from the fuel has been speculated as one of the elements that has Mercedes Petronas ahead on the horsepower and efficiency front.

Given that fuel economy is an issue for all teams, I imagine teams would be running engines as lean as possible whenever possible. The flip side is that to stop them melting piston crowns, cracking ring lands or destroying cranks/bearings due to knocking/pinging/detonation the AFR and in cylinder temps would need to be controlled as well as the in cylinder temps.

Physical intercooling is only the most visible part of the process and I imagine they have a specific thermal range they require the intake charge to be for various mapping settings (fuel save vs. power etc) before they can start playing with fuel ratios etc.

[gruntguru]

. . . . efficiency vs. power requirements . . . . .

No doubt you mean't "fuel save mode vs power mode requirements".

Efficiency = power.

[aussiegman]

. . . . efficiency vs. power requirements . . . . .

No doubt you mean't "fuel save mode vs power mode requirements".

Efficiency = power.

Indeed. As you describe, efficiency = power in the current environment as the current engine regs are a fuel restricted formula, defined by the 100kg/hr limit. As F1 currently has no air flow restrictions, either by physical restrictor or a boost limit (as previously used), the general defining principle is extracting the maximum energy from the limited fuel quantity available. Its even referenced specifically later in my post:

Physical intercooling is only the most visible part of the process and I imagine they have a specific thermal range they require the intake charge to be for various mapping settings (fuel save vs. power etc) before they can start playing with fuel ratios etc.

[PlatinumZealot]

Confirmed that the Williams is air to air.

Makes sense.

Another advantage of water cooling not mentioned is that it is easier to mate the assembled engine to the chassis in a mass production environment, but this is not the case in Formula 1.

[wuzak]

Confirmed that the Williams is air to air.

Makes sense.

Another advantage of water cooling not mentioned is that it is easier to mate the assembled engine to the chassis in a mass production environment, but this is not the case in Formula 1.

With power unit replacement times being so long any possible improvement would be welcome.

I assume the advantage is that the water lines can be connected with a quick disconnect coupler, whereas an air to air duc has to be fitted to the cooler?

[FW17]

Is that the water air intercooler within the fuel tank space?