Simple, yet stupid question.

[Caito]

If 2014 engines are more efficient, and they're using even less fuel. How come they need bigger radiators?

I know the engines is more efficient, but, wouldn't that mean the whole package is less efficient?

Cheers,

Caito.

[NTS]

Less heat out of the exhaust which goes into the turbo instead. That means the turbo and surroundings get hotter even though the engine in total probably produces less heat if you include the exhaust gas temperature and flow.

[tim|away]

The 2014 internal cumbustion engine itself doesn't need more cooling than the 2013 one. Significantly more so than in 2013, you have to consider the 2014 engine to be a "power unit" that is made up of several components: internal combustion engine, turbo-charger, intercooler, MGU-H, MGU-K, Energy storage.

You need a lot more cooling for all the addional components that make up the 2014 power unit. In plain english: Not only do you have a turbo-charger, but also additional energy recovery systems that require more cooling than before.

As for the efficiency question: Typically fuel efficiency is being discussed here, as fossil fuels in combustion engines are used to power cars rather than to function as outdoor heaters. In 2014 cars will run a 300 km race distance with roughly 30-35% less fuel compared to 2013, therefore increasing efficiency. It is important to note that the additional heat is not generated by burning fuel less efficiently and generating more heat, but by the additional energy recovery systems that produce heat as an inconvenient by-product.

[Sebp]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmWp1jPhbu4[/youtube]

[Richard]

They need more cooling because some of the energy that used to be blasted out the exhaust pipe is now being captured. The capturing devices give off some heat so they need to be cooled.

[Tommy Cookers]

more cooling in 2014 really means more volume flow, it does not imply more heat flow ?
a higher proportion of the heat removed in 2014 is heat transfer across small temperature differences eg intercooler and electrics
although ......
about 15-20 kg of the typical 2013 140 kg race consumption passed unburnt to the atmosphere (rich mixture was used)
so only about 120-125 kg's worth of heat energy was released
this would be comparable to maybe only 110-115 kg 2014 fuel
and .....
the 2014 car is recovering much more waste kinetic energy under braking, about 20% of this must go to cooling
and the turbine/generator/motor compound route similarly must dump heat to the cooling systems
(the turbine is 70-80% efficient ie 20-30% non-conserving in its use of exhaust pressure)

the heat flow in 2014 is anyway greater than the simple fuel weight comparisons would suggest

[Del Boy]

As said previously, the intercooler (heat exchanger) is air/air which requires more surface area to work as efficiently as water/air radiators (heat exchanger).

Not sure how true this is but I read this somewhere - "The turbo charger is heating the air to 450 deg C the engine needs the air to be about 100 deg C so the intercooler is removing 350 deg C."

Feel free to correct me on these figures.

I had a question for all the bright F1 technical genius'. The MGUK can only harvest 2 MJ per lap but it can deploy 4MJ per lap. Can the MGUH provide the 2MJ shortfall. Particularly somewhere like Monaco, Hungary?

[NTS]

Based on the rules it would be allowed to, but we don't know whether it will. A Renault engineer hinted at the possibility in an interview for Ted's Notebook. The other option to get the 2 extra MJ is not to use all of the generated energy in the current lap, but save some for the next. There have been some conflicting opinions on the board here, but as far as I understand they can have a setting (map) to tell the ECU not to use all of the ERS energy and thus save for later strategic use (limited to 4 MJ by the rules of course). There will be no "KERS button" so manually saving will not really be an option, has to be a map somewhere.

[Del Boy]

Sorry to hijack your thread.
So the rules allow the MGUH to generate the shortfall.
I am sorry for the roughness but it's probably far more complicated than my knowledge runs to.
So we need to recover 80bhp from the exhaust heat?

The engine produces about 2000 BHP
700 BHP reaches the wheels
750 BHP is lost to heat through the exhaust
650 BHP is lost to heat through cooling and hydraulics
(Thermal efficiency of F1 engines)

So if 750 BHP goes out through the exhaust the MGUH only has to recover 12% of this energy?

[Tommy Cookers]

the rules do not limit the mgu-h power
eg it is allowed to drive the M(g)u-k to 120 kW output (more if Mu-k work is at over 95% efficiency)
and simultaneously drive power into storage within the storage recovery/lap limits

the crankshaft power without any recovery is about 600 hp
agreed the rate of total energy loss down the exhaust pipe (if we do not ask the mgu-h to generate anything) is about 700 hp

but the turbine (like a piston type expander) responds only to gas pressure or the equivalent in velocity
most of the exhaust energy (the part that can burn your fingers) just flows through the turbine unuseably
this unuseable part was in the Wright Turbo-Compound about 65% of the total exhaust stream energy
the way to recover from that unuseable energy stream is to use a Rankine ('steam') cycle for compounding the ICE Otto cycle
as BMW has done

so the FIA is lying when it names the so-called mgu-h
it should be called the mgu-internal energy ?
(and the mgu-k should be called the mgu-external energy, like KERS it can and will in part generate directly from from ICE power)

[McMrocks]

It is the law of conservation of energie. As many others have already stated above the Turbo keeps some of the energy of the exhaust gases at the car. Last year this energy was wasted. The best thing they did last year with it was producing a little more downforce at the rear. BUt not only the turbo keeps the energie 'on' the car also the kinetic (brake) energy recovery system will keep this year more kinetic energy on the car.

If that is true the rear brakes will be cooler this year because the electricity generator plays a bigger role in the braking action.

[marcush.]

with a Turbo and all the "low temp" cooling circuits (Batteries and electronics do not like high temperatures at all!) you will inevitably face a Problem when getting rid of the heat as your Delta t across the Radiator is small .This will get even worse in hot climate conditions when ambient temps are around 35+ C and your low temperature cooling circuit has a working Point of say 60°C .Needless to say for power Generation your Charge air temps should be as low as possible...so that one is always going to be a compromise package vs engine performance...maybe less so at vmax in Canada but surely in Hungary .

[Belatti]

Funny is that Neweys design overheats at a 5c winter test. What will he do for Malaysia?

[Manoah2u]

Funny is that Neweys design overheats at a 5c winter test. What will he do for Malaysia?

no engine cover?

obviously they have a heat problem, but i feel like it's both due to the renault engine itself and indeed the design of the RB10.
renault will surely be looking into the problem, and will try to find a solution to the heat problems of various parts of the 'powerplant'. as will newey/redbull, to find solutions in cooling the engine bay more then was happening now.

At the Jerez test they just cut open areas in the side of the car to see if it helped. i assume it did for a certain degree.
I don't really think they'll need to generally change the shape of the car - like as if they suddenly pop up a caterham body.
Probably they'll invest time in solutions to both more cold air supply as exits for the heat. supplying more cold air is one of the easiest possibilities by providing flow through existing openings as the sidepods. the area behind the driver helmet probably is another possibility where you can provide additional cooling trying to reduce additional drag/obstruction as much as possible.

cooling outlets aren't that hard a fix either, enlarging the 'opening' around the exhaust a easy step. it's all about improving heat flowing out from the engine bay, essentially.

additionally some attention may be put into improving 'shielding' for heat-sensitive equipment.

I feel like RedBull gambled on the actual effects of heat, and they gambled wrong. Very wrong. Which is a bit weird imho,
because RB is concidered almost the Renault 'Works' team.

newey being a part of the engine development/design as suggested/rumoured [i dunno if that's just talk or there is genuine proof to that], makes it very confusing that they're having trouble, you'd expect a better result for RB compared to others due to feedback as being a 'active' part in the Renault F1v6T engine.

Then again, are they really the works team? The infinity branding seemed to not be taken too positive on the Renault front if I recall correctly, but i dunno if that's just tabloid stuff. Even though Infinity falls under the Nissan-Renault collaboration,
it's less brand exposure for Renault when Infinity is so promiment on the RB.

[marcush.]

Funny is that Neweys design overheats at a 5c winter test. What will he do for Malaysia?

the worry is less the lowish ambient BUT the Performance Level they ran the powertrain and had overheating issues.
so it´s really a more twan onedimensional Problem here.
As for the heat shielding - you actually do not burn off important components within a few minutes when they are supposed and designed for 4 or more race Weekends ...that´s not a gamble on the wrong side it´s a case of completely underestimating the realities or not even grasping the real world in your original designs.
It could as well be :they simply did not have the real bits available yet and tried to run Systems checks with make do improvisations that did not work satisfactory...
but- one has to consider-if you understand the Problem you would not run the car before you know it´s going to work at least for some time..simulations and calcs should bring you within say 10/15k of the max temperature you will see in the real application-Thats not going to kill your powertrain instantly.
-So they do not simulate temps ,right? remember Mercedes last year with their wiring and underbonnet heat issues -just the same ...Trial and error ...like it was in the ol test days. but only with limited testing .

For good measure an excerpt of Status quo of thermal Analysis in passenger car development (DAI) from 2005/2006:

http://www.fkfs.de/uploads/publikatione ... Binner.pdf

And yes ,this is current Technology ,even though CD-Adapco is moving forward all the time .But the deviations seen in the sims todays is comparable.
So my conclusion here_if your calcs are 10K off and your vehicle is not even able to be run at 80% Performance in 5°C ambient you have had no idea of thermal requirements of your Systems-end of Story.