2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

I do not understand how you categorically state that "Intercooling does not have a positive effect on engine efficiency."

Eh? You mean this?

Intercooling is useful in keeping the engine cool and improving volumetric efficiency, but it doesn't have to have a positive effect on engine efficiency.

Charge cooling doesn't automatically mean higher engine efficiency

"Doesn't have" and "doesn't have to have" are two different things.
"Doesn't automatically" is different to "never".

Edis is misinforming.
The main role of an intercooler is to cool the air from the compressor.
It's not there to cool the engine as he said. That's what the radiator is for.

And it does have to have a positive effect on engine efficiency otherwise it wouldn't be on the engine.

[PlatinumZealot]

I do not understand how you categorically state that "Intercooling does not have a positive effect on engine efficiency."

Eh? You mean this?

Intercooling is useful in keeping the engine cool and improving volumetric efficiency, but it doesn't have to have a positive effect on engine efficiency.

No. Do not get it twisted. Volumetric efficiency is one parameter. That cannot represent the efficiency of the whole engine.

[xpensive]

...
So why use inter coolers in the first place?

The way I have always understood things, the primary purpose of an Intercooler is to "shrink" the air in order to increase the amount of oxygen for combustion, in turn allowing for more fuel to be burnt, thus increasing power.

But with the new 2014 engine formula in F1, limited fuel flow combined with a boost as low as 0.8 Bar, at least on paper it is doubtful if intercoolers are needed for the purpose of burning fuel?

There might be other purposes as well however, anti-knocking being one of those I understand

[Saribro]

No. Do not get it twisted.

I see the interkoolaid made you totally miss the point of my post. Nevermind then.

[WhiteBlue]

...
So why use inter coolers in the first place?

The way I have always understood things, the primary purpose of an Intercooler is to "shrink" the air in order to increase the amount of oxygen for combustion, in turn allowing for more fuel to be burnt, thus increasing power.

But with the new 2014 engine formula in F1, limited fuel flow combined with a boost as low as 0.8 Bar, at least on paper it is doubtful if intercoolers are needed for the purpose of burning fuel?

There might be other purposes as well however, anti-knocking being one of those I understand

I would agree with that view. It is a matter of evaluation weather an intercooler would be an advantage in a formula which is fuel controlled and not air controlled as previous formulae used to be. Depending of the rpm and the boost they will be running it could be advantage to do without the plumbing for intercooling and simply control the amount of air via the compressor mapping. Remember that they can run the compressor electrically aided and run it at any rpm they need at a particular rev level of the engine.

The primary strategy to fight knocking in a direct injected engine in my view would be injecting as late as possible before ignition and still have the fuel completely evaporated by the quality of the spray delivery. This will be the main technology everybody will be working on. As I understand the rules the actual injectors - which will be mission critical - will be supplied by an FiA selected single supplier. So it will depend on the fuel pump and the engine mapping how efficient the particular engine uses the direct injectors.

[xpensive]

I'm glad that we are in agreement WB, running without intercooler should present many secondary advantages with regards to plumbing, packaging, aerodynamic drag and perhaps turbo-lag?

[ringo]

The intercooler allows an increased mass flow to get to the engine at a much cooler temperature.
"Shrinking" air is an interesting way of terming it.

But the intercooler is always about increasing the efficiency of the engine because of the compressor adding heat to the air when it does work on it. That heat is an inefficiency and if it is taken away, it stands that the engine will have more efficiency due to it working between a greater temperature difference.

An intercooler increases the available work you can get out of an engine by increasing the mass flow that is compressed by the piston.

As said before without an intercooler the air going to the 1.5lt V6 would be about 100 degrees C.
With one it is at 40 degrees C.

If we look at the density of air between these 2 temperatures if they were at the same boost level, we would understand that the lower temperature has a higher density and thus higher mass in the same volume.
It is this higher mass that when multiplied to the enthalpy change in the engine that gives more kilo Watts for the same compressor work and engine speed.

It can't get any clearer for Edis; unless Riff Raff seals it off with more common sense and leave no stones unturned. Which he is pretty good at on these forums.

[ringo]

I'm glad that we are in agreement WB, running without intercooler should present many secondary advantages with regards to plumbing, packaging, aerodynamic drag and perhaps turbo-lag?

Well if those things outweigh being down down 90 hp of your 600 hp, then yeah.

[ringo]

I would agree with that view. It is a matter of evaluation weather an intercooler would be an advantage in a formula which is fuel controlled and not air controlled as previous formulae used to be. Depending of the rpm and the boost they will be running it could be advantage to do without the plumbing for intercooling and simply control the amount of air via the compressor mapping. Remember that they can run the compressor electrically aided and run it at any rpm they need at a particular rev level of the engine.

The primary strategy to fight knocking in a direct injected engine in my view would be injecting as late as possible before ignition and still have the fuel completely evaporated by the quality of the spray delivery. This will be the main technology everybody will be working on. As I understand the rules the actual injectors - which will be mission critical - will be supplied by an FiA selected single supplier. So it will depend on the fuel pump and the engine mapping how efficient the particular engine uses the direct injectors.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the purpose of an inter-cooler.

You can't have a 2 hour race where every drop of fuel is important and not have a turbo charged engine intercooled.

It's madness.

[godlameroso]

What I wrote is correct.

Charge cooling doesn't automatically mean higher engine efficiency, infact, better intercooling can lead to a lower engine efficiency. That have been shown in the past. For instance, Hondas RA168E had a 4% higher BSFC at an air inlet temperature of 40 degC than at 80 degC. It did however lose power with increased temperature, and going beyond 70 degC didn't really offered any advantages.

As for increased temperature and its effect on compression work, yes, increased temperature will cause compression to require more work, but in theory you get that back during expansion. In pratice you don't get it all back since compression and expansion aren't isentropic but polytropic.

In the ideal engine we would want the incoming charge to be as cool as possible, but in practice such an engine can have trouble vaporising its's fuel, leading to a lower efficiency. We would also want our engine to compress and expand the gas while at constant temperature, but that is usually not practical.

As for spending a lot of money on making internal combustion engines run hotter, I don't fully agree with that statement. Yes, some money is spent on dealing with higher temperatures, but a lot of money is actually spent on the opposite; making engines run cooler.

I'm going to cut your post short, as the rest of it isn't really a strong argument to the fundamental reasoning behind inter cooling.

It can be proven to you that charge cooling increases efficiency.
Mass flow and temperature difference is king in any engine design.
Take a while to consider what the inter-cooler does to the air, and how it affects it's mass flow and temperature going into the engine.
then consider the Carnot efficiency.
It's simple as that.

A gas turbine power plant can easily get a 20% increase in efficiency with an intercooler.
All the Nox and other little nuances in the rest of the post, can't compare to that 20% chunk of efficiency.

Even with consideration for isentropic efficiency below unity and pressure drop in the heat exchanger, intercooling is still very advantageous.

Intercoolers are actually very inefficient, you lose boost pressure by running the charge through the cooler. As in most things car related, it's a compromise, a lower intake temp allows you to ultimately run more boost, but it's a moot point if the boost pressure is going to be limited to 14psi. In any case teams will run an IC, and I suspect a large amount of development is going to go into the IC design. The most boost you could realistically run without an IC is in the neigbrohood of 6-8psi. Large gains can be made from well made end tanks, as that will reduce the amount of boost lost by cooling.

[ringo]

Look on it this way, whatever pressure drop you are getting through an intercooler, you can't compare it to free 100hp.

Intercooler is all about getting the piston to compress more mass of air at a time.
Sounds counter intuitive when we look at the temperatures. As higher engine temps. mean higher heat and more power.
The thing is the displacement of the engine is pulling blindly on whatever can fill the cylinders. If the air is cooler more mass will fill it. If it's 40 degrees hotter less mass goes in.
The higher specific enthalpies experienced by not running an intercooler is outmatched by the higher mass content in the air charge and also a more ideal compression from the pistons.
This mass content determines the amount of fuel you can burn and thus controls the power output.
The idea of the air being too cool is very interesting. As you can see that colder intake with the same compression and fuel = colder combustion products.
However the mass flow comes first.
What makes the intercooler even more advantageous is that it works well at low pressure ratios, and is even better when there is regeneration (heating after compression).
A direct injected engine will do well with preheated fuel. This can negate the concern of the pre combustion products being too cool, if that was the concern for Edis.


It would be interesting to hear the thoughts behind not using an intercooler in other racing series.
But on a whole, air mass flow is the elephant in the room.

[xpensive]

...
I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the purpose of an inter-cooler.

You can't have a 2 hour race where every drop of fuel is important and not have a turbo charged engine intercooled.

It's madness.

This forum is really something nowadays, after a combined 14 000 posts, myself and WB finally agrees on something technically fundamental and promptly comes a wannabee to moustache the image in his humble and eloquent fashion?

But seriously, F1T is in bad need of some technical moderation asap before all knowledgeable members follows 747's xample.

[ringo]

The big picture is that you may chose to burn more fuel with more oxygen available, but with the same work from the compressor.

with intercooler you may use a rate of 27.8g/s of fuel for 570 hp.

25.21 hp/g of fuel

without intercooler you use a rate of 24.6g/s of fuel for 474 hp.

24.1 hp/g of fuel

brake specific fuel consumption doesn't quite work out so well for no intercooler does it?

fuel use drops by 11% yet power drops by 17%

reason: the compressor is leeching off the same amount of power in both cases.

figures come from.. you know where.

[Lurk]

From the PURE subject

Has Renault engines(chatillon) committed to 2014 x?

As far as I understood it JET, Renault was a staunch supporter of the four-banger, don't know if the V6 changed anything?

Perhaps PURE and Mechacrome, who has a history with Renault, is a cover for the French manufacturer rather than VW?

There has to be some wealthy force behind PURE anyway, of that I'm certain.

Renault worked a lot on the straight-4 (like the others in fact: merc apparently runned dyno test on unrestricted engine and Ferrari received some blocks) but they now on the V6. They are in their early sims but they except the same amount of power as V8 with a lot more torque.

[matt21]

Just an idea coming to my mind this morning.

When the MGHU is attached to the turbo, it can be used to speed up the turbine during throttle-off in order to keep it spinning.
But does it make sense to use it as a sort of limiter, by the meaning of extracting electric energyy in order to control the maximum boost pressure.
If so, I think you can get rid of the wastegate.

Maybe like this:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/34673637/Di ... bocompound