2014 Design

[raymondu999]

Would be interesting to consider that that engine was probably designed with Newey's input in mind, given that RBR is now Renault's de facto works team.

[aussiegman]

Would be interesting to consider that that engine was probably designed with Newey's input in mind, given that RBR is now Renault's de facto works team.

Absolutely, but you can imagine his input.

"Can we make it smaller?"
"Can we run it hotter?"
"Does it really need that much air?"

[raymondu999]

I was thinking more along the lines of, "let's have the headers fold at this point, rather than this point. And the radiator should be at about this angle for optimum aero and packaging"

[turbof1]

Yeah, that's going to be a bitch to position inside the car. We might see assymetric sidepods.

Ah...No. Uneven distribution of airflow over the rear wing and other surfaces would result. Maybe OK in NASCAR seeing they only turn one way.

More likely the water radiator will be in one side and the intercooler the other.

Back in 2009 mclaren did have assymetric sidepods to house the KERS.

[aussiegman]

Back in 2009 mclaren did have assymetric sidepods to house the KERS.

Sure, however in 2009 McLaren for Malaysia did introduce IIRC a marginally wider, rounded section in the lower rear bodywork above the floor but under the exhaust opening (which was also larger left to right) which was used to house the KERS electronics package which is not really relative in size to either an intercooler nor a radiator.

The small asymmetric section seen and what I envisage would be required for asymmetric side pods to accommodate significantly different radiator/intercooler sizes would be far in excess of the marginal difference seen from McLaren and also in a much more critical area(s) of the sidepod which could include any or all of the the entire sidepod bodywork from opening, curvature, height length etc.

A small asymmetry in the lower trailing edge that could result in a negligible to net zero flow differential due to proximity to various flow influences (tyre squirt exhaust etc) is not what I was thinking....

Nor was the exhaust opening asymmetry what I was thinking and it must have had some effect.

What was interesting was that they widened both sides of the body work however retained the asymmetric exhaust exits for the hotter races (Malaysia & Bahrain) however for Spain went back to near symmetric exhaust outlets and by Monaco were running symmetric outlets. They continued to play around with with them all year...

But fair call you were right, McLaren did have asymmetric sidepods in 2009.....

[turbof1]

The big issue is that the water radiators are too big to fit in one sidepod. You need both to get the right amount of cooling.
Is the intercooler splittable? Like 1 entry in each sidepod and somewhere inside the car they converge?

(Also, to be completely honest, mclaren later in that season reverted back to symmetric sidepods.)

[aussiegman]

The big issue is that the water radiators are too big to fit in one sidepod. You need both to get the right amount of cooling.
Is the intercooler splittable? Like 1 entry in each sidepod and somewhere inside the car they converge?

(Also, to be completely honest, mclaren later in that season reverted back to symmetric sidepods.)

IMHO, I wouldn't think you want to be splitting the intercooler side to side. If you could run one each side I think that would be the simplest solution.

[WhiteBlue]

I reckon there will be symmetrical side pots. The critical physical size is the intercooler and not the radiator in terms of fitting into one side pot each. The intercooler is air-to-air which is much slower in heat transfer and needs bigger surface area. Cooling requirements for the engine will go down dramatically because more energy from the fuel gets converted into power instead of heat. So I will not worry about the size of the radiator. You also have to think about ERS and gearbox oil cooling. Those will go into the radiator side pot I think.

[rjsa]

I'd say radiators need around 1/3 less area. Simple math really, they'll burn 100Kg of fuel instead of 150Kg over the same period of time.

[marcush.]

I'd say radiators need around 1/3 less area. Simple math really, they'll burn 100Kg of fuel instead of 150Kg over the same period of time.

Radiator size is not just a function of maximum power -air speed and fluid speeds through the care play a big part in what you need in terms of rads .
So the problem starts with slower speeds but high loads .Given a turbo engine does produce more power down the revband as well it seems possible your cooling demands are rising compared to a succer...
You may have less energy available -but i don´t think even Adrian Newey has reduced the radiator size of his latest creations based on their strategy not to fill the tank completely..Maximum cooling demand is a function of how quickly you can burn the fuel at what efficiency not how much fuelallocation you got....but then A top fuel dragster does not even have a water radiator ,no? time has a place in all this as well maybe?

[rjsa]

I'd say radiators need around 1/3 less area. Simple math really, they'll burn 100Kg of fuel instead of 150Kg over the same period of time.

Radiator size is not just a function of maximum power -air speed and fluid speeds through the care play a big part in what you need in terms of rads .
So the problem starts with slower speeds but high loads .Given a turbo engine does produce more power down the revband as well it seems possible your cooling demands are rising compared to a succer...
You may have less energy available -but i don´t think even Adrian Newey has reduced the radiator size of his latest creations based on their strategy not to fill the tank completely..Maximum cooling demand is a function of how quickly you can burn the fuel at what efficiency not how much fuelallocation you got....but then A top fuel dragster does not even have a water radiator ,no? time has a place in all this as well maybe?

It's got nothing to do with the fuel tank size, but the amount of fuel burnt over the race distance and the energy flow inside the engine.

Knowing for sure nothing at all about the performance of the new engines and knowing for sure the amount of fuel they burn today and will burn next year I think it is the best number I have to start with.

So once the engine will burn 1/3 less fuel, it will roughly have to dissipate 1/3 less energy. I keep my initial estimate that heat exchange capacity can drop by 1/3.

[turbof1]

1/3 on average, but temperatures inside the car aren't constant. The car still needs sufficient cooling at its peak energy consumption, like qualy and a part of the race.

[rjsa]

1/3 on average, but temperatures inside the car aren't constant. The car still needs sufficient cooling at its peak energy consumption, like qualy and a part of the race.

Exactly, on averagen, not considering anything else. Just a base number for a first round in the project spiral, if anyone is familiar with the concept.

[Holm86]

Don't forget that the ERS systems will need about double the cooling of what they have now.

[WhiteBlue]

Don't forget that the ERS systems will need about double the cooling of what they have now.

That won't be even near to it. By my figuring the ERS will have a transfer of 542 MJ total from all recoveries and use of the recovered energy. The KERS in comparison was having 44 MJ. If you consider a minimum of 4 % heat rejection per transition you have to get rid of 22 MJ heat in 2014 and 1.8 MJ in 2013. The energy rejection from the ERS will rise by a factor of 12.

I'd say radiators need around 1/3 less area. Simple math really, they'll burn 100Kg of fuel instead of 150Kg over the same period of time.

That is a good starting point and absolutely correct. But there is more reduction to the radiator capacity. The reduced fuel flow will be converted with higher thermal and mechanical efficiency. Mechanical efficiency because down sizing and down speeding will produce less friction. Thermal efficiency because the engine will not use fuel for cooling but run on stoichiometric AFR or even under it on occasions like safety cars. This will raise the engine temperature, but most of the surplus heat will be going out of the exhaust valves to push the turbine. So expect more than 30% reduction of radiator capacity, probably more like 40%.