2014 Design

[markc]

A bit left field, but is there scope for cooling via turbo, forcing air over the rads/charge cooler?
As in, charge cooler and rad get benefit of forced induction overspill, if you will, thus effectively being a fan style cooling without the need for a fan, which has been banned since the Brabham Fan Car (BT46B).

Sorry if already covered tl;dr basically!

[wuzak]

A bit left field, but is there scope for cooling via turbo, forcing air over the rads/charge cooler?
As in, charge cooler and rad get benefit of forced induction overspill, if you will, thus effectively being a fan style cooling without the need for a fan, which has been banned since the Brabham Fan Car (BT46B).

Sorry if already covered tl;dr basically!

Compressed air is hot, so no it would be of no benefit.

[Holm86]

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.

Yea sorry. All i took into account was that the power output of the ERS is doubled next year. I didn't take into account that you can release this doubled output for allmost 6 times as long. So your factor 12 seems pretty correct to me.

But the point was that the ERS systems need more cooling next year. So just because the ICE radiators will be smaller i doesn't mean thay you have that extra space in the sidepods.

[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.

Yea sorry. All i took into account was that the power output of the ERS is doubled next year. I didn't take into account that you can release this doubled output for allmost 6 times as long. So your factor 12 seems pretty correct to me.

But the point i was that the ERS systems need more cooling next year. So just because the ICE radiators will be smaller i doesn't mean thay you have that extra space in the sidepods.

Yes, I agree. Just a remark on the ERS heat rejection. It does not all come from the MGU-K and it's inverter. It also comes from the MGU-H and the inverter that drives it. The heat is considerably less than that of the MGU-K but not negligible.

[WhiteBlue]

Yea sorry. All i took into account was that the power output of the ERS is doubled next year. I didn't take into account that you can release this doubled output for allmost 6 times as long. So your factor 12 seems pretty correct to me.

But the point i was that the ERS systems need more cooling next year. So just because the ICE radiators will be smaller i doesn't mean thay you have that extra space in the sidepods.

Yes, I agree. Just a remark on the ERS heat rejection. It does not all come from the MGU-K and it's inverter. It also comes from the MGU-H and the inverter that drives it. The heat is considerably less than that of the MGU-K but not negligible. You also have the oil from the gear box to cool. Packaging all this cooling will be one of the biggest jobs in the 2014 car design.

[Holm86]

Yea sorry. All i took into account was that the power output of the ERS is doubled next year. I didn't take into account that you can release this doubled output for allmost 6 times as long. So your factor 12 seems pretty correct to me.

But the point i was that the ERS systems need more cooling next year. So just because the ICE radiators will be smaller i doesn't mean thay you have that extra space in the sidepods.

Yes, I agree. Just a remark on the ERS heat rejection. It does not all come from the MGU-K and it's inverter. It also comes from the MGU-H and the inverter that drives it. The heat is considerably less than that of the MGU-K but not negligible. You also have the oil from the gear box to cool. Packaging all this cooling will be one of the biggest jobs in the 2014 car design.

I agree. And im no electrical expert but wouldnt you wan't to keep the MGU's as cool as possible?? I mean the hotter the materials in a generator gets the more resistance they have. So the generator needs to work harder to generate the same amount of watts right??

[WhiteBlue]

And im no electrical expert but wouldnt you wan't to keep the MGU's as cool as possible?? I mean the hotter the materials in a generator gets the more resistance they have. So the generator needs to work harder to generate the same amount of watts right??

I'm a mechanical engineer as well but I have worked with brush less AC motors and applications where they are used as MGUs for regen purposes. The MGUs and the power electronics are extremely compact in design relative to the power they have and they can only be build that way because they have liquid cooling that extracts the heat much faster than air cooling would do.

The efficiency of the cooling system is absolutely essential for how compact you can build the electric machine. Particularly for F1 you want your MGUs as light as possible which means you under size them or you over load them whichever way you look at it. The important figure for the over load factor is the power utilization over the load cycle. If the average power over the cycle is lower than the nominal power you are not using the maximum thermal load the machine can handle and your car carries excess weight.

The internal cooling system of an MGU is designed in such a way that it prevents the inner components like the rare earth magnets and the insulation materials to overheat. When that happens you destroy the machine quickly. So that is similar to ICEs that are not cooled sufficiently. It is basically the same problem Red Bull had with their alternator failures last year.

So when we speak about cooling design in 2014 it is absolutely essential on one side to know the amount of rejected heat by looking at all energy transfers in the ERS and on the other hand to minimize the weight of your MGUs.

[Holm86]

And im no electrical expert but wouldnt you wan't to keep the MGU's as cool as possible?? I mean the hotter the materials in a generator gets the more resistance they have. So the generator needs to work harder to generate the same amount of watts right??

I'm a mechanical engineer as well but I have worked with brush less AC motors and applications where they are used as MGUs for regen purposes. The MGUs and the power electronics are extremely compact in design relative to the power they have and they can only be build that way because they have liquid cooling that extracts the heat much faster than air cooling would do.

The efficiency of the cooling system is absolutely essential for how compact you can build the electric machine. Particularly for F1 you want your MGUs as light as possible which means you under size them or you over load them whichever way you look at it. The important figure for the over load factor is the power utilization over the load cycle. If the average power over the cycle is lower than the nominal power you are not using the maximum thermal load the machine can handle and your car carries excess weight.

The internal cooling system of an MGU is designed in such a way that it prevents the inner components like the rare earth magnets and the insulation materials to overheat. When that happens you destroy the machine quickly. So that is similar to ICEs that are not cooled sufficiently. It is basically the same problem Red Bull had with their alternator failures last year.

So when we speak about cooling design in 2014 it is absolutely essential on one side to know the amount of rejected heat by looking at all energy transfers in the ERS and on the other hand to minimize the weight of your MGUs.

Okay. But i was thinking more about the efficiency of the MGU's. Let's say the materials will handle a max temperature of 100°. Then if you could cool it to be at maximum 80° that would be fine. But my question is would it be worth trying to get the temperature down to something like 50°?? To have less internal resistance which would give higher efficiency.

[adrianjordan]

I know this has been asked before, but I have yet to find a representative image.

Are there any mockup's floating around of what the 2014 spec cars will look like??

[WhiteBlue]

Okay. But i was thinking more about the efficiency of the MGU's. Let's say the materials will handle a max temperature of 100°. Then if you could cool it to be at maximum 80° that would be fine. But my question is would it be worth trying to get the temperature down to something like 50°?? To have less internal resistance which would give higher efficiency.

I have to quit for this question. I have only a bit of application experience and used the things as the manufacturers told me. You will have to ask an electrical engineer for that question.

[wuzak]

I know this has been asked before, but I have yet to find a representative image.

Are there any mockup's floating around of what the 2014 spec cars will look like??

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/07/08/20 ... irst-look/

[markc]

A bit left field, but is there scope for cooling via turbo, forcing air over the rads/charge cooler?
As in, charge cooler and rad get benefit of forced induction overspill, if you will, thus effectively being a fan style cooling without the need for a fan, which has been banned since the Brabham Fan Car (BT46B).

Sorry if already covered tl;dr basically!

Compressed air is hot, so no it would be of no benefit.

Thanks Wuzak, I hadn't anticipated using the compressed air directly but rather via forced induction overspill - as I termed it in the original post. I hadn't formulated a way to implement it at the time of posting, however, doing a little research one potential could be using an aspirator to force ambient air over rads. See here for principle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbnPu89ChU. Airbus evacuation slides, using an aspirator (in use at 5 min marker) to rapidly inflate the slide.

So; the airbox becomes the aspirator, and the turbo inlet a tube inside the airbox feeding the turbo only, the ambient air should be forced in due to negative pressure due to aspirator design and can then be ducted to the rads. Presumably the used air can then be ducted elsewhere for aero benefit too?

So smaller cooling inlets, tighter bodywork, all thanks to an indirect use of turbo... possible?

[Holm86]

A bit left field, but is there scope for cooling via turbo, forcing air over the rads/charge cooler?
As in, charge cooler and rad get benefit of forced induction overspill, if you will, thus effectively being a fan style cooling without the need for a fan, which has been banned since the Brabham Fan Car (BT46B).

Sorry if already covered tl;dr basically!

Compressed air is hot, so no it would be of no benefit.

Thanks Wuzak, I hadn't anticipated using the compressed air directly but rather via forced induction overspill - as I termed it in the original post. I hadn't formulated a way to implement it at the time of posting, however, doing a little research one potential could be using an aspirator to force ambient air over rads. See here for principle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbnPu89ChU. Airbus evacuation slides, using an aspirator (in use at 5 min marker) to rapidly inflate the slide.

So; the airbox becomes the aspirator, and the turbo inlet a tube inside the airbox feeding the turbo only, the ambient air should be forced in due to negative pressure due to aspirator design and can then be ducted to the rads. Presumably the used air can then be ducted elsewhere for aero benefit too?

So smaller cooling inlets, tighter bodywork, all thanks to an indirect use of turbo... possible?

Not possible no.

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all (and only) the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

This means that every thing that enters the turbo intake must exit via the exhaust. So you cant use air that has passed through the turbo for anything else than going to the engine.

[trinidefender]

Not possible no.

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all (and only) the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

This means that every thing that enters the turbo intake must exit via the exhaust. So you cant use air that has passed through the turbo for anything else than going to the engine.

This means that every thing that enters the turbo intake must exit via the exhaust. So you cant use air that has passed through the turbo for anything else than going to the engine.[/quote]

Well then here you have to figure out exactly where is considered the compressor inlet. The intake above the drivers head doesn't have to be the exact compressor inlet, it can just have an air path leading to it

[wuzak]

Well then here you have to figure out exactly where is considered the compressor inlet. The intake above the drivers head doesn't have to be the exact compressor inlet, it can just have an air path leading to it

Doesn't matter what is considered the compressor inlet.

The question was about using some of the compressed air from the turbo (ie off the compressor outlet) to do other things - like blow the diffuser or create a double DRS effect.

But since all the air that goes into the compressor has to go through the exhaust, you cannot siphon air off the compressor.

You could do what you suggest - but that is no different than now. Although they do not use air from the airbox to do that - they have a separate air inlet. And I would expect much the same in 2014.