Ferrari 2014 Car Pre-launch Speculation

[SilverArrow10]

I hope its the F166 Turbo one. I wish all the cars had turbo on the end. RB10 Turbo. MP4 29 Turbo. W05 Turbo and so on.

[Manoah2u]

well that makes me remember the 80's and early 90's when it suddenly became hip to put a badge on the rear of the car if it had a turbo compressor, injection, or whatever.

it kinda loses it's speciality if all teams say the same, we know it has a turbo anyway.

personally, i'd rather see simply F146-T or F114

[MarkedOne8]

I'm pretty sure that Turbo word in the name will make car faster. Also, the name of the chassis also has to be light, so it's saves a couple of kilos or lowers the center of gravity.

The name doesn't matter that much. I would like it to be F2014. Simple. F and then the year.

[Hobbs04]

F14T/ERS

Or F166 Turbo Hybrid

[medeni73]

So if rumours are true Ferrari will have pull-rod instead of push-rod, in-wash instead of out-wash and water-air cooling system instead of just air cooling system, all of those 3 things experts are currently saying are worse than opposite solutions (push-rod, in-wash and air cooling system)...
I hope either experts or those rumours are wrong

[f1316]

So if rumours are true Ferrari will have pull-rod instead of push-rod, in-wash instead of out-wash and water-air cooling system instead of just air cooling system, all of those 3 things experts are currently saying are worse than opposite solutions (push-rod, in-wash and air cooling system)...
I hope either experts or those rumours are wrong

I don't think you can say any of those things are necessarily 'worse'. Most of the comments I've seen on the pull-rod say it doesn't really make a huge difference (although initially it was thought it could be of some benefit, with the general opinion now being the opposite - but nothing for sure), but it could be that going inwash and having the pull-rod are actually tied together, with the 'slight aero benefit' we've always been told about becoming more pronounced if much more of the air is being routed inside the front wheels).

Also, I understood that there are certainly some potential benefits of the water cooling; it's heavier yes, but don't forget that they can't be underweight anyway (there's a minimum weight). You'd presume they'd only pick the heavier option because they're not marginal on the weight of the engine and can therefore afford the extra weight, with which comes the benefit of a tighter sidepod packaging than with air-air (I'm given to understand).

[dren]

The intercooler is not included in the power unit weight requirement.

[Mr.G]

The intercooler is not included in the power unit weight requirement.

What if you share the circuit for the coolant for engine and intercooler?

[miguelalvesreis]

The intercooler is not included in the power unit weight requirement.

What if you share the circuit for the coolant for engine and intercooler?

They'll probably install the engine radiator and the intercooler in different pods. Apart from that, why limit heat exchange capacity? Which one would transfer heat from the coolant in first instance and which one would be sacrificed?
And which one would be sacrificed on the capacity of transfer heat to the coolant?

Any weight saving you might be able to achieve with that layout would be overrode with the increase in size of the exchanger and diameter of the tubes to allow higher flow rates of coolant

[PhillipM]

The intercooler is not included in the power unit weight requirement.

What if you share the circuit for the coolant for engine and intercooler?

So you've just made it an interwarmer?

[dr_cooke]

The intercooler is not included in the power unit weight requirement.

What if you share the circuit for the coolant for engine and intercooler?

So you've just made it an interwarmer?

That layout is used in some engines. Coolant is cool in comparison with compressed intake air. Usually you can cool that air more by using air to air heat exchanger and fresh air. Water cooling tends to be more compact an easier to pack.

[miguelalvesreis]

That layout is used in some engines. Coolant is cool in comparison with compressed intake air. Usually you can cool that air more by using air to air heat exchanger and fresh air. Water cooling tends to be more compact an easier to pack.

Yes, might happen but we are talking of a F1 engine going at 15k rpm with a turbo up to 125k rpm. All and All to achieve the same heat transfer rate, increasing the heat transferred you will need more mass of fluid. The temperature differential enters the equation.

[PhillipM]

Coolant is cool in comparison with compressed intake air.

In an F1 engine running 125*c coolant temps?
I don't buy it, I can't see why anyone would run a water/air when there's already coolant hose routes to the radiators so packaging for air/air isn't an issue, and the turbo is spooled by the MGU so there's no lag to worry about.

[dr_cooke]

Coolant is cool in comparison with compressed intake air.

In an F1 engine running 125*c coolant temps?
I don't buy it, I can't see why anyone would run a water/air when there's already coolant hose routes to the radiators so packaging for air/air isn't an issue, and the turbo is spooled by the MGU so there's no lag to worry about.

Sure, it would not be very efficient, but I mean it would still be an intercooler, not an "interwarmer" as was mentioned

[PhillipM]

It'd still be a waste of space.