2014 intercooling

[rscsr]

Thanks again, rscsr. But could it be that you just shifted the curve to the right by ~3500rpm instead of multiplying the rpms by ~11500/8000=1,4375?

you are right, I assumed that you could shift the curves, as power is rpm independent. But the new version is stretched by 18000/15000 instead.

But the result is basically the same however you look at it. The new engine has about 46% of the power band which is usable, while the old engine only had 20% of it usable. (if you assume that performance over 600bhp is usable)

[hollus]

Don't get why the engine would produce maximum power at 11.500 rpm instead of 10.500. Are they deliberately waiting to use the max fuel rate till 1000 rpms later than allowed?? Is there any advantage in doing so? A more usable power curve? I would think the engine would be slightly less efficient.

This suggests to me that the plan is to shift high so that the car runs always in between say 10000rpm and 13000rpm. This way you have almost the maximum fuel allocation the whole time and never have to pay the ~15% penalty of running at 9000rpm. This can't be the most fuel efficient, but in quite a few races the 100Kg/race limit won't really limit anything. And for a small trade-off, quali always trumps the race.

[mrluke]

I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.

Your calculations seem to be correct, power depends on the maximum fuel flow allowed for 2014.

But why do you compare the torque of the 2013 engine at 16-18k with the torque of the 2014 engine at 6-12k without multiplying with the gear ratio?

Just for the sake of keeping with actual data. Here are some charts from the Cosworth V8 and V6. Taken from the Race Engine Technology #72 and #73. (That magazine is really worth reading).

Power Curves for the Cosworth CA (V8):
http://postimg.org/image/cbdtef94j/
Power Curves comparison of the V8 and V6 (forecast):
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/
relative fuel consumption of the V6:
http://postimg.org/image/aiawq3nxv/

P.S.: I'm Sorry for the crappy picture quality, I had to take a photo with my mobile phone and the paper is really shiny.

Good info thanks. I was at work so didnt have access to my Racecar engineering Mag

I hadnt considered adjusting for gear ratio, good call.

[rscsr]

http://s29.postimg.org/m64yknd2u/image000003.jpg

Don't get why the engine would produce maximum power at 11.500 rpm instead of 10.500. Are they deliberately waiting to use the max fuel rate till 1000 rpms later than allowed?? Is there any advantage in doing so? A more usable power curve? I would think the engine would be slightly less efficient.

This suggests to me that the plan is to shift high so that the car runs always in between say 10000rpm and 13000rpm. This way you have almost the maximum fuel allocation the whole time and never have to pay the ~15% penalty of running at 9000rpm. This can't be the most fuel efficient, but in quite a few races the 100Kg/race limit won't really limit anything. And for a small trade-off, quali always trumps the race.

I would say so. The fuel consumption for the Cosworth V6 at least is best at 12000rpm. (At least for the self sustained mode. As far as I can remember, this means that you are able to use the KERS every lap). So I'd guess that as you said at 11000 to 13000rpm.
With KERS full power your best fuel efficiency would be at 8000rpm, but if you are using full power you won't really care about your consumption anyway so I don't think that they will ever try to run around 8000rpm

[PlatinumZealot]

I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.

Your calculations seem to be correct, power depends on the maximum fuel flow allowed for 2014.

But why do you compare the torque of the 2013 engine at 16-18k with the torque of the 2014 engine at 6-12k without multiplying with the gear ratio?

Just for the sake of keeping with actual data. Here are some charts from the Cosworth V8 and V6. Taken from the Race Engine Technology #72 and #73. (That magazine is really worth reading).

Power Curves for the Cosworth CA (V8):
http://postimg.org/image/cbdtef94j/
Power Curves comparison of the V8 and V6 (forecast):
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/
relative fuel consumption of the V6:
http://postimg.org/image/aiawq3nxv/

P.S.: I'm Sorry for the crappy picture quality, I had to take a photo with my mobile phone and the paper is really shiny.

You did good. Very informative!

[Tommy Cookers]

agreed !
does self-sustaining mean crankshaft power plus mgu-h power only ?
or crankshaft power plus mgu-h power plus sustainable (lap energy limit rule) mgu-k power ?

[wuzak]

agreed !
does self-sustaining mean crankshaft power plus mgu-h power only ?
or crankshaft power plus mgu-h power plus sustainable (lap energy limit rule) mgu-k power ?

I would imagine that it means ICE power plus MGU-H power recovered directly to the MGU-K.\

The next (red) curve is that plus battery assistance.

I note that in th e"self sustaining" mode the peak power is higher in teh rev range - 12k vs 11k with the battery.

My hypothesis is that the reduction in boost required allows more enrgey to be recovered by the MGU-H, and this more than overcomes the extra friction from the extra rpm.

[Blanchimont]

I've put the power curves of the V8 and the V6 together for a better understanding. I used the onboard of the 2013 Monza qualifying lap from F1.com for the V8 and set the gears for the 2014 car in a way that only the rev range between 10500 and 12600 is used in the higher gears. I did set the first gear of the 2014 V6 car that at 12600rpm a velocity of 101km/h is reached.

The V8 curve only shows the power of the ICE, the green one is the V6 ICE alone and the red one is V6 ICE plus MGUK at different power levels. At low speeds (<90km/h) the power curve of the V6 is above the V8, but unfortunately the drivers can not use full power here because the cars are traction limited in this speed range. The important question is how much power can the V6 deliver throughout the race with the 100kg per race limit, will we really see the 600hp that the fuel flow of 100kg/h allows? And at which rate can we use the the MGUH and MGUK, 90kW or 120kW as in the pictures or at lower rates?
The answers to these questions define how close the V8 and the V6 are.

[rscsr]

agreed !
does self-sustaining mean crankshaft power plus mgu-h power only ?
or crankshaft power plus mgu-h power plus sustainable (lap energy limit rule) mgu-k power ?

I would imagine that it means ICE power plus MGU-H power recovered directly to the MGU-K.\

The next (red) curve is that plus battery assistance.

I note that in th e"self sustaining" mode the peak power is higher in teh rev range - 12k vs 11k with the battery.

My hypothesis is that the reduction in boost required allows more enrgey to be recovered by the MGU-H, and this more than overcomes the extra friction from the extra rpm.

I just checked in the issue #072 and wuzak is completely right.
"'Self sustaining' implies that the power fed from the -K to the crankshaft is generated purely through-H operation, and consequently there is no regulatory limit on it.

[Tommy Cookers]

the self-sustaining plot seems to show around 110 kW available directly from the exhaust recovery
(pleasing me, as I suggested 100 kW about 9 months ago)
EDITED - as Wuzak points out later, it is 110 hp/85 kW
PS around when, finding real engine friction data I suggested what wuzak has now identified in the Cosworth paper
(friction increase at somewhat higher rpm would be less than the reduction in supercharging work, so increasing compounded power)

having said all that, maybe Cosworth have modelled race-typical engine behaviour (ie transients), not steady-state behaviour ?
the inertia of the turbo and mgu-h being surely a factor in power under transient conditions ?

anyway, given the presence of power from storage, surely the driver will always have the nominal 120 kW EM power available ?
this was implied all along by the rules ?
(and the 120 kW rule is structured assuming 95% efficiency, so maybe at times 122 kW real EM power can legally be reached)

[wuzak]

the self-sustaining plot seems to show around 110 kW available directly from the exhaust recovery
(pleasing me, as I suggested 100 kW about 9 months ago))

Tommy, the scale is in hp, so it is around 100-120hp, or 74.6-89.5kW. If the MGU-H was generating 110kW the thick white line would be much closer to the red line (ICE + 120kW MGU-K).

[bigpat]

Made a (ugly) Paint drawing showing how the Merc layout is IMO
(Black: the intercooler is above the angine / Green: the intercooler is in the sidepod)
Edit: maybe the green one is closer to the real layout. The upper cooler might just be a water rad for the air-water intercooler
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

The "ram air" from the air box inlet, to me, would be more useful for cooling(specifically the intercooler) than for turbo inlet air, and then after it can be directed towards the "hot side" of the turbo, TERS-MGU, and gearbox rad all in line.

Do we have any idea if they are running an air to air or air to water intercooler?

I understand only Ferrari are running water to air inter cooling, hence the smaller side pods.Not sure about Sauber and Marussia. The Marussia clearly makes the loudest intercooler sound off throttle though!

Off boost the engines sound really bad. Once they spool up, they are nicer, and all the exhaust notes vary somewhat. If we want noise, we need them to run waste gates, and vent the excess exhaust straight out the back. That would give them some bark!!!!

[dren]

They do run waste gates as safeties and dump them out the back through the exhaust.

Also, what exactly does an intercooler sound like?

[PhillipM]

I understand only Ferrari are running water to air inter cooling, hence the smaller side pods.Not sure about Sauber and Marussia. The Marussia clearly makes the loudest intercooler sound off throttle though!

Off boost the engines sound really bad. Once they spool up, they are nicer, and all the exhaust notes vary somewhat. If we want noise, we need them to run waste gates, and vent the excess exhaust straight out the back. That would give them some bark!!!!

So, given you still need to cool the water with a big rad what are your reasons for believing water intercoolers would give smaller sidepods? Water/air intercoolers are generally used only for packaging reasons around an engine bay, they generally result in a larger overall package than air/air....

Also, what does an intercooler sound like, I've never heard one, can you play them like a trumpet or something?

[F1PuertoRico]

intercooler sound