- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
The Mercedes AMG F1 Team has confirmed that it will unveil its new car, named the F1 W06 Hybrid on Sunday 1 February, the morning before testing commences at Circuito de Jerez in Spain.
the solution could a have more than one peakPierce89 wrote:Have some of you never worked a multi variable equation? Of course there's going to be a well defined optimum. Is Merc closer? Probably. That's all anyone has said.
Yes but generally I think the super tight regs rule out most of the peaks. I also said Merc is PROBABLY closer but hell who knows? Maybe by 2020 the slit turbo will seem stupid.langwadt wrote:the solution could a have more than one peakPierce89 wrote:Have some of you never worked a multi variable equation? Of course there's going to be a well defined optimum. Is Merc closer? Probably. That's all anyone has said.
Thank you for arguing against I point I actually never made. Considering the only point I made in my first paragraph was that cooler air does not equal more power in this engine formula I don't see why you came with probably true but still irrelevant points of packaging and cooling advantages. I got annoyed by the simplistic view that more cooler air always equals more power and that is what I addressed. We have a term for that where I live it is called being "out of timing" (said in a heavy sing song "Trinidadian" accent) which basically means saying things that have no relevance to the conversation.TAG wrote:trinidefender wrote:you would know that cooler air does not mean more power. All cooler air means is higher density and more resistance to knocking. As long as there is enough air to burn the fuel which is limited this year and it is cool enough that the engine runs stable then making the air cooler isn't actually helping.
Point No.2, moving the compressor away from the turbine actually doesn't do to much for the temperature of the airflow. All it does is really put the ERS close to the turbine which was a big gamble for Mercedes in terms of if the ERS unit can handle it.
You're stating things as facts without looking at the big picture. Allow me to enlighten you a bit on the associated benefits. On your point 1, cooler air doesn't mean more power but it does mean cooler air which is a supreme importance when you have to then run that compressed air through an intercooler to cool it further. So having the air cooler in the first place even if it's only marginally so means having to cool it less which translates to smaller intakes and less drag, by you calculations then, imagine the difference of having a 3% smaller sidepod opening. So that's a big advantage to Mercedes.
On your point 2, you're greatly oversimplifying things. Moving the compressor forward, has a huge add on effect. it requires shorter and less ducting to get the compressed air to the front of the car where the intakes are. Again allowing for a more compact, more aero-friendly packaging of the back end, greatly helping to maximize rear grip which was so important this year due to the smaller rear wings and loss of the blown diffuser.
You're welcome!
For the last time i was never making a point about the Mercedes engine as a whole. All I was doing is making a reply to a point that somebody else made in a previous post. They stated that cooler air makes more power. I simply stated that cooler air does not equal more power in this engine formula and explained why. Why is that so hard to understand?TAG wrote:You made a point, yes... a myopic point that it is clearly irrelevant in the macro environment given the results the Mercedes PU put up. Which was the sole reason for my correcting your choice to focus on the detail without acknowledging the consequences to the overall package. Everything in an F1 car is a compromise is some way shape or form.
trinidefender wrote:
Thank you for arguing against I point I actually never made. Considering the only point I made in my first paragraph was that cooler air does not equal more power in this engine formula I don't see why you came with probably true but still irrelevant points of packaging and cooling advantages. I got annoyed by the simplistic view that more cooler air always equals more power and that is what I addressed. We have a term for that where I live it is called being "out of timing" (said in a heavy sing song "Trinidadian" accent) which basically means saying things that have no relevance to the conversation.
The engine air intake is above the drivers head. For turbulence control etc of airflow going through the air intake, having the compressor at the back of the engine where the air intake has a gentle curve downward is probably a better solution than having it in front of the engine where the airflow has to take a sharp 90 degree turn downward from the roll-hoop intake then do another 90 degree sharp turn to go into the compressor. For your information turbulence control is crucial to compressor performance so adding in these twists and turns before the compressor intake probably actually reduces the compressor efficiency by a few percent.
Point 3. Let me refer you to something I said earlier. Moving the compressor away from the turbine means you move the MGU-H closer to the turbine. Electronics hate heat and become less efficient when they get hot. So either way you may have to cool the airflow slightly less but now you have to go and spend more energy cooling the MGU-H which is now absorbing much more heat.
Point 4.. Just remember that by moving the MGU-H into the centre of the engine's V you then have to move the intake manifold upwards so it can fit on top of it. Remember if you move something to a different part of the engine then whatever was there originally has to be moved and take up space somewhere else.
To sim it all up I made a point, please at least argue against that point and not something I didn't even talk about. 2. I'm not saying that running a spilt turbo design with the MGU-H in the centre isn't a better design in some aspects, I am saying that it isn't the "holy grail" of the all conquering Mercedes engine that some make it out to be.
1-Judging their performances, it seems Mercedes has found very good solutions to resolve that 'problem'trinidefender wrote:Thank you for arguing against I point I actually never made. Considering the only point I made in my first paragraph was that cooler air does not equal more power in this engine formula I don't see why you came with probably true but still irrelevant points of packaging and cooling advantages. I got annoyed by the simplistic view that more cooler air always equals more power and that is what I addressed. We have a term for that where I live it is called being "out of timing" (said in a heavy sing song "Trinidadian" accent) which basically means saying things that have no relevance to the conversation.TAG wrote:trinidefender wrote:you would know that cooler air does not mean more power. All cooler air means is higher density and more resistance to knocking. As long as there is enough air to burn the fuel which is limited this year and it is cool enough that the engine runs stable then making the air cooler isn't actually helping.
Point No.2, moving the compressor away from the turbine actually doesn't do to much for the temperature of the airflow. All it does is really put the ERS close to the turbine which was a big gamble for Mercedes in terms of if the ERS unit can handle it.
You're stating things as facts without looking at the big picture. Allow me to enlighten you a bit on the associated benefits. On your point 1, cooler air doesn't mean more power but it does mean cooler air which is a supreme importance when you have to then run that compressed air through an intercooler to cool it further. So having the air cooler in the first place even if it's only marginally so means having to cool it less which translates to smaller intakes and less drag, by you calculations then, imagine the difference of having a 3% smaller sidepod opening. So that's a big advantage to Mercedes.
On your point 2, you're greatly oversimplifying things. Moving the compressor forward, has a huge add on effect. it requires shorter and less ducting to get the compressed air to the front of the car where the intakes are. Again allowing for a more compact, more aero-friendly packaging of the back end, greatly helping to maximize rear grip which was so important this year due to the smaller rear wings and loss of the blown diffuser.
You're welcome!
1-The engine air intake is above the drivers head. For turbulence control etc of airflow going through the air intake, having the compressor at the back of the engine where the air intake has a gentle curve downward is probably a better solution than having it in front of the engine where the airflow has to take a sharp 90 degree turn downward from the roll-hoop intake then do another 90 degree sharp turn to go into the compressor. For your information turbulence control is crucial to compressor performance so adding in these twists and turns before the compressor intake probably actually reduces the compressor efficiency by a few percent.
2-Point 3. Let me refer you to something I said earlier. Moving the compressor away from the turbine means you move the MGU-H closer to the turbine. Electronics hate heat and become less efficient when they get hot. So either way you may have to cool the airflow slightly less but now you have to go and spend more energy cooling the MGU-H which is now absorbing much more heat.
3-Point 4.. Just remember that by moving the MGU-H into the centre of the engine's V you then have to move the intake manifold upwards so it can fit on top of it. Remember if you move something to a different part of the engine then whatever was there originally has to be moved and take up space somewhere else.
To sim it all up I made a point, please at least argue against that point and not something I didn't even talk about. 2. I'm not saying that running a spilt turbo design with the MGU-H in the centre isn't a better design in some aspects, I am saying that it isn't the "holy grail" of the all conquering Mercedes engine that some make it out to be.
In about a month's time, Mercedes themselves will prove you wrong by introducing an updated version of their powerunit. There are always things to improve.IMO, the Merc layout IS 'the holy grail', atleast from a chassis point of view
Oh my ****. Here is the original quote. "providing cooler (higher oxygen density) air and therefore producing more power." All I said was that cooler air going into the combustion chamber does not equal more power because of the restricted fuel flow regulations. Why is that so hard to understand? PlatinumZealot go back and read my post from before and you will see. Cooler (more dense) air will only make more power if you can pump in more fuel with it which you can't with this formula.PlatinumZealot wrote:trinidefender wrote:
Thank you for arguing against I point I actually never made. Considering the only point I made in my first paragraph was that cooler air does not equal more power in this engine formula I don't see why you came with probably true but still irrelevant points of packaging and cooling advantages. I got annoyed by the simplistic view that more cooler air always equals more power and that is what I addressed. We have a term for that where I live it is called being "out of timing" (said in a heavy sing song "Trinidadian" accent) which basically means saying things that have no relevance to the conversation.
The engine air intake is above the drivers head. For turbulence control etc of airflow going through the air intake, having the compressor at the back of the engine where the air intake has a gentle curve downward is probably a better solution than having it in front of the engine where the airflow has to take a sharp 90 degree turn downward from the roll-hoop intake then do another 90 degree sharp turn to go into the compressor. For your information turbulence control is crucial to compressor performance so adding in these twists and turns before the compressor intake probably actually reduces the compressor efficiency by a few percent.
Point 3. Let me refer you to something I said earlier. Moving the compressor away from the turbine means you move the MGU-H closer to the turbine. Electronics hate heat and become less efficient when they get hot. So either way you may have to cool the airflow slightly less but now you have to go and spend more energy cooling the MGU-H which is now absorbing much more heat.
Point 4.. Just remember that by moving the MGU-H into the centre of the engine's V you then have to move the intake manifold upwards so it can fit on top of it. Remember if you move something to a different part of the engine then whatever was there originally has to be moved and take up space somewhere else.
To sim it all up I made a point, please at least argue against that point and not something I didn't even talk about. 2. I'm not saying that running a spilt turbo design with the MGU-H in the centre isn't a better design in some aspects, I am saying that it isn't the "holy grail" of the all conquering Mercedes engine that some make it out to be.
You are wrong in thinking that colder air does not mean more power. The IC engine works by compressing air. If the air is hotter it takes more energy to compress it. There is also more irrevesibilites within the air when it is hotter. So you instantly lose efficiency right there without our arguement going into combustion.
You are also wrong in believeing that moving the compressor away from the turbine will mean the MGUH has to be closer to the turbine. That is just a baseless assumption. By logical engineering reasoning the MUGH would infact be posisitioned closer to the compressor to reducing the heat, bearing support, balance and packaging issues that would arrise by having it right beside the turbine. Just saying that the MGUH is more likley to closer to the compressor in the split turbine system, with the main bearing cartridge, which would be designed quite robustly and lengthy, closer to the turbine.
