I'd guess the radiators are over designed to cope with low water pressure or no water pressure.PlatinumZealot wrote:Lewis' engine ran on zero water pressure for the last 16 laps in Russia. Of course ambient pressure water is a sign of either pump failure or some sort of back pressure valve failure. The key thing to take from this is that the water did not boil at ambient, meaning these new engines can run at very low temperatures and the radiators are a little over-designed.
The MGU-K issue was resolved.. Rosbergs fastest lap was not set in safe mode loltaperoo2k wrote:I'd guess the radiators are over designed to cope with low water pressure or no water pressure.PlatinumZealot wrote:Lewis' engine ran on zero water pressure for the last 16 laps in Russia. Of course ambient pressure water is a sign of either pump failure or some sort of back pressure valve failure. The key thing to take from this is that the water did not boil at ambient, meaning these new engines can run at very low temperatures and the radiators are a little over-designed.
Also interesting that Rosberg had an MGU-K issue and his fastest lap was set whilst they had the PU in "Safe mode".
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rosbe ... 33350/?s=1
Little dents in Mercedes PU reliability are cropping up, but I guess it's to be expected even in the PU that leads the
field.
Aren't they using some hightech waterless coolant, which has a much higher boiling point?PlatinumZealot wrote:Lewis' engine ran on zero water pressure for the last 16 laps in Russia. Of course ambient pressure water is a sign of either pump failure or some sort of back pressure valve failure. The key thing to take from this is that the water did not boil at ambient, meaning these new engines can run at very low temperatures and the radiators are a little over-designed.
Wazari wrote: There's a saying in Japan, He might be higher than testicles on a giraffe...........
According to f1.com, it was set in the safe setting.giantfan10 wrote:The MGU-K issue was resolved.. Rosbergs fastest lap was not set in safe mode loltaperoo2k wrote:I'd guess the radiators are over designed to cope with low water pressure or no water pressure.PlatinumZealot wrote:Lewis' engine ran on zero water pressure for the last 16 laps in Russia. Of course ambient pressure water is a sign of either pump failure or some sort of back pressure valve failure. The key thing to take from this is that the water did not boil at ambient, meaning these new engines can run at very low temperatures and the radiators are a little over-designed.
Also interesting that Rosberg had an MGU-K issue and his fastest lap was set whilst they had the PU in "Safe mode".
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rosbe ... 33350/?s=1
Little dents in Mercedes PU reliability are cropping up, but I guess it's to be expected even in the PU that leads the
field.
Mercedes wrote:At the wheel, Nico wouldn't have had any inkling of the stress on the pit-wall. When he put in the fastest lap on the penultimate lap of the race, he was still in that 'safe' setting β demonstrating just how much pace the car had last weekend.
Water has some very good thermal conductivity advantages over other liquids. Plus you have to remember that water is also a solvent, so it's fairly easy to add other chemicals to it. I'm assuming they are likely allowed to add various chemicals to water i.e. limit corrosion of internal parts in case of leaks. I'm fairly sure with some clever chemistry you can probably add an anti corrosive additive that also raises the boiling point.PlatinumZealot wrote:If memory serves, by regulation only water based engine coolant is allowed. And water is actually the best coolant you can use. High heat capacity, light weight, very good convective coefficients, and you can use additives to raise the boiling point (though you lose out in heat capacity when you do this).
I think the risk of an oil fire in a critical area might be why it's not used.They could use oil based coolant but I am not sure if it would have an advantage.
I don't think there is anything saying that coolant has to be water, in Β§7.5 where they use the wording:PlatinumZealot wrote:If memory serves, by regulation only water based engine coolant is allowed.
Sounds like a loophole that can be exploited i.e. Use Water as a solvent for other chemicals.3jawchuck wrote:I don't think there is anything saying that coolant has to be water, in Β§7.5 where they use the wording:PlatinumZealot wrote:If memory serves, by regulation only water based engine coolant is allowed.
"Any header tank used on the car with a water based coolant...."
This implies to me that water is not required but assumed for the reasons mentioned elsewhere.
Additionally, water is used as a synonym for coolant numerous times, however.
This is the norm even in regular coolants. But as I posted before, chemicals additive usually reduce the heat transfer properties of water. Most of the time the additives are for boiling point and corrosion inhibition. They reduce the heat capacity of water. Water's heat capacity is high because of it's chemical structure, when you dissolve things it it you inhibit this. So it is a tradeoff when you add chemicals to the water.taperoo2k wrote:Sounds like a loophole that can be exploited i.e. Use Water as a solvent for other chemicals.3jawchuck wrote:I don't think there is anything saying that coolant has to be water, in Β§7.5 where they use the wording:PlatinumZealot wrote:If memory serves, by regulation only water based engine coolant is allowed.
"Any header tank used on the car with a water based coolant...."
This implies to me that water is not required but assumed for the reasons mentioned elsewhere.
Additionally, water is used as a synonym for coolant numerous times, however.
I know I'm a chemistry nerd. Might not be a bad thing to reduce the heat capacity of water as you can perhaps fine tune it to suit the characteristics of the PU to hit an optimal cooling level.PlatinumZealot wrote:This is the norm even in regular coolants. But as I posted before, chemicals additive usually reduce the heat transfer properties of water. Most of the time the additives are for boiling point and corrosion inhibition. They reduce the heat capacity of water. Water's heat capacity is high because of it's chemical structure, when you dissolve things it it you inhibit this. So it is a tradeoff when you add chemicals to the water.taperoo2k wrote:Sounds like a loophole that can be exploited i.e. Use Water as a solvent for other chemicals.3jawchuck wrote:
I don't think there is anything saying that coolant has to be water, in Β§7.5 where they use the wording:
"Any header tank used on the car with a water based coolant...."
This implies to me that water is not required but assumed for the reasons mentioned elsewhere.
Additionally, water is used as a synonym for coolant numerous times, however.