Iirc the decision against the I4 and for the V6 was made because the V6 can attach with both cylinderheads to the monocoque, effectively giving better load paths and a stiffer car, because the mounting points from the monocoque to the engine are further apart. So it's easier to get good torsional between the monocoque and the rear suspension. If they had gode for a I4 engine, then they'd either need additional reinforcements to widen the mounting points or the loads on the engine would've been a lot higher than now.
No clue why they stuck to 1.6L, (also iirc) they wanted four cylinders and 1.6L, as per-cylinder volume would've been 400ml then. Most efficient roadcars got about 400-500ml of cylinder volume. For example 1.2L I3 or 1.6 to 2L I4. Or even 2.5L I5, 3L I6 or V6. Or even 4L V8.
F1 engines were 300ml at that time. 3.5l V12 3.0l V10 2.4L V8
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
Maybe have the water drink bottle dispense onto the intercooler?
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
Maybe have the water drink bottle dispense onto the intercooler?
Now there's an idea. In all seriousness, I'm guessing these systems are either illegal or too cumbersome.
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
1. I believe they are illegal - exploiting phase-change.
2. Engine temperature must be precisely controlled - achieved by mixing hot (recirc) and cold (from radiator) streams for rapid response, accurate control.
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
1. I believe they are illegal - exploiting phase-change.
2. Engine temperature must be precisely controlled - achieved by mixing hot (recirc) and cold (from radiator) streams for rapid response, accurate control.
mmmm, thanks. The next question would be why is exploiting phase change for cooling illegal?
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
1. I believe they are illegal - exploiting phase-change.
2. Engine temperature must be precisely controlled - achieved by mixing hot (recirc) and cold (from radiator) streams for rapid response, accurate control.
mmmm, thanks. The next question would be why is exploiting phase change for cooling illegal?
Probably because that opens the possibility of evaporative systems (including refrigeration) which could cool below ambient.
Could the current machines be utilizing their - ready availability of compressed air - for an alternative method?:
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"
Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
Maybe have the water drink bottle dispense onto the intercooler?
mmmm, thanks. The next question would be why is exploiting phase change for cooling illegal?
Even if it weren't would they even use it with a minimum weight rule? Right now they're trying to scrape of hundreds of grams. With evaporative cooling they would need to carry several kilos of extra weight. They often didn't even go with a all the available fuel so they would carry less weight during the race.
Question, why do we not see boil off/evaporative cooling systems in F1 engines. Are they illegal or too big/not suited to F1 engine cooling demands? Same goes for spray bars in the engine intake and sidepod.
Maybe have the water drink bottle dispense onto the intercooler?
mmmm, thanks. The next question would be why is exploiting phase change for cooling illegal?
Even if it weren't would they even use it with a minimum weight rule? Right now they're trying to scrape of hundreds of grams. With evaporative cooling they would need to carry several kilos of extra weight. They often didn't even go with a all the available fuel so they would carry less weight during the race.
C'mon now, a catheter inserted through the driver's urethra into his bladder is way over the top...
A simple 'condom' type 'P-tube' would surely suffice:
However, as I recall, this extemporised 'pissant solution' has been suggested/rejected some
years ago - as being both essentially impracticable, & rule-infringing - to boot.
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"
Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).
Could the current machines be utilizing their - ready availability of compressed air - for an alternative method?:
Great minds think alike.
I was looking at the likelyhood of this device being used in the Ferrari, but there is a problem of efficiency.
You use kinetic energy of the air to make a vortex, the centre of the vortex creates an expansion zone and some of that air from that voretex sucked into the zone where it is cools.
The main flow in the outer voretx is rejected with at a higher temperature. Now how much heat is this to cool?
The central vortext is ejected at a colder temperature... Now how much cooling can this provide?
How much additional compressor work is used to drive the vortex cooler? And how much addition pressure and temperature load does this put on the compressor?
The design must be according to the rules. All air from the compressor must exit through the turbine. A design could be like this:
You take the cool bleed off air from the vortex cooler and send it back inside the compressor or to a charger cooler.
For the hot exhaust air from the vortex cooler you dump this into the exhaust header. How much will this cool the exhaust gas? It is bad if it cools it too much.
Even though I haven't done any calculations I will go out on a limb and say this is too inefficient to work.
Could the current machines be utilizing their - ready availability of compressed air - for an alternative method?:
Great minds think alike.
I was looking at the likelyhood of this device being used in the Ferrari, but there is a problem of efficiency.
You use kinetic energy of the air to make a vortex, the centre of the vortex creates an expansion zone and some of that air from that voretex sucked into the zone where it is cools.
The main flow in the outer voretx is rejected with at a higher temperature. Now how much heat is this to cool?
The central vortext is ejected at a colder temperature... Now how much cooling can this provide?
How much additional compressor work is used to drive the vortex cooler? And how much addition pressure and temperature load does this put on the compressor?
The design must be according to the rules. All air from the compressor must exit through the turbine. A design could be like this:
You take the cool bleed off air from the vortex cooler and send it back inside the compressor or to a charger cooler.
For the hot exhaust air from the vortex cooler you dump this into the exhaust header. How much will this cool the exhaust gas? It is bad if it cools it too much.
Even though I haven't done any calculations I will go out on a limb and say this is too inefficient to work.
IIRC, quite a few posters also opined that burning engine oil very liberally would also be "too inefficient",
(& it'd appear the tech rules committee thought so too), but we all now know how that panned out..
The different temperature air-streams might be vectored for specific purposes, such as for combustion
processes, yet if it all ultimately flows through internally, to egress via turbine, then its ok by the rules...
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"
Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).
IIRC, quite a few posters also opined that burning engine oil very liberally would also be "too inefficient",
(& it'd appear the tech rules committee thought so too), but we all now know how that panned out..
The different temperature air-streams might be vectored for specific purposes, such as for combustion
processes, yet if it all ultimately flows through internally, to egress via turbine, then its ok by the rules...
And I think they were correct... it was inefficient, but it is an extra boost all the same. The arguments were that teams were burning engine oil to replace fuel to make a certain additional amount of horsepower all the time (like 30hp or something), and when the calculations were done with the upper limit of oil burning set by the regs, it wasn't enough to explain the power gap Mercedes had over Ferrari, (and Ferrari over Mercedes in 2019).
But I get your point, if it is extra then the inefficiency is not important.
However in this case, since the intake air temperature is limited by the rules, I think the goal of any cooling device would be to reduce the compressor work or the intercooler size.
Could the current machines be utilizing their - ready availability of compressed air - for an alternative method?:
Great minds think alike.
I was looking at the likelyhood of this device being used in the Ferrari, but there is a problem of efficiency.
You use kinetic energy of the air to make a vortex, the centre of the vortex creates an expansion zone and some of that air from that voretex sucked into the zone where it is cools.
The main flow in the outer voretx is rejected with at a higher temperature. Now how much heat is this to cool?
The central vortext is ejected at a colder temperature... Now how much cooling can this provide?
How much additional compressor work is used to drive the vortex cooler? And how much addition pressure and temperature load does this put on the compressor?
The design must be according to the rules. All air from the compressor must exit through the turbine. A design could be like this:
You take the cool bleed off air from the vortex cooler and send it back inside the compressor or to a charger cooler.
For the hot exhaust air from the vortex cooler you dump this into the exhaust header. How much will this cool the exhaust gas? It is bad if it cools it too much.
Even though I haven't done any calculations I will go out on a limb and say this is too inefficient to work.
In 2017 I mentioned this in the above post, and an earlier one which has gone missing.(?) Soon after the FIA introduced a new rule to ban cooler than ambient inlet temps. The calculations do not really work for engine cooling. However the RH tube would work for inlet cooling. Possibly before the compressor, and that might keep a non separated turbo/compressor really cool. Possibly no need for a inter cooler. That would be a big deal for PU packaging.
ps mention of Ferrari. I don't believe it was oil burning. There was a hole in the rules regarding sensors. Think AC DC. Also there was room for interpretation on VI at different points in the chain. You may remember that the FIA introduced additional sensors and types after Ferrari-gate.
Could the current machines be utilizing their - ready availability of compressed air - for an alternative method?:
Great minds think alike.
I was looking at the likelyhood of this device being used in the Ferrari, but there is a problem of efficiency.
You use kinetic energy of the air to make a vortex, the centre of the vortex creates an expansion zone and some of that air from that voretex sucked into the zone where it is cools.
The main flow in the outer voretx is rejected with at a higher temperature. Now how much heat is this to cool?
The central vortext is ejected at a colder temperature... Now how much cooling can this provide?
How much additional compressor work is used to drive the vortex cooler? And how much addition pressure and temperature load does this put on the compressor?
The design must be according to the rules. All air from the compressor must exit through the turbine. A design could be like this:
You take the cool bleed off air from the vortex cooler and send it back inside the compressor or to a charger cooler.
For the hot exhaust air from the vortex cooler you dump this into the exhaust header. How much will this cool the exhaust gas? It is bad if it cools it too much.
Even though I haven't done any calculations I will go out on a limb and say this is too inefficient to work.
Think additive manufacturing, and imagine how you could wrap a dozen vortex tube shapes around the inside of the turbo compressor housing, and send the collected hot stream out the wastegate. Might need to move to a 4 bar impeller to get 2 bar out of the cold side, but .
Now there's an idea. In all seriousness, I'm guessing these systems are either illegal or too cumbersome.
.