Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[NL_Fer]

The layout is just a result of limited space, low cog, the needed cooling capacity. Last year they had the big air/water intercooler inside the V, but it resultet to heavy, to high cog. Now the small one is behind the driver, lower cog and short tubing to the side pod.

Also i think the air/air ic takes out the first heat, so the air/water ic is less prone to heatsoak.

[sosic2121]

Perhaps it's to more accurately control intake air temperature, not necessarily to get the intake charge as cold as possible but as consistent as possible. Then you have to wonder why they would in the first place.

Makes sense.
Is mercedes doing the same thing with their engine?

[NL_Fer]

Mercedes has then same air/water IC behind the driver, but for them it is close to the turbocompressor.

[gruntguru]

Controlling charge air temperature is as simple as mixing cold air from after the intercooler with hot air from before the intercooler - ie variable intercooler bypass valve. No need for fancy staged-intercooling.

[godlameroso]

Both intercoolers are pretty substantial, maybe they really do need that kind of cooling because their compressor raises the IAT too much.

[NL_Fer]

Compressor close to the Turbine. Long airtube from the rear to front, they just need more cooling capacity.

[PlatinumZealot]

I said it before and ill say it again.. The air to water intercoolers are for qualifying. You can precool the liquid... Or exchange hot liquod for cool liquid between runs. It doesnt tak much time and it is legal.
On cooler, faster tracks the gain is less.

I think for Austria chilling the coolant wont be much of an adavtange as on hotter, slower tracks.

[gruntguru]

I don't even need to do the calculations to say pre-cooled liquid does not have enough heat capacity to justify its own weight, let alone the weight of a more complex intercooling arrangement. If the use of a phase-change medium (eg ice or dry ice) was permitted it would be a different story.

[PlatinumZealot]

There will be some advantage to precooling. How long it takes the hot air to bring the coolant back to normal temperature calculations would have to be done.

Using enthalpy of the air.. I get a cooling rate of an very rough 20kW at maximum power. I used a boost of 3bar and 90c to 40c temperature change. (i have no memory of what current boost pressures are btw). And i just use 40c but could be easily lower.

So..

Using that heat loss.. I get that you need 0.2 kg/second of water at 2 degrees celcius to cool the air at full engine power. So anywhere from 12kg of precooled water would be needed for a minute of full power.. .. Plus or minus for different temperature drop and different duration... But i think it is doable... The trick is how to save the coldness over the outlap....

Note this is a very rough calculation. Didnt even go into heat transfer coefficents and such..

[NL_Fer]

Ok this one makes mij brain burst. Can somebody sort this out?

The Ferrari double intercooler setup has more cooling capacity than Mercedes, which means more heat is expelled from the engine. More lost heat means lower efficiency, less crank power.

But, a lower intake temp would mean a higher knock limit, calls for more compression, more efficiency. So what is right? More intercoolers is more or less efficient?

[mattia.bobbo]

Ok this one makes mij brain burst. Can somebody sort this out?

The Ferrari double intercooler setup has more cooling capacity than Mercedes, which means more heat is expelled from the engine. More lost heat means lower efficiency, less crank power.

But, a lower intake temp would mean a higher knock limit, calls for more compression, more efficiency. So what is right? More intercoolers is more or less efficient?

"Lost heat from radiators means lower efficiency": FALSE. You want the least possible heat to lose from radiators, but once you have that heat (and you have it due to compressed air), you must lose it as much as possible.

" lower intake would mean higher knock limit.." TRUE

"..calls for more compression, more efficiency" TRUE but first of all it means MORE POWER! Racing is not only about efficiency. (See Honda, down in efficiency because of their big lack of power)


Negative effects of more intercooling:
-pump losses due to bigger radiators
-less extreme aero packaging to let come out the more heat extracted from the intercoolers

Positive effects of better intercooling:
- LOT more power output from the engine:
-cooler chamber, so less risk of detonation (this means more power)
-less heat to extract from water radiators
-denser air in intake, so more fuel can be burnt (again, more power).
-many others connected to those

Positive effects are way way bigger than negatives, so that thing you posted is wrong. Think as human body: would you run a marathon faster under mid august sun or in October mid season? You want your engine to stay as cool as possible

[NL_Fer]

I totally agree with you, that is the normal theory. But since this is a fuel limited engine, i was trying to approach this from a thermodynamic point of view.

And this says that all energy lost as heat, is not used as kinetic energy for moving the pistons/crankshaft. So how does more intercooling still give more energy at the cranck, without increasing fuel flow?

[wuzak]

Ok this one makes mij brain burst. Can somebody sort this out?

The Ferrari double intercooler setup has more cooling capacity than Mercedes, which means more heat is expelled from the engine. More lost heat means lower efficiency, less crank power.

But, a lower intake temp would mean a higher knock limit, calls for more compression, more efficiency. So what is right? More intercoolers is more or less efficient?

"Lost heat from radiators means lower efficiency": FALSE. You want the least possible heat to lose from radiators, but once you have that heat (and you have it due to compressed air), you must lose it as much as possible.

" lower intake would mean higher knock limit.." TRUE

"..calls for more compression, more efficiency" TRUE but first of all it means MORE POWER! Racing is not only about efficiency. (See Honda, down in efficiency because of their big lack of power)


Negative effects of more intercooling:
-pump losses due to bigger radiators
-less extreme aero packaging to let come out the more heat extracted from the intercoolers

Positive effects of better intercooling:
- LOT more power output from the engine:
-cooler chamber, so less risk of detonation (this means more power)
-less heat to extract from water radiators
-denser air in intake, so more fuel can be burnt (again, more power).
-many others connected to those

Positive effects are way way bigger than negatives, so that thing you posted is wrong. Think as human body: would you run a marathon faster under mid august sun or in October mid season? You want your engine to stay as cool as possible

Cooling the charge in conventional turbocharged engines has enabled more power to be produced. But It is not through improved efficiency but through burning more fuel at a similar efficiency.

To improve thermodynamic efficiency you want the intake air to be as high a temperature as you can possibly cope with. But practical problems get in the way - such as materials and knocking.

Also, if you burn more fuel in lower temperature air the combustion chamber is likely to be as hot (after combustion) as the case with less fuel burned and a higher air temperature. So, cooling loads may be similar. And you have to balance that against increased intercooler size. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you are rejecting heat from an intercooler or an engine radiator - it is still energy lost from the system.

And you want to minimise cooling from all sources in order to make the car more efficient.

[mattia.bobbo]

Ok this one makes mij brain burst. Can somebody sort this out?

The Ferrari double intercooler setup has more cooling capacity than Mercedes, which means more heat is expelled from the engine. More lost heat means lower efficiency, less crank power.

But, a lower intake temp would mean a higher knock limit, calls for more compression, more efficiency. So what is right? More intercoolers is more or less efficient?

"Lost heat from radiators means lower efficiency": FALSE. You want the least possible heat to lose from radiators, but once you have that heat (and you have it due to compressed air), you must lose it as much as possible.

" lower intake would mean higher knock limit.." TRUE

"..calls for more compression, more efficiency" TRUE but first of all it means MORE POWER! Racing is not only about efficiency. (See Honda, down in efficiency because of their big lack of power)


Negative effects of more intercooling:
-pump losses due to bigger radiators
-less extreme aero packaging to let come out the more heat extracted from the intercoolers

Positive effects of better intercooling:
- LOT more power output from the engine:
-cooler chamber, so less risk of detonation (this means more power)
-less heat to extract from water radiators
-denser air in intake, so more fuel can be burnt (again, more power).
-many others connected to those

Positive effects are way way bigger than negatives, so that thing you posted is wrong. Think as human body: would you run a marathon faster under mid august sun or in October mid season? You want your engine to stay as cool as possible

Cooling the charge in conventional turbocharged engines has enabled more power to be produced. But It is not through improved efficiency but through burning more fuel at a similar efficiency.

To improve thermodynamic efficiency you want the intake air to be as high a temperature as you can possibly cope with. But practical problems get in the way - such as materials and knocking.

Also, if you burn more fuel in lower temperature air the combustion chamber is likely to be as hot (after combustion) as the case with less fuel burned and a higher air temperature. So, cooling loads may be similar. And you have to balance that against increased intercooler size. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you are rejecting heat from an intercooler or an engine radiator - it is still energy lost from the system.

And you want to minimise cooling from all sources in order to make the car more efficient.

You are watching only one side of the medal (efficiency) and forgetting about the other (power). They come togheter.

[sosic2121]

I totally agree with you, that is the normal theory. But since this is a fuel limited engine, i was trying to approach this from a thermodynamic point of view.

And this says that all energy lost as heat, is not used as kinetic energy for moving the pistons/crankshaft. So how does more intercooling still give more energy at the cranck, without increasing fuel flow?

I agree with you. We're used to air limited engines, and this one is not.
Is knocking a limiting factor in these engines with DI?
Also engines are probably not optimised for just max power, but power+exhaust gass energy. another waste of power in NA engine.
Maybe later spark ignition would allow higher compression, so little loss of crankshaft power for bigger gain from mgu-h.