Why was DRS allowed this morning? I thought its disabled during wet conditions (using Inters and Wets). Webber and Vettel were told to use DRS where as other drivers didnt use it?!?
The Stupid Questions thread
- Thread starter genjigonzales
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I think it's if the fia deem it safe they can use it, only Alonso didn't use it in Q3
What is everyone's agenda with di Resta? If he is not worthy of Force India seat, what the hell does that make Webber at RBR?
Cone one guys, di Resta bashing is going over the top now and plain boring.
Cone one guys, di Resta bashing is going over the top now and plain boring.
Silly question sorta....but, did anyone else notice Alonsos drs opening in the race when it was 'disabled' in the race?
TomTom94
Well-Known Member
His arrogance combined with a talent level that is best described as "average". Webber at least occasionally shows consistent bursts of talent (like last year when he was in the championship hunt until he choked) and has proven his talent. Di Resta just complains every time something doesn't go his way, most notably when Perez got the seat at Mclaren.
I think I know the answer but not sure...
Why does a V6 Turbo engine get hotter than a V8 Na? And why are F1 teams having cooling problems?
thought it was worth a question here.
Why does a V6 Turbo engine get hotter than a V8 Na? And why are F1 teams having cooling problems?
thought it was worth a question here.
I think the turbo is the main problem. In that it has 2 heating effects. 1. the exhaust gasses are slowed down massively to spin the turbine. This transfers heat to the housing and by heat I mean 1300deg C+. 2. the air that is compressed by the compressor heats up. This hot air is not good for an engine to operate at maximum performance as is is not very dense. So you need to cool it as much as possible. There seem to be 2 main methods. 1 air to air intercooler - looks like a car radiator and as it's not very efficent to do air to air cooling the intercooler rad has to be quite big. The second method, I believe used by all Ferrari engined cars, is air to water intercooler (sometimes called charge cooler). This has the advantage that air to water is more efficient at removing heat, but the disadvantage of extra weight (water and heavier water cooled intercooler and an extra small water cooling radiator.
If you think about it the power units will be generating about the same as the v8 but using internal combustion, energy recovery via engine generation unit, energy recovery by turbo generation unit, and then there is the energy storage device (battery/capacitors) that get hot when charged and discharged. Not to mention the control units for all these extra systems.
I think the biggest cooling problems are from the turbo heat. Plus losing the blown floors teams are looking to package the power units as closely as possible to reduce drag and try and get back the lost downforce as best they can. So Red Bull seem to have taken this to an extreme, and it sounds like they don't have anywhere near enough air flow to cool the energy stores or control units. Which thinking about Adrian N's attention to detail doesn't make sense. What I mean is that I assume that Renault gave RB the cooling requirements for all their control units. So Adrian would have used these figures to work out minimum cooling requirements. So either Renault got their figures wrong, Renault were so pushed for time they didn't supply any cooling requirements, or Red Bull messed up the calcs!
If you think about it the power units will be generating about the same as the v8 but using internal combustion, energy recovery via engine generation unit, energy recovery by turbo generation unit, and then there is the energy storage device (battery/capacitors) that get hot when charged and discharged. Not to mention the control units for all these extra systems.
I think the biggest cooling problems are from the turbo heat. Plus losing the blown floors teams are looking to package the power units as closely as possible to reduce drag and try and get back the lost downforce as best they can. So Red Bull seem to have taken this to an extreme, and it sounds like they don't have anywhere near enough air flow to cool the energy stores or control units. Which thinking about Adrian N's attention to detail doesn't make sense. What I mean is that I assume that Renault gave RB the cooling requirements for all their control units. So Adrian would have used these figures to work out minimum cooling requirements. So either Renault got their figures wrong, Renault were so pushed for time they didn't supply any cooling requirements, or Red Bull messed up the calcs!
Assuming the intercooler can cool the intake air back to 'normal'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
PVT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
PVT
BrightLampShade:6046449 said:Assuming the intercooler can cool the intake air back to 'normal'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
PVT
Well that certainly cleared up this matter... Erm, Eh?
SgtBhaji:6049775 said:BrightLampShade:6046449 said:Assuming the intercooler can cool the intake air back to 'normal'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
PVT
Well that certainly cleared up this matter... Erm, Eh?
I'd have assumed the biggest issues would be cooling the electrical components of the engine given the amount of charging/discharging going on. Which would make sense given the previous form that RBR have had with their KERS systems and their major headaches with the new car. Unfortunately for them, they can't really afford those kinds of failures now as they can't just make it up for it with superb aerodynamics.
It's going to be interesting to see how the Renault cars run in Bahrain and the upcoming promotional test, if that's going ahead.
Apologies if this has already been brought up, but can someone explain to me why the current engines aren't set to go to the maximum revs that they are able to? I remember reading that they can go up to 15 000 revs but then only ever seem to go to 12 500/ 13 000 or so judging by the graphics from the FOM coverage.
I thinks it's a combination of things. It's likely that they are operating as efficiently as they can around the optimum torque band depicted by fuel limits and flow rates. It's Also probably and likely driven by reliability and the complexity of the power train as a whole.
once they get over 10,000 revs the fuel flow rate drops from 100kg/hr I think, so in effect its pointless to use to much of the revs unless you've run out of gears (and with fixed ratios thats unlikely to happen). I think 
So effectively the FIA decided to introduce an engine that would evidently be less "roary" and then, with this in mind, also decided to implement some regulations that meant that the engine would never reach it full noisiness anyway? Nice job...
I've got nothing against the engines in theory - I love the "wooshing" noise you hear on the track side cameras - but it does seems a bit stupid to limit them from sounding a racy as possible.
Thanks for the replies guys, I figured it would be something like that.
I've got nothing against the engines in theory - I love the "wooshing" noise you hear on the track side cameras - but it does seems a bit stupid to limit them from sounding a racy as possible.
Thanks for the replies guys, I figured it would be something like that.
When was the first time in history that a front wing/nose cone change was made during a race pit stop?