FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#233500
Just rambling but a 4 pot turbo inherently has alot of low-end torque....

Very few turbocharged engines are immune from turbo-lag, which robs bottom end.


The turbo lag today is nothing like the turbo lag of yesteryear. I remember driving a Saab 900 turbo and man when you put your foot down you could count... one mississippi two mississippi....thre...WHOOOSH that's not been the case for a decent turbo in at least a decade.


EDIT: I recently read an article somewhere about VW fooling around to potentially release a GTI with a supercharged turbo to eliminate all lag.
#233514
Just like the '70's all good things re-appear eventually :thumbup:

[youtube]OZTPKSerZ0A&feature=related[/youtube]
#233521
Just rambling but a 4 pot turbo inherently has alot of low-end torque....

Very few turbocharged engines are immune from turbo-lag, which robs bottom end.


The turbo lag today is nothing like the turbo lag of yesteryear. I remember driving a Saab 900 turbo and man when you put your foot down you could count... one mississippi two mississippi....thre...WHOOOSH that's not been the case for a decent turbo in at least a decade.


EDIT: I recently read an article somewhere about VW fooling around to potentially release a GTI with a supercharged turbo to eliminate all lag.

It's called the Twincharger and they've been selling them about six years, IIRC. That a turbocharged engine also needs a supercharger is further evidence that turbos rob bottom end.

ALL turbochargers rob bottom end ...STILL. And the greater the boost (in general), the greater the turbo lag. That's why supercharged engines dominate drag racing, because they increase torque from idle to redline. The blower in an NHRA top fuel dragster takes 900 to 1,000HP to run. That's 900-1000 Hp that never gets to the wheels. An exhaust-driven supercharger puts no such mechanical drag on the engine so if they produced an increase in torque comparable to an engine-driven supercharger, they should be dominating. But they don't and they're not.
#233658
The size of the turbines impeller and housing are what actually makes a difference between "Oh s***" and "Wait for it wait for it, BOOM!" I think we will be happy with the new engines and frankly I don't care what they run I just enjoy F1.
#287838
The FIA has the 2014 TR available on their web site. Short version of the engine specs:

90° 1.6L V6, limited to 15,000 rpm. The bank angle is odd because 60° (rather standard in production autos) would run smoother and be a more compact package, albeit very slightly taller. The 90° V6 can be made to run smoother with offset (split) crankshaft journals, except TR 5.1.10 reads, "The crankshaft may only have three connecting rod bearing journals." Does a split journal count as one or two?

It is forbidden to have a fuel injector in the exhaust downstream from the exhaust valves. :confused:

Only one turbocharger is allowed, and it must be single stage and without variable geometry impeller vanes. The shaft joining the two impellers must be within 25mm of the car's centreline and parallel to it. IMHO, the most interesting bit in the entire TR is that a CURSE output shaft may be linked to the shaft joining the two halves of the blower. In other words, it will be allowable to use CURSE to spin up the turbocharger.

Clever bit, that. It effectively hybridizes the supercharger, potentially making it mechanically driven at low rpms and exhaust driven when on the boil. It certainly lends the possibility these cars will have NO turbo lag. And a car can have full boost or full CURSE from the standing start but not both. It's the in-between bit I find intriguing.

I find no reference to any limitation on boost pressure, except that max fuel flow is limited to 100 kilos per hour. If my maths are correct, using an SG of 0.7 for race petrol (it probably is a bit higher than that), if a car is to average 120 mph (192 kph) over the course of the race, it also must return ~7.8 mpg (~6.5 mpg US) or ~36 L/100km. That's an ~80% increase over the 2.4L V-8's.

Another interesting bit, I find no reference to prohibiting driver-adjustable boost pressure. Which means horsepower in 2014 will be more a matter of strategically balancing boost ceiling against CURSE output so that the car will have the max combined horsepower available and still reach parc fermé with exactly 1 litre of petrol remaining.

As for CURSE, the on-again, off-again electric pit stop is back on. At least in the current version of the regs. And the driver must be able to start the car from the cockpit off battery power.

Max CURSE output is doubled to 120 kW. Max per-lap output is up from 4kJ to 4MJ. Allowable storage is up from 300 kJ to 4 MJ!!! However, battery weight must be 20-25 kg. The batteries in a Tesla are > 350 kg, ~220 kg in a Nissan Leaf. So apparently the 2014 cars won't need brakes, the need for energy recovery will provide all the braking they could ever need. Battery overheating is a major consideration with the current set-up. With that constant stratospheric charge/discharge rate, the highest temperature component on the car probably will be the battery.

In any case, it buggers belief the FIA have one whit's consideration for cost containment when they make performance so dependent on such a massively expensive new technology.
#288255
Just heard about a potentially intruiging aspect of the new engines that might have a notable effect - HERS. Not a typo... heat energy recovery systems. Hard to find any more info at present, but expect to hear more about this in the future as the technology gets developed and can better be potentially implemented in these new engines.
#288409
I am really looking forward to the new engines simply for the change but I wish they would also allow 4 cylinder engines to compete.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

See our F1 related articles too!