F1 and Turbos

[Levin]

Who knows where F1 engines will go next, they will be at 1000HP within a few years for sure (well maybe not with the new engine life rules...) But anyway, there's been a lot of talk from engineering types that they should look at focusing the engines more on ecconomy and even lower emissions, so that F1 can go back the days of having a real impact on road car development. One guy (Gary Anderson springs to mind for some strange reason???) even mentioned having diesel engines to make things more interesting for the engineers!

It all sounds good to me, I don't care what powers the things, as long as they sound good! Surely there's not much better than the sound of an F1 car at full noise down the straight, or accelerating out of a corner, or braking into a corner, or idling in the pits, or ummm... anytime at all!

[schu]

By 1986 they had fuel size restriction. Because i have the 1986 Run down and they continually ran out of fuel because their tanks had a maximum capacity which forced the reduction in boost. Still people like Rosberg was a regular offender with his heavy right foot and ran out of fuel. Also in the Sanmarin or Monza GP even prost who won, had to swirv around to wash some fuel into the system for the last lap.

Regarding the audi for 1000hp, thats right but it was not 2litre. It was 2.5 or similar as engine size restrictions did not matter during the Group B era.

Even though the rallycars/f1 cars are faster over the same stages, the slewing sideways of an f1 car under boost or the sheer acceleration of a group b car still impresses me more than the cars today.


aah to be 20 years younger and to have seen them live.

dave

[Zac]

older, dave

[schu]

aaah yes older, you do the math Dave

Thanks zac.

[trent from punchy]

cart turbo cars may as well be NA, they only run like 2-3psi..

[Nick]

Edit: Here is the CART Rules;

9.5.4. Pressure.
9.5.4A. Race cars with turbocharged engines shall have an approved
intake manifold pressure relief valve, subject to the following requirements
and limitations:
9.5.4A.1. The allowable intake manifold pressure shall be limited to a
maximum pressure of forty-one and a half (41.5) inches of mercury
absolute for road and street course events for the 2003 season. The
allowable intake manifold pressure shall be limited to a maximum pressure
of thirty-nine (39) inches of mercury absolute for oval events for the 2003
season.


So that is 1.4330601kgf/cm-cm (1.43Bar Absolute) or 20.3829062psi absolute.

Or 6.1595623psi

[trent from punchy]

yeah fort it was something rediculously low like that

[Zac]

Doesn't really sound worth the extra hassle, weight and reliability issue of the turbo system does it?

[MarioGTR]

Originally posted by zac
Doesn't really sound worth the extra hassle, weight and reliability issue of the turbo system does it?

!?!?

They have a good ~6 pounds of boost - that is available at over 14krpm - and it gives them the same power regardless of changes in track heights/air density...

More than worth it in any racers books. As for reliability, I can't recall any turbo related failures in recent CART history.

Mario.

[schu]

Big Boost is not everything. I think it was on pf's awhile ago in the turbo section, there was a guy who worked for Garrett (spelling?) who was discussing this whole issue with Cart and how even though they run small boost, the HP gains made where huge. Also with small boost, run high compression and you would be surprised with the HP Gains.

Boost is not everything. Look at Stock Rotors, they run small boost and still produce big numbers.

dave

[Zac]

Mario, I did not mean turbos are unreliable, I meant the whole system of the turbo, associated oil lines, water lines, inlet piping, intercooler and piping and the turbo itself are all something that 'could' go wrong. Without them, they can't fail!
Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a turbo fan (and owner) as you are, but they add so much extra complexity compared to a naturally aspirated engine.

[IMOA]

kula - I got caught with that one as well, they lifted them from around 2psi to 6psi at the beginning of this year

[chino]

Originally posted by zac
Doesn't really sound worth the extra hassle, weight and reliability issue of the turbo system does it?

Can anybody say XR6-T? :D

BTW: Will try get photos of the turbo at home, as it looks very similar to the one datsqik posted.

[The Pupat]

zac: It's much easier to build a motor to take a turbo and a little bit of boost than it is to make it rev 2000RPM more. Just look at CART they are making the same power (approximately) at 15,000RPM as F1 at 17,000RPM but rarely have an engine failure whilst F1 can't go a race without one.

[RedSuns]

Seems to be a bit of interest here...
I've uploaded some pages onto my site. It's comparing the 1987/88 Honda F1 turbo engines. Its quite interesting how they dealt with the decreased fuel loads, dropped boost levels, from 4 bar at 7.4 compression to 2.5 bar at 9.4. And the concoction of fuel they ran.

It makes for an interesting read anyway.
linked due to size.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-1.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-2.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-3.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-4.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-5.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-6.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-7.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/infini/formula1-8.jpg