Turbo idea for 2012

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Turbo idea for 2012

Post

Just quickie from me.

I had this idea for couple of months but since F1 is the last thing on my mind right now I never found the will to present it. Not much of will now, just a simple explanation and sketch to get it off my chest.

I haven't read regulations for 2012, but since turbo chargers as such are allowed, I though of something that could be perhaps potentially better than conventional way.

Here it is:

Image

Turbine (the air compressor) wouldn't be driven via axle of gas turbine, but with mechanical transmission via crankshaft. I had in mind turbo-shaft jet engines and obvious possibility to reduce their rpm to chopper blade rpm, so I reckoned that same thing only in opposite way could be done too. 18.000 rpm to 100.000 rpm or whatever turbo requires.

That means that exhaust gasses would have no obstacle, and the engine would breathe out just as naturally aspirated engine, it would be be much easier to lubricate bearing of compressor since there'd be no such heat, much less weight, better COG etc. Oil tank should be designed differently, but apart from that no other significant changes would be needed.

The roll structure would be as pioneered on MGP 2010, the blade type, with split snorkel. Williams low gearbox would be ideal in case inter-cooler is allowed and needed, so it could be placed on top of such flat gearbox, while turbo could be moved if necessary from front to rear end of the engine.

There you go, have your say. I don't know how often I will be able to come here and reply, so I hope what I wrote and sketched will be enough for understanding.
Last edited by manchild on 29 Aug 2011, 04:04, edited 2 times in total.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

So, basically a supercharger?

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

bhallg2k wrote:So, basically a supercharger?
By the way compressor is driven - yes. But since regs. say "turbocharger" it would be mechanically driven turbocharger (exhaust-free).

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

I'm far from the most technically-minded member of this forum - as I'm sure you know - but it seems like you're describing the textbook definition of a standard supercharger.

Good to see you around.

EDIT: I found this is the 2014 regs...

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly coupled to the same shaft.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

One last reply before I go to sleep...

I am talking about conventional turbo compressor - a blade turbine, only without exhaust driven turbine on the other side of the axle (driven via transmission from crankshaft instead).

As much as I know "supercharger" stands for device with different principle and design for achieving compression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger

I was trying to meet the regulations and make more of what is allowed by sticking to turbo as we know it.

Lycoming
Lycoming
106
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 22:58

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

manchild wrote: By the way compressor is driven - yes. But since regs. say "turbocharger" it would be mechanically driven turbocharger (exhaust-free).
thats a supercharger. according to wikipedia, a turbocharger is an exhaust driven supercharger. the exhaust driven part being very, very important.

by definition, turbines only harvest power. they arent used for the sole or primary purpose of compression.

what you're doing is the like saying "single power source hybrid car" or "aquatic only amphibious vehicle" or "non-alcoholic beer". the statement defeats its own purpose.

(and yes I know that non-alcoholic beer has certain purposes)

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

I think I was misunderstood. FIA regulations allow use of turbo charger as of 2012. As far as I know it was never the matter of how turbocharger is driven, but how it charges, and that is by rotation of blade turbine. So, if such chargers are allowed by FIA for 2012, than I thought about alternatives for how they will be driven.

Superchargers aren't mechanically driven turbos because they don't have turbine (turbo) but different mechanisms for compressing air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_type_supercharger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-screw ... percharger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerplus_supercharger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll-type_supercharger

Robbobnob
Robbobnob
33
Joined: 21 May 2010, 04:03
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

bhallg2k wrote:5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly coupled to the same shaft.
Explicitly stating that the compressor must be driven by a exhaust driven turbine.

To quote the Website you linked:
The term turbocharger is a modern one, derived by shortening the turbosupercharger which was widely used during the World War II era and earlier. This term refers to the fact that turbochargers are a specific type of supercharger, one that is driven by a turbine.
Hence forth you remove the turbine, it becomes a supercharger
"I continuously go further and further learning about my own limitations, my body limitations, psychological limitations. It's a way of life for me." - Ayrton Senna

gridwalker
gridwalker
7
Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 12:22
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

That is definitely a supercharger : I thought that when you first started this thread last night, but I was tired and figured I might be missing something, so decided to return to it today.

Now that I am well rested, I haven't changed my mind. Compressed engine induction that is driven directly by a compressor attached to the driveshaft is Supercharging BY DEFINITION ... it is exactly what the Blower-Bently-Boys did (with great controversy) when preparing cars for Le Mans in 1929 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_4% ... er_Bentley

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Xa_1z3 ... re=related[/youtube]

Nothing new to see here - please move along.

(P.S. This is NOT turbocharging and is illegal under the proposed forced induction F1 regs)
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine ..."

Lycoming
Lycoming
106
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 22:58

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

manchild wrote:As far as I know it was never the matter of how turbocharger is driven, but how it charges, and that is by rotation of blade turbine.
a "blade turbine" cannot charge. By definition, a turbine extracts energy from a flowing medium and converts it into rotational work. A turbocharger does not have 2 turbines, 1 charging, 1 powering. It has a compressor that charges, and a turbine driven by the exhaust that in turn drives the compressor.

just to be clear.

User avatar
Holm86
245
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 03:37
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

What youre describing is a centrifugal supercharger. Look it up its been invented years ago.

And why do you keep saying 2012?? Its 2014 turbos engines are mandated.

User avatar
ringo
227
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

That setup is not as efficient as turbo charged engine. It will sound better of course. But you'll still be releasing unused energy through the pipes.
The turbo makes use of that released energy.

This setup is a centrifugal super charger.

Image

It's very space efficient though. Here's one on an M5.
For Sure!!

wuzak
wuzak
445
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

Centrifugal compressors were on most of the big WW2 aero engines. They had a variety of drive methods - single speed, 2 speed with change gear, variable by fluid coupling.

Then you had the two stage units, with two compressors, usually with multiple speed drives.

The BRM V-16 used a two stage centrifugal compressor designed by Rolls-Royce along the same principle as that used in the Merlin and Griffon.

In terms of the WW2 aero engines the turbochager was used to keep the inlet of the main engine at sea level pressure, and not to boost the engine itself. This they could up to their critical altitude - which for most was around 25k - 30k feet. Engines with turbochargers would, therefore, have constant power up to that altitude.

Aircraft were slightly different to cars, though. Rolls-Royce preferred to not use turbochargers as they found that much more benefit could be gained at high altitude by utilising the exhaust energy directly as thrust.

wuzak
wuzak
445
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

ringo wrote:That setup is not as efficient as turbo charged engine. It will sound better of course. But you'll still be releasing unused energy through the pipes.
The turbo makes use of that released energy.
I wonder if such a set up used in conjunction with a exhaust recovery turbine would be effective?

So, control the speed of the compressor to conrol the boost and mass air flow. Use a variable vane turbine to recover exhaust energy and compensate for the power to drive the supercharger. And no need for an MGUH.

wuzak
wuzak
445
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Turbo idea for 2012

Post

manchild wrote:Just quickie from me.

Image
I suppose that could work if you stuck the turbine on the other end of the engine, with the shaft between them in the vee. You could also stick the MGUH in the vee.