neilbah wrote:so are these turbos going to work similar to the dynacharger? thermo conversion electrics in seem an important part of f1 packaging over the next few years
raymondu999 wrote:I wonder. With the ban on OT-EBD maps now; how possible would it be; when these 1.6L engines come out; to work around that?
Would it be possible for example; to substitute it with the pressure blow-off valve?
johnny99 wrote:Heat transfer is neglible. Most if not all heat is generated by compressing the air.
scarbs wrote:I meant the outer compressor casing is CNC Alu. The turbine casing & HERS appeared to be steel\Ti (?)
Dragonfly wrote:IIRC Ferrari used ceramic coating for the cylinder walls and pistons in their V10's. I remember reading back then about Shell developing special lubricants as the traditional ones lead to the coating delamination.
Lon time since though, may be wrong.
I think ceramic parts were outlawed with the V8 engine rules.
strad wrote:Many years ago, Rand made some pistons for my Triumph that were Teflon impregnated. Not coated but actually a mil into the aluminum. It made for fricton on the order of wet ice on wet ice..I wonder if modern F1 does something similar
hardingfv32 wrote:The Jag/Ford Cosworth V10 piston I have has a green coating on the skirts. Not sure what that would be.
strad wrote:Well WB and other people doubted me...Holm86 wrote:4 bars at idle? dont believe that....
Ok it wasn't 4 Bar,,it was only 3..I found the tape..
click photo for video
WhiteBlue wrote:Very unlikely in my view. Waste gates may not even exist on those designs because any surplus of turbine power over the compressor demand would be sapped by the MGUH. The MGUH is supposed to contribute 90 kW to the motive power. If they have a waste gate at all it would merely be a safety feature.
Edis wrote:WhiteBlue wrote:Very unlikely in my view. Waste gates may not even exist on those designs because any surplus of turbine power over the compressor demand would be sapped by the MGUH. The MGUH is supposed to contribute 90 kW to the motive power. If they have a waste gate at all it would merely be a safety feature.
You still have to deal with the possebility of turbine choke at high engine speed. Make the turbine large enough to offer a low expasion ratio (less exhaust backpressure) at high speed and the expansion ratio can be a bit too low at lower engine speeds. So a wastegate can still be needed.
One main reason for using teflon tend to be to reduce noise.
Race car engineering has a nice article
I thought that this would be the best application for F1. Particularly if you use an axial turbine.
This is what RCE thinks was originally intended as the 2013 engine.
Here is some text with data. The engine was supposed to have 580 hp without compounding. After the V6 decision the available power will be less. If they set a boost limit to force the engines from 8,500 rpm up to 15,000 the power will be less again. The simulation shows that the original engine plan called for seriously lower revs.
pgfpro wrote:I also can see that there's not going to be much benefit for running anything above 10500rpm. Back pressure is going to increase above 10500rpm do to the fact intake manifold pressure will have to be decreased because of the fuel rule. This will make turbine flow decrease at higher rpm also. In turn less turbine energy to extract.
Users browsing this forum: Twitter [Bot] and 9 guests