I ain't no enguhneer, but Audi is aggressively pursuing electric superchargers for its road cars. The electrics are able to spool up to full speed in about 0.4 sec and bridge the power gap that exist while waiting for turbos to spool up. Since there are rumors flying about of Audi getting involved in F1, such a compound intake system would probably be very appealing to them.
Here's an article written by a fellow I personally hold in high esteem about the Audi program.
One thing you do not make clear, X, is whether your new system would be a hybrid setup with ERS and so forth. Personally, I can do without it, as a race fan, although it is all the rage in top level auto racing these days. Your mileage may vary.
Some men go crazy; some men go slow. Some men go just where they want; some men never go.
MOWOG wrote:I ain't no enguhneer, but Audi is aggressively pursuing electric superchargers for its road cars. The electrics are able to spool up to full speed in about 0.4 sec and bridge the power gap that exist while waiting for turbos to spool up. Since there are rumors flying about of Audi getting involved in F1, such a compound intake system would probably be very appealing to them.
Here's an article written by a fellow I personally hold in high esteem about the Audi program.
One thing you do not make clear, X, is whether your new system would be a hybrid setup with ERS and so forth. Personally, I can do without it, as a race fan, although it is all the rage in top level auto racing these days. Your mileage may vary.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Tim.Wright wrote:How bout a power limited formula?
Torque sensor on each driveshaft, use the existing wheel speed sensors, and then do what you want upstream.
Would you govern a monotonically increasing power curve so joe blogs is still left with the engine notes they desire?
Not in my race series. There would be a power limit and that's pretty much it.
Something I'd totally do if I fell into some bullsh!t amount of money would be to setup a "prototype grand prix" series. The manufacturers wouldn't be interested, nor would they really be welcome. The racing will probably be pretty boring too, but these days open rules and close racing are mutually exclusive.
Tim.Wright wrote:How bout a power limited formula?
Torque sensor on each driveshaft, use the existing wheel speed sensors, and then do what you want upstream.
Would you govern a monotonically increasing power curve so joe blogs is still left with the engine notes they desire?
Not in my race series. There would be a power limit and that's pretty much it.
With the complains over a V6 running +10Krpm, imagine the out cry if everyone showed up with V4s running half that
Tim.Wright wrote:
Something I'd totally do if I fell into some bullsh!t amount of money would be to setup a "prototype grand prix" series. The manufacturers wouldn't be interested, nor would they really be welcome. The racing will probably be pretty boring too, but these days open rules and close racing are mutually exclusive.
if only there was a way to limit the budget so it doesn't run amok and collapse when some manufacturer decides to make a point I think it could work
If the power limit was 1000hp, I don't think you have anyone showing up with a tiny v4. Or a diesel, or a hybrid (IMO).
I wouldn't worry about manufacturers either. They are only interested in series where they are able to change the rules to suit their road car marketing strategy with the prime examples being F1 and endurance racing. Big companies are averse to risk and it would be a large risk for them to enter a championship which is so open they can't control the results.
It would be a bunch of "garagisti" at least at the start, but with 1000hp and a tyre manufacturer on board they would be lapping faster than F1 cars from day 1.
Are you thinking about just relaxing "Engine" regulation, or "Powertrain" regulation.
For example, if your making a fuel flow formula, and you allow more exotic powertrains as well, you could envision something like a super-charged 5-stroke ( compounding 4-stroke) engine running, and very highly tuned, at a fixed RPM - perhaps 5,000rpm or even less and tuned for a precise amount of fuel consumption and a focus on producing maximum torque (hence the 5 stroke.... maybe go nuts - a 5 stroke super-charged diesel would getting near to steam in terms of power, but without any issues about lugging 1000's of gallons of water around.
You then have a CVT gearbox, or Magento-coupled gearbox to always deliver optimal torque and revolutions to the wheels. You still have a car with very complex electronics, but the majority of them are now in the gearbox, and the engine RPM is de-coupled. Any spare engery can be piped to battery storage in an ERS.
That gives you all sorts of benefits - no need for clutches, extreme fuel efficiency and low emmissions for your Big Green Tick, and all the patents for almost everything apart from the ERS recovery in this system are 100 years old, so public domain and everyone can go nuts.
Or - as someone has said - use an ultra optimised ICE to drive generators which drive electric motors. Which, being pragmatic, is almost certainly the way road cars will end up.
It is worth bearing in mind that regular humans thinking about regular cars think that ENGINE = Performance. This is true, but part of that is because we're habituated to think like that. From an Engineering Economics point of view, when you make a regular road car which needs to last 150,000 miles for a price of less than £20,000, there is a conscious decision made not to have items like ferociously complex gearboxes which are total write-offs if they grenade, and make the cylinders a little larger in the engine. When you're spending £100m on a car to go 800 miles, things are different.
Tim.Wright wrote:If the power limit was 1000hp, I don't think you have anyone showing up with a tiny v4. Or a diesel, or a hybrid (IMO).
Will there be a weight limit?
How much is 50kg of fuel less at the start of the race worth? I think you will get hybrids with turbo motors. If the budget is high enough.
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when IMSA GTP racing had a pretty good set of rules that used a combination of chassis weight, engine displacement, and turbo inlet restrictor size to create competitive racing between a range of cars from several manufacturers.
On the other hand, a couple days ago I watched a replay of a Formula E race. Frankly, even with all of its high technology it seemed rather dull.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
wuzak wrote:Right - the fuel flow limit with technology limits and thermodynamic limits set, roughly, the upper power limit.
You won't get a 1000hp engine with the 100kg/hr limit - but you might just get to 700hp (without ERS).
Having an absolute limit on power would be pointless - you may as well have a standard engine.
So does a fuel-flow limited series then, as according to you a fuel-flow limited and power-output limited regulations are practically the same.
However, with the total amount of power being limited, engine manufactures have still plenty to compete.
Pingguest wrote:So does a fuel-flow limited series then, as according to you a fuel-flow limited and power-output limited regulations are practically the same.
However, with the total amount of power being limited, engine manufactures have still plenty to compete.
A max power limited regulation is not the same as a fuel flow limited regulation. The fuel mass flow limit regulates the max potential power the engine can produce at any given time. While using a system of torque and speed sensors on the driveshafts to regulate the max power applied to the rear tires at any given time would not really require efficient use of the race fuel.
I would propose regulating the mass of fuel an F1 car can hold to a much smaller amount, with no limit on the number of pit stops to re-fuel they can make during a race, but each pit stop to re-fuel must require a fixed amount of time for the stop. And the pit stop time could be adjusted to balance the performance between the teams.
There would be a higher minimum vehicle weight than currently used to promote better crash safety. But there would be far less restrictive rules for aero configuration or engine design.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
Pingguest wrote:So does a fuel-flow limited series then, as according to you a fuel-flow limited and power-output limited regulations are practically the same.
However, with the total amount of power being limited, engine manufactures have still plenty to compete.
A max power limited regulation is not the same as a fuel flow limited regulation. The fuel mass flow limit regulates the max potential power the engine can produce at any given time. While using a system of torque and speed sensors on the driveshafts to regulate the max power applied to the rear tires at any given time would not really require efficient use of the race fuel.
Having an inefficient engine would provide a huge disadvantage, especially without mid-race refuelling.
