What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

do you guys even watch the video???

Of that micro turbine for range extenders?

[djos]

do you guys even watch the video???

Of that micro turbine for range extenders?

According to the video it can be scaled up or down depending on the application.

[strad]

I have to wonder...IF we were to make some breakthrough and could build an electric, zero or near zero emissions F1 car that could perform near today's F1 cars..
Would those cats crying that a V-6 or I-4 wouldn't sound cool,,,Abandon F1?
How would you feel about a near silent F1 car?

[xpensive]

I would love it on my part, imagine hearing low-downforce 750 Hp tyre-screaming?

[djos]

I would love it on my part, imagine hearing low-downforce 750 Hp tyre-screaming?

Hmmmm high-powered All-Wheel-Drive electric F1 Cars with a jet-turbine sound track ...... Im so there!

[xpensive]

Perhaps the 2023 Blue Cow-Saab can have the vintage 3-cylinder two-stroke soundtrack?

[autogyro]

Tesla were wearing rose coloured glasses when they designed and built a multi speed gearbox for their electric car. They could not make it last longer than 2000 miles. It now has no gearbox and suffers a performance reduction because of it.
I think there is a similar problem here talking about turbine powered cars, either road or track.
A very small turbine used to recharge a hybrid battery pack or used as a full electric range extender is feasible. (Jaguar Rover are doing one)
The transmission for a car running a turbine as prime mover in performance applications would be a very big problem.

[WhiteBlue]

The transmission for a car running a turbine as prime mover in performance applications would be a very big problem.

Why would that necessarily be the case? The unit would probably have a fundamental design like the Chrysler with a free power shaft, and an MGU for moderation that would produce electricity for a transaxle electric drive.

But I'm sure such a thing would be a good many years in the future. And therefore it is OT in this thread. But fascinating ideas, no doubt.

[747heavy]

I´m pretty sure some of the aero guys would love the turbine idea.

no radiators to worry about, compact packaging
and a blown diffusor with near constant flow, and much lower exhaust gas temperature.
(sounds like the solution for MGP )

CVT would be the transmisson of choise for a gasturbine car - IMHO


Why is it OT, the opening thread and the thread title did not talk about 2013, it is looking for future alternatives in general.

[xxChrisxx]

The transmission for a car running a turbine as prime mover in performance applications would be a very big problem.

Why would that necessarily be the case? The unit would probably have a fundamental design like the Chrysler with a free power shaft, and an MGU for moderation that would produce electricity for a transaxle electric drive.

The fact you need very large reduction ratios make the gears unreliable without making the gearbox overly large, or having a multi stage transmission.

Auto, what exactly was the issue with the Tesla gearbox? I didn't think the electric motor revved that high.

[747heavy]

Current consumption is 150 kg/race. Target for 2013 is 115 kg.

That looks more interesting. It sounds like the engine has a free power shaft but no variable vanes.

It is a bit overpowered. And the weight at 110 kg without regenerator is high due to the excessive power.

At 0.175 kg/hp/h and 488 hp average power I find 114 kg of kerosene for an 80 min race. The drivability without variable vanes to control the power turbine could be poor. Coming closer.

it´s pretty close I would say, and does not even include KERS.
not too shabby for current technology

[WhiteBlue]

Why is it OT, the opening thread and the thread title did not talk about 2013, it is looking for future alternatives in general.

It would definitely not be the next formula after the 2.4 V8 which I think is the issue of this thread. A new thread for a future turbine option would just make more sense IMO.

The fact you need very large reduction ratios make the gears unreliable without making the gearbox overly large, or having a multi stage transmission.

But you don't. The project 747 mentioned had shaft speed of 8000 rpm. The Chrysler turbine also ran low speed by virtue of variable vanes that did the primary torque regulation.

[WhiteBlue]

it´s pretty close I would say, and does not even include KERS.
not too shabby for current technology

I would not exactly call it current. It is announced and the introduction of the super sports car has been delayed for several years.

[xxChrisxx]

But you don't. The project 747 mentioned had shaft speed of 8000 rpm. The Chrysler turbine also ran low speed by virtue of variable vanes that did the primary torque regulation.

The way the 747's post reads is that 8000rpm is the shaft spead after reduction gearing. It doesn't really make any sense for a gas trubine to be running that slowly.

Especially not a small one. It's just the same as a turbocharger, the smaller you go the faster they run.

[WhiteBlue]

But you don't. The project 747 mentioned had shaft speed of 8000 rpm. The Chrysler turbine also ran low speed by virtue of variable vanes that did the primary torque regulation.

The way the 747's post reads is that 8000rpm is the shaft spead after reduction gearing. It doesn't really make any sense for a gas trubine to be running that slowly.

Especially not a small one. It's just the same as a turbocharger, the smaller you go the faster they run.

No, I don't think it has a reduction gear with the efficiency quoted. It has a free power shaft with a turbine that is designed to run slowly. Note that the other shaft runs very fast.