Why do you think these limits could not be overcome through design changes?PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:20 amWe are not talking about the gas turbine as the prime mover any more so I don't want to confuse other posters..
But since you asked, if the turbine is the prime mover for small, quick response vehicle like and F1 car the fuel efficiency wont be pretty. F1 cars present extremely variable loads, and turbines don't like that. The blades will go through rapid heat cycling. Heavy load cycling also. The compression ratio is not speed independent as a piston engine. So you need to spin that up before you can even light it. KERS will take over here putting power to the wheels and spinning up the turbine, but by the time the turbine is up to speed (small turbines may take a few seconds) the driver is off the throttle again (I imagine Monaco), the turbine is signaled to slow down even before it did anything and that's fuel wasted.
You have to keep the turbine constantly near it's best operating range too. The combustor cans work best with a certain range of air flow - go out of that range and proper fuel mixing won't happen, and they will get hot.
There are a number of gas turbine motorcycles you can view on youtube. This one will gulp 32 litres of fuel in 30 minutes, at idle!
http://turbinebike.blogspot.com/2012/05 ... -this.html
Any MGUK assist will surely help, but still doesn't mask that a turbine engine is really designed for a steady load.
Not necessarily; car manufacturers would still be only outsourcing the production if drive train.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:17 pm
Ok. I see. It can work indeed. But it would be too close to formula E and the existing car engine manufacturers would be alienated. General electric, IHI, rolls royce, IHI and mitsubishi would be the new engine manaufacturers. Good bye Ferrari and the rest!
Hmm. Come to think of it, I had a similar idea back before 2014 engines came out. Forgot the thread.
While it is an assumption that cars would be battery operated, the same is less likely for commercial vehicles. At the same time diesel needs to be off the roads, a gasoline or kerosene operated range extender (a turbocharger + Jet combustion chamber+ MGU H + MGU K) combined with a battery pack would take its place.
I think it is clear: because pit stop would be fun with engineers being sucked by the turbines.
I don't think so. The LMP1 cars have been using more than 1000bhp electric motors for several seconds every acceleration phase. So it would be pretty feasable to mask the poor throttle response in my opinion.
I was on a tangent argument about the turbine as the prime mover, which I said is not a good idea for modern F1.rscsr wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:57 amI don't think so. The LMP1 cars have been using more than 1000bhp electric motors for several seconds every acceleration phase. So it would be pretty feasable to mask the poor throttle response in my opinion.