I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.godlameroso wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 23:59In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.
Turbosupercharger is the original term for what is colloquially known as a turbo.saviour stivala wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 12:15Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlets compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
I do not call what is presently used in F1 as a turbocharger, I call it and classify it as a turbosupercharger because: it is driven and used in two modes and by two means, driven by exhaust gasses or driven by an electric motor. Compressor is driven by either turbine with exhaust gasses (turbocharging mode) or by an electric motor (electric supercharging mode).
Staging and splitting are not related. You can make twin scroll turbines (each scroll will have its own entry) to improve on "response times" because it'll reduce the interference between cylinder pairs that overlap in scavenge. Splitting the compressor, this is my guess, is probably just for convenience (with the plumbing) but I'll very much like to be corrected on that. (Or anything else I clearly don't understand for that matter.)subcritical71 wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 16:14Also, the discussion is not one of is it a two stage compressor because of the number of outlets/inlets as they have nothing to do with the number of compressor stages. The discussion is on how many stages exist on the compressor shown (RR Nene 10). With its seemingly split design I would think it would be classified as a two stage compressor, however, that normally means one stage feeding another. In the case of the photo, the flow is split... so is that a two stage compressor to the FIA?
Piston rings are always improving, don't underestimate their importance. Since the rings tend to shear the oil on the cylinder walls they're a source of friction, more so than the piston skirts on their thrust side.dren wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 13:26I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.godlameroso wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 23:59In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.
There are numerous areas in the ICE to focus on for reduced friction. What's to stop an arms race on those? I'd also assume there isn't much that isn't already known about piston rings to develop further.
Once again I find myself in full agreement with all said. I never bought the adage pushed out of burning oil as a fuel in addition to the fuel flow permitted to gain power. I am of the opinion that the piston rings pack friction are one of the biggest efficiency supping items. “it was found that friction of the TLOCR could be reduced with close to 50% with kept sealing capability by reducing tension and different geometry on the lands in contact with the cylinder liner”. (doctoral thesis, friction in piston ring-cylinder liner contact:- Markus Soderfjall machine elements, Lulea university of technology) a very good must read.godlameroso wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 17:32Piston rings are always improving, don't underestimate their importance. Since the rings tend to shear the oil on the cylinder walls they're a source of friction, more so than the piston skirts on their thrust side.dren wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 13:26I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.godlameroso wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 23:59In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.
There are numerous areas in the ICE to focus on for reduced friction. What's to stop an arms race on those? I'd also assume there isn't much that isn't already known about piston rings to develop further.
We get your point but a better term for the distinction you want to make is hybrid-turbo or somesuch, as in: powered by more than one means of drive. A turbo is a supercharger; the fact that we call mechanical superchargers just supercharger does not make that its own category.saviour stivala wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 20:51roon wrote: ↑18 Sep 2018, 21:54Would a twin entry compressor contravene the single-stage rule?...
http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/CW ... ne1005.jpg
Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlet compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
When forced induction started to being used it was by means of supercharging, so it was called supercharging. When forced induction started to being used also by means of turbocharging it was called turbosupercharging. What differentiates supercharging from turbocharging is the means the compressor is driven with. In the forced induction used in present formula 1, the compressor is driven by the two different means that classify it as both a supercharger as well as a turbocharger.
I was merely trying to strike a friendly tone. We, as in, the guys talking together of which you are one.saviour stivala wrote: ↑31 Oct 2018, 11:57While discussing an interesting technical subject on here in a civilized manner by expressing our individual personal opinion about said technical subject I was yesterday told, “ ‘WE’ get your point-----”. If I am permitted, I would like to ask, who are the “WE”, on whose behalf am I being fronted, why the need of “WE”?.
Turbocharger is a contraction of turbo-supercharger.saviour stivala wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 23:34I do not mind a forced induction system the compressor of which have two different drive systems being called a ‘hybrid turbocharger’ it is just down to a matter of opinion.
If there ever was a forced induction system that could rightly be called a ‘turbosupercharging’ system that surly is the EMD forced induction system with its gear-drive and over-running clutch for the exhaust gasses to take-over the drive when engine RPM gets sufficiently high to be able to drive the compressor. (We are here talking of an engine running up to a maximum speed of 900 RPM).