the F1 engines are not turbocharged - they are turbocompounded (and this is possible with NA)theriusDR3 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:55 am....In 2014 the turbocharged engines rise again by returning to Formula One since 1988 season after many years of the sport utilized the NA engines. But the turbocharged engines were joined by hybrid components. ....
..... turbos are good .... for fuel efficiency.
It is about bloody timetheriusDR3 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:55 amThe rise of turbocharged engines has come to the attention of motorsport fans since 2010 when GP3 Series sported a turbocharged engine until 2012, in 2013 GP3 Series ditched turbo engines for naturally-aspirated. Turbocharged engines are usually for increasing engine power and speed.
In 2012 turbocharged engines returned to IndyCar Series after 15 years sported with NA engines and later in 2014 IndyCar Series mandates the twin-turbo powerplants.
In 2014 the turbocharged engines rise again by returning to Formula One since 1988 season after many years of the sport utilized the NA engines. But the turbocharged engines were joined by hybrid components. A year later Indy Lights introduced turbocharged engines despite second-tier of American Open Wheel Racing.
Recently in 2018 and 2019 turbocharged expand again to FIA Formula 2 Championship and German Touring Car Masters (DTM) respectively.
I'm a fan of turbocharged engines but turbos are good for motorsports and also for fuel efficiency. Classical V8 NA engines are dying due to moving on to turbos and considered outdated.
Only V8 Supercars and all NASCAR series still retaining the traditional V8 naturally-aspirated engines despite have lived longer.
Sent from my vivo 1716 using Tapatalk
Isn’t GT3 run with production engines and a balance of performance?MatsNorway wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:49 amPersonally i do not get why racecars would go turbo unless they actually aim to be as fast as possible. Even the GT3 cars needs to run restrictors on their NA engines.
Which is basically only true for time attack cars and unlimited hill climb cars.. Adding or chancing parts is adding cost.
They are usually running production engines yes, and BOP it is. And i do not watch it because of BOP. Anyway. Point is that in a touring car pushing 300hp you should have gone air restricted NA instead of turbo engine. This is not ground breaking performance. And they will push the tech wherever they can so more money will be spent. And.. it lowers the entry bar for amateurs when simpler tech is used. NA engines is more viewer friendly as well. I doubt the majority of amatur series is turbo based.
I even think most of the cars in the GT3 are or soon will be turbo powered (McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes have all turbo powered cars).MatsNorway wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:04 pmThey are usually running production engines yes, and BOP it is. And i do not watch it because of BOP. Anyway. Point is that in a touring car pushing 300hp you should have gone air restricted NA instead of turbo engine. This is not ground breaking performance. And they will push the tech wherever they can so more money will be spent. And.. it lowers the entry bar for amateurs when simpler tech is used. NA engines is more viewer friendly as well. I doubt the majority of amatur series is turbo based.
But you do have a point when the desired power to weight ratio goes up.
If you want cheap spec racing you can not go cheaper than NA V8 ala. LS engines. It would also make cheats harder and tech inspection easier..
pushrod engines is for everybody old tech. no serious racing engine manufacturer makes them, no team is using them, except when the rules state so (nascar and sportscar racing where you need to use the production engine of the model you're using). Yes a LS is a cheap engine and one of the few that is sold in crates, fun to play with in your hotrod or home build monster, but when it comes to racing, everybody goes for something more modern, like a Subaru flat four with a turbo or any kind of 4 inline with a turbo.MatsNorway wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:42 pmAn LS might be "old tech" for you. But an LS7 still weights less than a GTR engine for nearly double the capacity.
My point was that most series are not going all out speed like F1. So a spec engine makes sense for most amateur series. A crate engine like the LS can be dumped in for nearly no money at all. It is not everyone's taste ofc. but a 400hp factory V8 at 5-6L is so under stressed it could with minimal modification and regular maintenance probably go several seasons without trouble.
Cheap and slow is not always related.
How cheap can you get the Ford Ecoboost engines? say 400hp as you mentioned. Could be cheap too.
But if you want amateurs to race you gotta let them run carburetors and NA. If i ever race it will not be with a turbo engine first. I am not that crafty with engines. And luckily the local racing series is aware so there is plenty to join now and in the future. Be it Nostalgia, time attack or brand specific series. Street legal, NA or turbo. You get what you want.
What has the complexity from formula one compared to indycar to do with turbo charged engines? both have turbo (like) engines by the way...MatsNorway wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:48 pmSame displacement two strokes would have destroyed the field in MotoGP and be lighter in the process. It is only when you add fuel limitations it gets interesting.
Adding or chancing parts adds complexity which can add cost. Which is not needed when you already have a a low target performance for the class.
F1 is the pinnacle of complexity and therefore you have teams struggling to survive and a bunch of pay drivers.