What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

WB you are assuming a turbine powered car will take 1.33 hours to complete a race!

0.64lb/shaft horsepower/hr = 218kg for 750 whp for 1 hr.
Don't forget that a F1 car does not have 750 shaft horsepower, it's not considering the gearbox. You can assume a 15% power loss to the gearbox or more becuase the teeth a less efficient than a road car.
650*.85 = 552.5 shaft horsepower.

so for that gas turbine that's 161kg of fuel for 1hr for 552.5 hp. Who knows what the torque is.
161kg for 1.33hr = 214 kg for a race. I think it will be faster!

Shaft horse power of a turbo shaft engine is the same as shaft horse power of a reciprocating engine. Please give up, the facts are overwhelming.

[ringo]

WB you are assuming a turbine powered car will take 1.33 hours to complete a race!

0.64lb/shaft horsepower/hr = 218kg for 750 whp for 1 hr.
Don't forget that a F1 car does not have 750 shaft horsepower, it's not considering the gearbox. You can assume a 15% power loss to the gearbox or more becuase the teeth a less efficient than a road car.
650*.85 = 552.5 shaft horsepower.

so for that gas turbine that's 161kg of fuel for 1hr for 552.5 hp. Who knows what the torque is.
161kg for 1.33hr = 214 kg for a race. I think it will be faster!

Shaft horse power of a turbo shaft engine is the same as shaft horse power of a reciprocating engine. Please give up, the facts are overwhelming.

No, the piston engine is measured at the flywheeel or crank shaft. the gear box is not taken into account, 15% is also generous.
The turbine has to be measured at the gearbox to obtain a torque figure at a certain rmp, since gas turbines are normally measured for thrust instead of power or torque.
But tell me, how many kilos of fuel is currently used in F1?

I forgot to mention, with intercooling and exhuast heat regeneration, the fuel consumption can be reduced by 27%. So you can throw that into the calculation as well.
214kg*73% = 156kg per race. =D>

[WhiteBlue]

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

Your argument of the turboshaft engine needing no gearbox for rpm translation is flawed. You still need to adapt the huge shaft rpm to a lower level which also needs to be adjusted to different speeds on track.

Your argument with inter cooling and HERS is adventurous to say the least. If you keep massaging the figures you will end up with a perpetuum mobile.

Fact is that shaft horse power of the turbine is provided at a worse level than the shaft horse power of the reciprocating engine. So all your figures are pie in the sky.

[ringo]

No, i said the opposite. but the power is measured at the gearbox since it's considered part of the engine.
for a thrust engine, there is no gearbox, for a turbo shaft there is a gearbox.
This is not so for the F1 engines. Power is measured at the flywheel no the gearbox.

And you also are ignoring the fact that my engine regulations can use all the fuel saving gimmicks that you are proposing.

[ringo]

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

Your argument of the turboshaft engine needing no gearbox for rpm translation is flawed. You still need to adapt the huge shaft rpm to a lower level which also needs to be adjusted to different speeds on track.

Your argument with inter cooling and HERS is adventurous to say the least. If you keep massaging the figures you will end up with a perpetuum mobile.

No, inter-cooling is a normal part of gas turbine tech, so is HERS. This has been around for years. I studied GT in university, HERS is nothing new, it's only now being applied to motorcars. Any power plant you go to will use multi stage intercooling and reheat.

[WhiteBlue]

No, i said the opposite. but the power is measured at the gearbox since it's considered part of the engine.
for a thrust engine, there is no gearbox, for a turbo shaft there is a gearbox.
This is not so for the F1 engines. Power is measured at the flywheel no the gearbox.

And you also are ignoring the fact that my engine regulations can use all the fuel saving gimmicks that you are proposing.

No, you are still closing your eyes to reality. Shaft horse power of a reciprocating engine is measured at the clutch and not at behind the gearbox. That is the meaning of shaft. All ancillaries and internal losses are included in that figure.

A turboshaft engine has the same definition of shaft power as the reciprocating engine because we cannot use thrust for an F1 engine. We can only use the shaft power as in helicopter engines.

The turboshaft engine is effectively disadvantaged by a bigger ratio of shaft rpms to drive shaft rpm than the reciprocating engine. Both primary power units further have to adjust the transmission ratio to cater for different track speeds of the vehicle.

[WhiteBlue]

No, inter-cooling is a normal part of gas turbine tech, so is HERS. This has been around for years. I studied GT in university, HERS is nothing new, it's only now being applied to motorcars. Any power plant you go to will use multi stage intercooling and reheat.

If that is true it would be quoted in the spec of the turboshaft engine which it isn't. Let us rest the case to collect some other voices.

[ringo]

I think you are purposely twisting my words.

Piston engine: Power is measured at the crank shaft/clutch. That is the break horse power ok?

For a gas turbine, you don't want to dyno something spinning at 30,000 rpm. So you measure the power from the gearbox output shaft which may spin anywhere from 6000rpm, instead of the turbine output shaft itself. So the gearbox losses are already included in this gas turbine power output, this is not so for the F1 engine becuase it's power does not include gear box losses.

A gas turbine also has a static horse power, this is what is given.
As speed increases, the gas turbine increases it's efficiency and power, this you will not be able to measure without a wind tunnel.

This is the fuel consumption at cruise speed for the Rolls Royce, just as an example.

Specifications (RR500 proposed)

Data from Rolls-Royce
General characteristics

* Type: Twin-spool turboprop
* Length: 43.1 in
* Diameter: 23.4 in
* Dry weight: 250 lbs (113 kg)

Components

* Compressor: Single-stage centrifugal

Performance

* Maximum power output: 500 shp
* Overall pressure ratio: 7.5:1
* Fuel consumption: 27.4 gph (cruise)
* Power-to-weight ratio: 2.0:1

27.4 gph = 34.6 cc/s at cruise speed. So no matter how you want to cut it, it's good. And note this engine does not have multi stage intercool or HERS. not to mention KERS that i proposed.

[ringo]

No, inter-cooling is a normal part of gas turbine tech, so is HERS. This has been around for years. I studied GT in university, HERS is nothing new, it's only now being applied to motorcars. Any power plant you go to will use multi stage intercooling and reheat.

If that is true it would be quoted in the spec of the turboshaft engine which it isn't. Let us rest the case to collect some other voices.

An intercooler is an add on on a gas turbine. It's an expensive add on, just like how you can buy your car with optional 4wd or air conditioning. At an added cost a gas turbine can be fitted with an inter-cooler for increased efficiency.
It's basic turbine theory taught in shcool. There are other methods to get more out of the fuel as well.


The turbine you posted the RR300 and the RR500 i posted are simple turbines. Their compressor stages have been simplified from the military application, hence the poor pressure ratios.

[WhiteBlue]

Your RR500 is a turboprop and not a turboshaft engine. It uses the jet effect of the exhaust for propulsion calculation. You have to use the figures of the RR500ST helicopter turboshaft version which is still under development. So the figures have not been published.

Turboshaft engines basically recover the kinetic energy from the exhaust and put it on the shaft. By doing this they are less efficient in aircraft apps than turboprops that can use the kinetic energy of the exhaust directly. Considering this you should not be surprised to see higher fuel efficiencies quoted for aircraft turboprops than helicopter turboshafts.

A key advantage of jets and turboprops for aeroplane propulsion - their superior performance at high altitude compared to piston engines, particularly naturally aspirated ones - is irrelevant in automobile applications. Their power-to-weight advantage is far more important. Gas turbines offer a high-powered engine in a very small and light package. However, they are not as responsive and efficient as small piston engines over the wide range of RPMs and powers needed in vehicle applications.

[ringo]

Fuel consumption, which was comparatively higher at the beginning of experimentation almost 60 years ago, no longer is an issue. Already 20 years ago, it was almost in line with the fuel consumption of reciprocating engines of equivalent power.

http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html

wikipedia has little information as it relates to modern gas turbines and their efficiency. And what you quoted does not take into account inter-cooling or reheat.

The consumption figure i quoted can be taken as facts to me, i don't think Rolls Royce would make that up. It's substantial not speculation.

The turbo prop is a twin spool, so it's still mechanically similar to the turbo shaft, just horizontal.

The fact that this discussion is going on, proves the feasibility. 34.6 cc/s shocked you didn't it?

I admit they're not responsive, but the KERS will take care of that.

[WhiteBlue]

Fuel consumption, which was comparatively higher at the beginning of experimentation almost 60 years ago, no longer is an issue. Already 20 years ago, it was almost in line with the fuel consumption of reciprocating engines of equivalent power.

http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html

wikipedia has little information as it relates to modern gas turbines and their efficiency. And what you quoted does not take into account inter-cooling or reheat.

The consumption figure i quoted can be taken as facts to me, i don't think Rolls Royce would make that up. It's substantial not speculation.

The turbo prop is a twin spool, so it's still mechanically similar to the turbo shaft, just horizontal.

The fact that this discussion is going on, proves the feasibility. 34.6 cc/s shocked you didn't it?

I admit they're not responsive, but the KERS will take care of that.

BS, and you know it. Try selling a TSE to a team and see what they say. Fuel consumption of a turboprop isn't applicable to turboshafts. Just compare the RR300, the RR500, the RR300TS and the RR500TS figures. It is obvious.

Just to help you along I took the liberty to google the TS version of the RR500 and found that it delivers a continuous max shaft power of 400 bhp at 0.649 lb/hp/hr specific consumption figure.



It shows that all your figuring is delusional. Source:

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/RR500 ... -11242.pdf

[ringo]

A turbo shaft is no different from a turbo prop. The principle is the same, both are not directly connected to the high pressure turbine.

Specific fuel consumption varies widely from engine to engine.
You cannot say that a gas turbine developed for auto racing cannot deliver the fuel consumption of today's engines.
When you take into account the pressure ratio then you look at how long gas turbines can go without servicing much less replacement then you get an idea of how conservative these engines are in terms of their performance.
If a turbine was developed for racing alone and only needed to last 1 year, it can be guaranteed that it will be even lighter and run even hotter, for leaner running.

This turbine is rated at a higher power, notice how much better the consumption is because of the increased pressure ratio:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/CTS80 ... -11546.pdf
we are seeing values at 0.462 lb/hp/hr. and these are static ratings.

Now imagine if these were intercooled, and had all the energy recovery fandangles?

keep in mind these engines are like your typical road engine. They are intended for reliable, steady running. An F1 engine is not like your typical road engine, it's replaced after a few hundred km. now imagine an F1 gas turbine for the sole purpose of racing?

Why don't you admit it's feasible?

[xxChrisxx]

keep in mind these engines are like your typical road engine. They are intended for reliable, steady running. An F1 engine is not like your typical road engine, it's replaced after a few hundred km. now imagine an F1 gas turbine for the sole purpose of racing?

It'd be awful, all that beautiful reciprocating engine exhaust noise will be gone! Just the shrill shreek of a gas trubine in it's place.

However, from an efficiency/package ratio, I agree that gas turbines are feasible and could be very very good from a technical perspective.

Why don't you admit it's feasible?

Becuase he's very stubborn?

[WhiteBlue]

No, because bigger turboshafts with power three times of what F1 needs are more efficient. That doesn't mean they are suitable. There are simply no small units with a specific consumption of 0.294 lb/hp/hr. That 1,700 bhp monster you showed is completely overpowered and has an absolute consumption at 1500 bhp of 924 kg for one race which is much higher than a RR500TS.

I'm not an expert in turbine design but it may not be economical for such a small power unit to have all the bells and whistles that make the bigger units efficient. The discussion is closed for me until I see a unit that meets the target efficiency at the target power. Perhaps you can go into business creating such a unit and sell it to the teams at competitive prices to the piston engines.

Just don't forget that engines also get destroyed in shunts and that teams will never accept just one engine per car and annum. So you have to offer at least two turbines per car and annum. The target price for your four turbines and potential rebuilds to make them run for a season would be $5m. Hard to believe that it would work out.