F1technical.net

Even if an engine cover isn't mandatory , wouldn't you still want one for aerodynamic purposes?
Btw is there anyway to make the exhaust pipes more oval and henceforth save up space?

ringo wrote:It would work of course, but you can imaging what a headache it would be to work on...

Indeed, but that's the beauty of F1 technical aspect, at least it used to be - complicated technical stuff, highly stressed elements of the engine, the more compact-the better philosophy, requirement for extremely skillful mechanics, etc.

William wrote:Even if an engine cover isn't mandatory , wouldn't you still want one for aerodynamic purposes?
Btw is there anyway to make the exhaust pipes more oval and henceforth save up space?

Sure, but if it is mandatory as it is now, in certain scale and position, than it affects position and shape of inlets and outlets. So, since this is only a sketch of a concept, I've left it out. As far as I'm concerned, engine cover should serve only for aero purposes, without enforced space for sponsors.

ringo wrote:...

Question:

The turbo shaft has to be parallel to the car center line, but it doesn't say if it has to be horizontal.
I was think thinking about a vertical shaft turbo charger.
Are there any vertical shaft turbo chargers out there?

Ringo for two lines to be Parallel they must never intersect, what you are describing is a perpendicular shaft in the same Vertical - Longitudinal plane as the engine crank..

Therefore for a vertical shaft turbo, the engine crank would also have to be vertical

ringo wrote:Then you have your waste gates to locate.

If they use the MGUH to suck up all the excess turbine power and convert it to electricity they will not need a waste gate. At least not for any quantities of exhaust gas in a stationary state.

How about this configuration man, the turbo in front of the engine?

http://www.forix.com/8w/march90p-design.html

If I read the regulations correct, they can use air-to-water-intercoolers.

Than it makes sense to me to go with Manchild´s last idea as you can place the cooler within the Vee.

Robbobnob wrote:

ringo wrote:...

Question:

The turbo shaft has to be parallel to the car center line, but it doesn't say if it has to be horizontal.
I was think thinking about a vertical shaft turbo charger.
Are there any vertical shaft turbo chargers out there?

Ringo for two lines to be Parallel they must never intersect, what you are describing is a perpendicular shaft in the same Vertical - Longitudinal plane as the engine crank..

Therefore for a vertical shaft turbo, the engine crank would also have to be vertical

But the turbo shaft center line can be positioned within 25mm of the car center line. So theoretically it doesn´t intersect the crankshaft center line.

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:Then you have your waste gates to locate.

If they use the MGUH to suck up all the excess turbine power and convert it to electricity they will not need a waste gate. At least not for any quantities of exhaust gas in a stationary state.

Not to mention if you absolutely needed a wastegate, since you're not going to run much boost you can definitely gate it internally. I had an old Mitsubishi Eclipse Turbo from 92, I was running peak 21 psi tapering to 16 at 7,200rpm, or 1 1/2 bar, and the turbo was internally gated. Never had boost creep or anything like that. In fact I ran the same turbo in the car for 4 years without a single problem, then I crashed the car, because it was wet, I was on bald tires, and didn't have ABS.

On another note, I wonder, do the regulations allow the use of vortex generators on the compressor side? Do you think they're unnecessary due to the MGU?

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:Then you have your waste gates to locate.

If they use the MGUH to suck up all the excess turbine power and convert it to electricity they will not need a waste gate. At least not for any quantities of exhaust gas in a stationary state.

What happens when the pack is full?

Puttng a turbo through the very is good in term of packaging which why it is done in a lot of production cars but bad in terms of cooling,These production car need more radiators the cool the system as the mass air flow to the vee it limited around the pipework. And it also becomes large mass of heat to cool.
Also flow to the head through the inlet also become more resrictive as it has to be more bent.

flynfrog wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:Then you have your waste gates to locate.

If they use the MGUH to suck up all the excess turbine power and convert it to electricity they will not need a waste gate. At least not for any quantities of exhaust gas in a stationary state.

What happens when the pack is full?

I think you can get rid of the excessive enrgy by transfering it to heat via a resistor.

xpensive wrote:How about this configuration man, the turbo in front of the engine?

http://www.forix.com/8w/march90p-design.html

But seriously, I think the Porsche-Indy solution, with the turbo in front of the engine, would have certain merits aerodynamically-wise in Formula One 2014 and beyond, cleaning up the rear?

flynfrog wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:Then you have your waste gates to locate.

If they use the MGUH to suck up all the excess turbine power and convert it to electricity they will not need a waste gate. At least not for any quantities of exhaust gas in a stationary state.

What happens when the pack is full?

Or MGU fails.

Don't you think that with such a tight layout it would be more beneficial to run water-cooled intercooler coupled with radiators?

xpensive wrote:

xpensive wrote:How about this configuration man, the turbo in front of the engine?

http://www.forix.com/8w/march90p-design.html

But seriously, I think the Porsche-Indy solution, with the turbo in front of the engine, would have certain merits aerodynamically-wise in Formula One 2014 and beyond, cleaning up the rear?

But do you think, that you can provide enough cooling for the turbo without disturbing the airflow too much?

By the way, does anybody know if the are some liquid-cooled turbos out there?

xpensive wrote:

xpensive wrote:How about this configuration man, the turbo in front of the engine?

http://www.forix.com/8w/march90p-design.html

But seriously, I think the Porsche-Indy solution, with the turbo in front of the engine, would have certain merits aerodynamically-wise in Formula One 2014 and beyond, cleaning up the rear?

Some say Renualt were testing 2014 exhaust layout in the R31