F1technical.net

Not another character assasination x.
IMO Chunky would have no problem today building a winning car.
He just got bored with F1 when they banned the 88 because no one else had come close.

but we hit the nail exactly on the head.
Rory Byrne ,also not an engineer proved again and again that he had what it tkes to design or better conceptualise a winning F1 car.
In fact all those genius F1 designers had in their background guys who did the maths
I would not be surprised if Newey was not really the big time numbers cruncher ,but who knows..
I think those front wing iterations of Renault we are seeing ,that work we see in the rear is less born out of being an engineer but beeing creative about the regulations and needs of your project ....of course you need to have some guys who are able to calculate or simulate with confidence but thats not designing the car really .you first have to have these ideas that brake ground for new roads to follow other guys would go by not even noticing that there even was a possible path..it can´t be done .. we cannot do this .. we have tried something similar in the past..

The other thing with Chapman is that you never know who really hatched those ideas, the 25-chassis was designed by Mike Costin, the 49 and 72 by Maurice Philippe, the 79 by Wright and Rudd, the 88 by Martin Ogilvie.

He owned and ran the team, thus he made the rules, we will never know who actually came with the original ideas. For xample, Tony Rudd had already worked on a venturi-car for BRM many years before the Lotus 78 and 79.

Chapman might have contributed with certain brainstorming, but at the end of the day it was his engineers who made those cars a reality.

xpensive ,don´t latch too much on chapman ,it was more an example ,i could have as well mentioned someone else ...

So could I, Thomas Edison never invented anything, but every creative move by his engineers resulted in his name on the patents anyway,
same thing with the Rausings (Tetra-pak) billionaires, they stole every patent from their engineers, Swedish mothers they are!

Are we off-track btw?

xpensive wrote:So could I, Thomas Edison never invented anything, but every creative move by his engineers resulted in his name on the patents anyway,
same thing with the Rausings (Tetra-pak) billionaires, they stole every patent from their engineers, Swedish mothers they are!

Are we off-track btw?

we are.back to exhausts..still have a soft spot for these fine maclaren headers we had the pleasure to be pointed at in this thread.... really really nice work.

Is anyone using Titanium for the xhaust, would that work temperature-wise?

xpensive wrote:Is anyone using Titanium for the xhaust, would that work temperature-wise?

in motorcyles it is quite common to have ti exhaust also on the primary piping and it is feasible in my view .
the question might be if you can produce bends in the same thin wall thickness as inconel or have to increase wall thickness eating away on any potential weight advantage....I imagine in fabricating both choices make a very easy job for the fabricator..

xpensive wrote:Is anyone using Titanium for the xhaust, would that work temperature-wise?

xpensive,

Inconel header tubes can made with very thin gauge walls. While titanium is less dense than Inconel, titanium header tubes must have thicker walls. So there is not much weight penalty using Inconel.

The benefits to using Inconel are that it is much less prone to cracking than titanium. Inconel has very high elongation characteristics due to its high nickel content. Titanium, on the other hand, is very notch sensitive.

Inconel is also easier to weld than titanium. Inconel can be welded using conventional TIG processes. Titanium must be welded in an oxygen free atmosphere, since it is highly reactive with oxygen in the molten state.

Regards,
riff_raff

i meant of course :a tricky job for the fabricator..because ..a file or hacksaw ,or metal shear will not be enough of tools to work these materials..

as for the inert gas chamber ...I´d think a .5mm inconel sheet is best welded in a gas chamber as well..it´s not that much more hassle than bag gas purging and adds a lot of security for the quality of the weld...So not really a difference there...
I guessed the needed gauge for titanium would be the one thing avoiding to give you any advantage weight wise..

I understand that turbo-impellers are often made from cheramics, but does anyone know what material those glowing housings are?

xpensive wrote:I understand that turbo-impellers are often made from cheramics, but does anyone know what material those glowing housings are?

see here:

http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/products/t ... ature.aspx

I hear high ni contend is one key to it.

just stumled over this : quite interesting stuff for anyone involved in a exhaust job at Virgin,HRT or Lotus..

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http ... s%3Disch:1

xpensive wrote:Is anyone using Titanium for the xhaust, would that work temperature-wise?

No, it would not. Titanium is really only an option up to temperatures around 600 degC, after that it does not offer the properties you desire. Corrosion would for instance be a major problem where your nice titanium exhaust would end up as white powder.

For high temperature applications it's properties like creep resistance, thermal cycle fatigue, hot corrision restistance, scaling temperature and high temperature strength that matters.

xpensive wrote:I understand that turbo-impellers are often made from cheramics, but does anyone know what material those glowing housings are?

The impeller (another name for the compressor wheel) is commonly cast aluminum. High boost versions can use higher strength aluminum alloys such as 2618 machined from forging or titanium (both cast and machined). Compressor housing can be aluminum, magnesium or cast iron.

Center housing is generally heat resistant cast iron such as GG25. Racing turbochargers can use thinwall castings and titanium as the material.

Turbine shaft is carbon steel electron beam welded to the turbine (it has a hollow section at the turbine for low heat conduction). The turbine is usually Inconel 713LC or similar nickel based superalloys. Modern turbochargers having a higher temperature resistance (1050 degC) are usually Mar-M 247 a directionally solidified nickel based superalloy (with high cobalt and tungsten content).

Silicon nitride (ceramic) turbines are very rare, even in racing applications.

For the turbine housing there are several options. Up to roughly 700 degC grey iron can be used. Up to 900 degC nodular iron, Ni-resist, Si-Mo alloyed iron are possebilities. Above 900 degC heat resistant casting steel and stainless casting steel such as HK30 are options. Garrett racing turbochargers usually use thinwall HK30 castings.

Nice to see you posting again Edis, i really do enjoy what you write.