F1technical.net

But you can put pipes to where you want, as you´re not bound to the exhaust rules.
And you can place the exhaust outlet where it is mandated by the rules. What you do with the exhaust below the bodywork is not under control by the FIA.

So in short words I want to do an energy transfer. There is a loss in efficency compard to EBD. But any blown diffusor is better then an unblown imo.

The concept is very sound if a bit agricultural in execution as proposed. Why not run the gases through a proper blowdown turbine and call it turbo compounding. Not only would morepower be produced fron a given fuel flow rate, but the concept, when developed, would be applicable to road vehicles.

Again, the thought that the energy-rich exhaust is low-hanging fruit makes sense.

Might be a strange idea, but why not use a turbo like unit to provide a high pressure stream of air that you can then be ducted to where ever a high pressure air stream is needed. The exhaust outlet can remain in compliance exiting post-turbine where required through the bodywork. The system would be covered by the cowling so would remain hidden, however sound analysis which has previously been used to measure max RPM and the possible use of traction control would likely quickly determine what was being used.

That and the whistle of the compressor working away....

So as an example of where this might work would be, driving the turbine/compressor off the high energy exhaust gases and then use the resulting compressed high pressure air stream to perform a similar function to that which the exhaust gases directly provided with blown diffusers. Given the Mercedes DRS system was allowed you could even route high pressure air to stall a wing or provide extra downforce through appropriate positioning and utilse the DRS activation as the channeling mechanism. By regulating size of the turbine/compressor, A/R ratio's and nozzle outlet size there may be some advantage to it if you can get high enough flows and pressures.

However weight and complexity would be the downside as well as gathering enough useful air flow. That and possibly (likely definitely) falling foul of the FIA regs somewhere.

What is the air volume output of the standard turbo?

Brian

hardingfv32 wrote:What is the air volume output of the standard turbo?

Brian

Simplest flow rate conversion is 10lb/min per 100hp.

The largest of the Borg Warner EFR turbos, which Indy car are using and are some of the most efficient off the shelf units around ATM, is rated at 94lb/min and you'd probably squeeze a bit more out of it.

An F1 capable turbo would/will likely be more efficient/have higher flow rate than an off-the-shelf unit as they are not concerned about longevity or operating range.

So @ 94lb/min = 1360.35CFM (using 1lb/min= 14.47178 cfm).

this wouldnt work now due to no bodwork infront of exhausts rule, sadly,,,,

N12ck wrote:this wouldnt work now due to no bodwork infront of exhausts rule, sadly,,,,

Unsure if this would be the case as the exhaust could/would be routed to still exit as per the current regulations. In theory the whole system would be almost totally undetectable visually until the engine cowling was removed and possibly audiably . Only the resulting high pressure compressed air would be used as the high pressure source for aero effect and interaction with bodywork. As it is not exhaust gas but separately compressed free air, would it still fail the current FIA exhaust/bodywork ruling??

Personally I think it is more likely to fail on the grounds of a disallowed aero device or other technical infringement but not on the grounds of bodywork in front of the exhausts when this could specifically be avoided.

Even if i would like to see things like that it would be deemed illegal.

But could be a modern BT46B

Is this idea not running on the same principles as a supercharger? Only via the rear axles and a turbine as opposed to the direct belt link or whatever?
I doubt it would be practical, and even if it were within the rules somehow I'd imagine it would be outlawed pretty much immediately, resulting in a lot of wasted time and effort

ATC wrote:Is this idea not running on the same principles as a supercharger? Only via the rear axles and a turbine as opposed to the direct belt link or whatever?
I doubt it would be practical, and even if it were within the rules somehow I'd imagine it would be outlawed pretty much immediately, resulting in a lot of wasted time and effort

No the hypothetical concept was for an exhaust driven turbine to provide an high pressure air source which can then be directed to provide various aero benefits. It is just whimsical musings.

Any form of forced induction, no matter how the positive pressure is generated would be deemed illegal under the rules, as likely would generating positive pressure from an exhaust driven turbine for aero benefit.

ok but given that in 2014 a turbo of some kind is allowed, is there any scope for using it in an unconventional way then? spending some of the available horse power in a tradeoff for aero gain or energy transfer etc

At the moment there is nothing in the rules regulating the exhaust pipe from the wastegate. But I think they will close this until then. Otherwise they could be used for aerodynamics.