Road Relevance of 2014 F1 Engines

[Tommy Cookers]

The intended 2014 engine rules have mandated a fuel flow rate regime and a capacity limit.
The capacity limit has been chosen to force the use of a turbocharger, disguised as an energy saving device (Thermal Energy Recovery Systems)

Surely road vehicle relevance would be better served by scrapping the capacity limit, so allowing naturally aspirated engines and turbocharged engines, that is engines of whatever type and capacity the designers feel best for the mandated fuel flow.

This change would allow something good for all current and potential participants. As they stand the rules are a disguised free advertising campaign for certain big manufacturers who like a gloss of technical credibility to sell lots of expensive cars.

Turbochargers do not and cannot use energy that would otherwise go to waste.

They use energy 'stolen' from the piston in 3 ways, (of course this stolen energy is well invested, by increasing the mass flow through the engine without increasing friction, power is increased and efficiency usually maintained).

In WW2 etc aircraft engines there was (intentionally)useable waste energy in the exhaust,because the compression ratio at the piston was deliberately kept low to allow very heavy supercharging for very high powers regardless of economy. The resulting waste energy to the exhaust was largely recovered in turbocharging, or more conspicuously in PRT compounding, or by jet action.

For real road relevance (and more competition) in F1, let's see free choice of TERS, that is no TERS, turbocharger/TERS, or natural aspiration with TERS !!

The proponents of TERS have nothing to fear, surely ?

[Dragonfly]

There's a potential. But I am afraid it will be wasted because of the stringent rules.
All manufacturers are forced to spend a lot of money each designing one and the same engine, badged with different names.

[Just_a_fan]

<deep breath> F1 is not, has never been, and will not ever be road relevant.

Right, now we've got that out of the way, there is no way there will be a free-for-all on engine design or any thing else in F1 because it would lead to a spending war. A spending war would kill F1.

[Tommy Cookers]

In part my suggestion was to ease the spending war problem.

Haven't we got a lot of naturally aspirated engines readily available ?

(2400cc V8s and others)


In part it was a moan about the false air of road relevance being generated for the benefit of (some) big manufacturers, combined with the supression of alternatives and competition.

The road relevance was a feature starting in 58 (road fuel, but they had to use Avgas for a while) This brought in more fuel company sponsorship. At least they weren't supressing competition.

[Jersey Tom]

<deep breath> F1 is not, has never been, and will not ever be road relevant.

This.

[machin]

Turbochargers do not and cannot use energy that would otherwise go to waste.

They use energy 'stolen' from the piston in 3 ways,

Is that right? I think it does use "waste" energy from the exhaust, and the turbo gives a more homogenous mixture for better fuel efficiency...

Some data to back this up from http://www.car-emissions.com :-


2006 VW Polo 1.4 (petrol): 100PS, 41.5mpg
2009 VW Polo 1.2T (petrol): 105PS, 53.5mpg

So, a smaller engine, with a turbo, gives more power and better fuel economy...

[Tommy Cookers]

I think that you are implying that the tailpipe emissions from a turbocharged car are cooler than those from a naturally aspirated one. Would you stake your life on this ?

I did not say that turbocharged engines are inefficient.

My basic point was about 'smoke & mirrors' from the FIA and others.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

<deep breath> F1 is not, has never been, and will not ever be road relevant.

This.

My pick up truck has anti locking brakes, traction control, a 5 or 6 speed paddle shifter and a v6 that will outrun most v8's. I think it's just the best darn truck in this neck of the woods or the swamp for that matter.

[machin]

I think that you are implying that the tailpipe emissions from a turbocharged car are cooler than those from a naturally aspirated one. Would you stake your life on this ?

My experience (propulsion systems for military marine applications), is that the exhaust gas temperature on turbo-charged engines is generally cooler than non-turbocharged engines for the same power output...

Stake my life? Whenever someone uses that phrase there's normally someone to come along and prove them wrong in one or more instances!

[Tommy Cookers]

Diesel I presume ?

I guess that the last F1 turbos were more fuel efficient than their 3.5 litre opposition, but neither were optimised for a fuel consumption formula.

This seems a good chance to have another go, but for a FIA stitchup.

[machin]

It would be nice for us "tech heads" to see an out and out war... but is it necessary, and would "open" rules gives us that battle anyway? I think if you gave all the manufacturers the choice they would all go for turbos anyway.... That VW example in my post above is all we need to say; it shows that engines in the "real" world (where engine laoyout rules don't exist!) are down-sizing and fitting turbos and for roughly the same power output they're getting higher mpg figures...

[Giblet]

Right now everyone is copying each other, centered around a standard.

Take away that standard, and all the different manufacturers will make their own engine.

Then one of the engines will be the best configuration (like the V10 was for 3 liters) and all the other teams will copy it, putting us back where we started.

Everyone running basically same engine like they are now, but a huge cost.

The days of truly open development are over in F1.

I wish they would allow small bits to be developed each season. They could for example open just the valve train to development then freeze. Same with certain aero aspects, suspension, etc.

The key is to allow the development in controlled bursts IMO. Much like how KERS went down.

[WhiteBlue]

Turbochargers do not and cannot use energy that would otherwise go to waste.

You do not know what you are talking about. The opposite is true. Turbocharged engines usually have a much higher efficiency and make use of waste energy from the exhaust gases. This is even amplified by turbo compounding as the new F1 engines will do for the first time. Turbo compounded engines (albeit with mechanical charger) reached the highest efficiencies of all piston engines. Compare the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3 ... ex-Cyclone Wright R-3350TC aero engine from 1937, which was practically the highest developed and most efficient piston aero engine with commercial and military use. It was flown in famous aicrafts such as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Douglas A-1 Skyraider, Lockheed Constellation and Super Constallation, Douglas DC-7 and Lockheed P-2 Neptune.

I think that you are implying that the tailpipe emissions from a turbocharged car are cooler than those from a naturally aspirated one. Would you stake your life on this ?

I did not say that turbocharged engines are inefficient.

My basic point was about 'smoke & mirrors' from the FIA and others.

My friend you need to study thermodynamics and how to do an energy balance before you can discuss such issues with competence. The waste gases leaving a turbocharged engine are indeed typically on a much lower level of energy (it is called enthalpy) compared to naturally aspired engines. The turbine extracts that energy in terms of reducing speed, pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas. Pressure and temperature in gases are connected by physical laws and indeed the exhaust temperature of turbocharged engines is typically lower as is the velocity. The higher efficiency of the new F1 engines is not only caused by the turbocharging and turbocompounding. There will also be novel fuel injection and combustion processes applied for the first time in a super high revving racing engine. The FiA is not doing a smake and mirror on this. That assertion is absurd.

The concept is very road relevant. It is called downsizing by turbocharging and practically every big automotive company is using the concept. The company most famous for the effect - Porsche - has been using it in its "turbo" marketing concept in it's inverted form for 30 years. If you take a modern Porsche turbo and compare it to the same naturally aspired engine you find that the power goes up by 50% while the fuel use only increases by 20%. It means that the turbo engine has much better milage. Other manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes, Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Aston Martin and many more have started to use the same effect sometimes reducing the size and cylinder count of the engine (downsizing). The trend is so dominating that today the vast majority of modern petrol road car engine developments will be turbocharged.

[Giblet]

The BMW M5 no longer has a V10. It has a biturbo V8 now, but the sound system plays you V10 sounds.

Wish I wasn't joking about that last part.

[Tommy Cookers]

Fellow enthusiasts !

Please be assured that I am sincere in my basic view, that a normally designed naturally aspirated engine does not have a high enough energy level in its exhaust gas stream to drive a normal turbocharger, (the designer has used the highest possible compression/expansion ratio, and made the expansion stroke (particularly in volume terms) as long as he reasonably can, to extract the maximum energy via the piston). The energy in the gases after the piston's power stroke is dumped as waste.

Can anyone refer me to a proper engineering paper that would clarify this point, either way?


AFAIK the turbocharged engine must and does have a lower compression ratio related to piston travel, must and does open the exhaust valve earlier, and must and does impose on the piston a higher 'back pressure'at this stage. These 3 conditions all reduce the useful work taken out by the piston, leaving more energy in the gases. This is intentional, so that the gases have enough energy for the turbocharger to do its job. Downstream of the turbine the gases are at the same energy state as those in the naturally aspirated engine.

Please feel free to put forward evidence if you are trying to convince me otherwise !


I still think that my earlier post demonstrates a broad understanding and appreciation of turbocharged engines !

'bye for now


R-1340 Cyclone (aka T.C.)