Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
Noah Prandtl
3
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:33 am

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:29 pm
Turbo cars won every single race.

Yes you are right,turbo in 80s won every single race.
But why FIA want to kill turbo engines?

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/turb ... 18108.html

"But returning to the turbo era in F1, it's imperative to remind you that the International Automobile Federation (FIA) moved quickly into trying to establish some decent competition against the naturally aspirated powerplants by limiting the amount of fuel to be used by the turbo powered cars.

Needless to say, that led to immense criticism from all the teams in the series. Despite coming up with devices of computational measurement of fuel consumption levels, the teams found themselves in the situation of losing some races on the last laps – due to their cars running out of fuel. And that was not all, as the FIA continued their war against turbo engines by introducing pop-off valves.

After years and years of trying to stop the turbocharged units from disclosing their true power, the FIA banned them for good at the end of the 1988 season. That campaign was a historical one in the series, as McLaren would use their Honda turbos and exceptional aero package to win 15 out of 16 races on schedule.

Oh, and one more thing: from Alboreto's win in the 1983 US GP, the turbo powered cars won each F1 race until the end of the 1988 season."

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Noah Prandtl wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 pm
ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:29 pm
Turbo cars won every single race.

Yes you are right,turbo in 80s won every single race.
But why FIA want to kill turbo engines?

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/turb ... 18108.html

"But returning to the turbo era in F1, it's imperative to remind you that the International Automobile Federation (FIA) moved quickly into trying to establish some decent competition against the naturally aspirated powerplants by limiting the amount of fuel to be used by the turbo powered cars.

Needless to say, that led to immense criticism from all the teams in the series. Despite coming up with devices of computational measurement of fuel consumption levels, the teams found themselves in the situation of losing some races on the last laps – due to their cars running out of fuel. And that was not all, as the FIA continued their war against turbo engines by introducing pop-off valves.

After years and years of trying to stop the turbocharged units from disclosing their true power, the FIA banned them for good at the end of the 1988 season. That campaign was a historical one in the series, as McLaren would use their Honda turbos and exceptional aero package to win 15 out of 16 races on schedule.

Oh, and one more thing: from Alboreto's win in the 1983 US GP, the turbo powered cars won each F1 race until the end of the 1988 season."
Turbo’s were out is control. Elio’s death in 1986 brought an end to the turbo. For 1987 and 1988 they brought in fuel and boost restrictions which made engine manufacturers (except Honda) to stop development.

Rodak
Rodak
31
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Just to throw some numbers out there, the Honda 3L RA005E (2005) weighed in at 89 kg, ran at 18,700 rpm and produced 720 h.p. (all numbers from Honda). I know there were engines of that era going at over 20,000 rpm and, IIRC, Cosworth produced an engine of 85 kg. This compares to today's regulation minimum power unit weight of 145 kg plus a 20 kg battery. I don't know how these weight differences would work out on track, but car weight sure has been going up; 595 kg in 2005 (I can't remember if this included the driver but think not) to the current 746 kg.

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Rodak wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:45 pm
Just to throw some numbers out there, the Honda 3L RA005E (2005) weighed in at 89 kg, ran at 18,700 rpm and produced 720 h.p. (all numbers from Honda). I know there were engines of that era going at over 20,000 rpm and, IIRC, Cosworth produced an engine of 85 kg. This compares to today's regulation minimum power unit weight of 145 kg plus a 20 kg battery. I don't know how these weight differences would work out on track, but car weight sure has been going up; 595 kg in 2005 (I can't remember if this included the driver but think not) to the current 746 kg.
The key difference here is regulations. If there were free, to get 720 hp from a turbo engine for just 300 km without fuel flow restrictions, they would probably just need 50-60 kg or something.

Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
46
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Jolle wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:23 am
The key difference here is regulations. If there were free, to get 720 hp from a turbo engine for just 300 km without fuel flow restrictions, they would probably just need 50-60 kg or something.
Mario Theissen once said in an interview, that if they could have simply "slice off" 2 cylinders when they changed from V10 to V8, which from a displacement point of view was pretty much what was happening, BMW would have ended up with an engine pushing out about 750hp and weighing 68kg with an expected lifespan of about 600km.

User avatar
jjn9128
754
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Dr. Acula wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:54 am
Jolle wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:23 am
The key difference here is regulations. If there were free, to get 720 hp from a turbo engine for just 300 km without fuel flow restrictions, they would probably just need 50-60 kg or something.
Mario Theissen once said in an interview, that if they could have simply "slice off" 2 cylinders when they changed from V10 to V8, which from a displacement point of view was pretty much what was happening, BMW would have ended up with an engine pushing out about 750hp and weighing 68kg with an expected lifespan of about 600km.
There's a mario theissen paper somewhere about BMW engines through their time in f1 in the 2000s, v10 thru v8. The v10s at the end were like 80kg and did 1600km with a really low cog. When the fia switched to v8s the minimum weight was raised by some 10kg. The cog raised 70/80mm but with the same life expectancy which later increased to 2000km. F1 engines could be so much lighter and better weight wise. Even with the v6s they have to put certain ancillaries high up to meet the cog limit.

You're right about the 68kg engine, though it would have done 1600km still as that was the limit.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Phil
66
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Noah Prandtl wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:22 pm
I am compare two identical cars just with different engines.
Isn't it a no-brainer that Turbo is always going to be quicker, not least because it can be looked at an 'add-on' to a NA engine that increases efficiency and power output and the small expense of added weight, heat (that needs to be cooled, hence a further potential drag penalty) and also penalty on the engine (resistance in the exhaust manifold to spool the turbo)? In the end though, the gains usually outweigh the cost, hence why we have so many turbo engines.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
26
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Rodak wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:45 pm
Just to throw some numbers out there, the Honda 3L RA005E (2005) weighed in at 89 kg, ran at 18,700 rpm and produced 720 h.p. (all numbers from Honda). I know there were engines of that era going at over 20,000 rpm and, IIRC, Cosworth produced an engine of 85 kg. This compares to today's regulation minimum power unit weight of 145 kg plus a 20 kg battery. I don't know how these weight differences would work out on track, but car weight sure has been going up; 595 kg in 2005 (I can't remember if this included the driver but think not) to the current 746 kg.
If you are going to throw numbers, please throw correct ones. The Power Unit, by definition written into the regulations includes the ice, its ancillaries, the ers, and their actuation systems. It is not 145+ 20kg, it is 145kg total. Furthermore the 89 or 85kg you quoted for the v10 was merely for the short block, no ancillaries, not even the exhaust.

Engines are worthless without fuel. The PUs complete races now using about 90 to 95kg of fuel, whereas the v10s were using about 160kg of fuel. Refueling was banned for 2010, the 2014 car was lighter on the start grid than the 2013 car.

The biggest increases in mass to the F1 car have come from tires that are 3x heavier than in 2010(Bridgestone) and much more crash protection, front and rear crash structures, side protection, more tethers, anti intrusion panels and the halo.
Last edited by ENGINE TUNER on Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zynerji
108
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Phil wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:53 pm
Noah Prandtl wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:22 pm
I am compare two identical cars just with different engines.
Isn't it a no-brainer that Turbo is always going to be quicker, not least because it can be looked at an 'add-on' to a NA engine that increases efficiency and power output and the small expense of added weight, heat (that needs to be cooled, hence a further potential drag penalty) and also penalty on the engine (resistance in the exhaust manifold to spool the turbo)? In the end though, the gains usually outweigh the cost, hence why we have so many turbo engines.
I wish they published more about the "lean burn" aspect, however, as that seems to be a big deal in the automotive world with consumer vehicles.

gruntguru
gruntguru
548
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

"Heat" is not really a turbo issue. Its just that when you double the power of an engine you get double the heat generated. (A bit less if you do it right because the turbo engine will be more efficient and use more of the fuel/air making power and less making heat)
je suis charlie

Rodak
Rodak
31
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

I am compare two identical cars just with different engines.
I'm afraid it's not that simple.

User avatar
Phil
66
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:53 am
"Heat" is not really a turbo issue. Its just that when you double the power of an engine you get double the heat generated. (A bit less if you do it right because the turbo engine will be more efficient and use more of the fuel/air making power and less making heat)
I was under the impression the turbo 'heat' is also a result of the added strain and keeping the energy inside the vehicle (spooling the turbine) increasing friction, generating more heat etc. In a NA vehicle, even if the power output is identical, the "heat" / waste leaves the car more or less directly, thus less cooling required?
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Phil wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:26 am
gruntguru wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:53 am
"Heat" is not really a turbo issue. Its just that when you double the power of an engine you get double the heat generated. (A bit less if you do it right because the turbo engine will be more efficient and use more of the fuel/air making power and less making heat)
I was under the impression the turbo 'heat' is also a result of the added strain and keeping the energy inside the vehicle (spooling the turbine) increasing friction, generating more heat etc. In a NA vehicle, even if the power output is identical, the "heat" / waste leaves the car more or less directly, thus less cooling required?
Friction heat from the ICE part of a turbo engine is less then from an NA of equal power, because of less friction with lower RPM. Stuff like that goes square.
The heat of the bang part should be around the same but is partly harvested again in kinetic energy by the turbo.

A turbo engine is cooler then a NA, which why it’s more efficient

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
594
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Jolle wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:54 pm
Friction heat from the ICE part of a turbo engine is less then from an NA of equal power, because of less friction with lower RPM. Stuff like that goes square.

The heat of the bang part should be around the same but is partly harvested again in kinetic energy by the turbo.
the bang part of the turbo engine is weakened by the CR being less

less in road car engines and 1988 2.5 bar F1 - the Honda had 9.4:1 CR (the NA Cosworth had 12:1)
though not less in current F1 which evades detonation by using 500 bar multi-pulse DI (denied to NA by a ban)

1988 turbo F1 150 litres of 84% toluene fuel ....
weighed the same as c.178 litres of conventional fuel but only had the energy of c.167 litres of conventional fuel
(1988 NA F1 was allowed 195 litres of tankage and 40 kg less vehicle weight)

the Honda was totally redesigned around the 2.5 bar 150 litres - other turbos weren't and so were slaughtered
all the turbos had a free ride to qualify ahead of NA and to use extra power early in the race then cruise
NA Tyrrell Palmer was 11th in the 1987 WDC (against 4 bar 195 litre turbos) but the 1988 Tyrrell was a bad design


the turbo engine is a smaller engine (in friction and loss to coolant) because it has an efficient supercharger
such a supercharger could be driven mechanically or electrically

NA road cars are driven using the accelerator to reduce efficiency - adjusting speed by changing the motor:load relationship
thermodynamic CVT
turbo road cars are driven using the accelerator to reduce supercharge ....
adjusting speed by changing the motor:load relationship with less reduction of efficiency
only in road car use is the CR artificially high because this (reduction in supercharge) is then the general condition
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:32 pm
Jolle wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:54 pm
Friction heat from the ICE part of a turbo engine is less then from an NA of equal power, because of less friction with lower RPM. Stuff like that goes square.

The heat of the bang part should be around the same but is partly harvested again in kinetic energy by the turbo.
the bang part of the turbo engine is weakened by the CR being less

less in road car engines and 1988 2.5 bar F1 - the Honda had 9.4:1 CR (the NA Cosworth had 12:1)
though not less in current F1 which evades detonation by using 500 bar multi-pulse DI (denied to NA by a ban)

1988 turbo F1 150 litres of 84% toluene fuel ....
weighed the same as c.178 litres of conventional fuel but only had the energy of c.167 litres of conventional fuel
(1988 NA F1 was allowed 195 litres of tankage and 40 kg less vehicle weight)

the Honda was totally redesigned around the 2.5 bar 150 litres - other turbos weren't and so were slaughtered
all the turbos had a free ride to qualify ahead of NA and to use extra power early in the race then cruise
NA Tyrrell Palmer was 11th in the 1987 WDC (against 4 bar 195 litre turbos) but the 1988 Tyrrell was a bad design


the turbo engine is a smaller engine (in friction and loss to coolant) because it has an efficient supercharger
such a supercharger can be driven mechanically or electrically
NA road cars are driven using the accelerator to reduce efficiency - adjusting speed by changing the motor:load relationship
turbo road cars are driven using the accelerator to reduce supercharge ....
adjusting speed by changing the motor:load relationship with less reduction of efficiency
in road use the CR can be artificially high because this reduction in supercharge is the general condition
The CR might be different if you start off with 1bar, but you don't... you start off with the boost pressure and that will give around the same CR between NA and turbo engines.

In other words, to prevent knock, you need a compression ratio that is lower in turbo engines to still get around 12-14:1 CR. With a boost pressure of 2 bar, you have to start with a CR of around 7:1 to get to 14:1 when on full boost.