A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Good point, but also why have an extra part, when supposedly the point of these regs is to recover wasted energy and convert it electricity to be fed back into the drivetrain? With proper electronic control, harvesting excess torque off of the turbine could control boost just as effectively as wastegate.ringo wrote:A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.
I think you're overestimating the amount of backpressure it would create and its effects. These regs are supposedly designed to encourage or allow the very idea you stomped all over.Shaddock wrote:I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.
The process of artificially braking the spinning turbine shaft after peak boost has been achieved at approx the half way point in the engines rev range by 'harvesting' energy from it will create a back pressure. As the engine tries to accelerate to it's peak rpm, the extra exhaust gas produced will not be able to escape past the turbine blades as they will already have reached their max rpm/boost levels.
The idea of not running a wastegate only works if the desired peak boost occurs at max engine rpm (engine designers don't won't this), or some very clever variable geometry blades are used.
=D> Exactly! People who don't see this did not understand the turbo control strategy. The hybrid turbo charger artificially spools up and then balances the load of the turbine to the compressor. You must also understand that the total rev range of the engine between 10,500 and 15,000 is run on a dipping boost to be fuel efficient. The moment you hit the max fuel flow at 10,500 rpm the engine must continuously reduce the compressor boost in order to maintain the AFR. If the boost was constant you would be leaning the AFR over and above the most economical point. One can assume that under 10,500 the engines will already run as lean as they can make it to make use of the scarce fuel. So there is no other strategy but to reducing boost when you need to maintain the AFR. Hence you may have more than 15 psi boost at 10,500 rpm but by the time you reach max rpm your boost is down to the lowest it gets.Pierce89 wrote:Good point, but also why have an extra part, when supposedly the point of these regs is to recover wasted energy and convert it electricity to be fed back into the drivetrain? With proper electronic control, harvesting excess torque off of the turbine could control boost just as effectively as wastegate.ringo wrote:A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.
That is not how I figure, with the same output from 10.5 to 14 kRpm, the same amount of xhaust gases, the boost will drop from 1.1 to 0.6 Bar, shouldn't you have more room for recovery at the lower boost with less power going to the compressor?WhiteBlue wrote:I agree that it will be intriguing. For sure it will be a very different engine in terms of driveability. It will probably have the feel of a turbo diesel with huge grunt right from the begin of the rpm curve.
My guess is that such an engine will be better used with lower rpm and high boost. The excessive rpm only generate higher frictional and thermal losses. The high boost can be better recovered by the turbine and at lower rpm the engine will be able to run more in stratified charge mode.
Yes, there would be a higher percentage of recovery if you generally run high rpm and low boost but the delta pressure of the turbine would be also affected and I think that the turbine efficiency will raise with higher delta p. I guess it will be a tricky optimization task and they will benefit from having elaborate test bench equipment that can simulate race conditions.xpensive wrote:That is not how I figure, with the same output from 10.5 to 14 kRpm, the same amount of xhaust gases, the boost will drop from 1.1 to 0.6 Bar, shouldn't you have more room for recovery at the lower boost with less power going to the compressor?
A nice engineering task, isn't it? But I dare say that in future you probably don't need eight gears any more, would you?xpensive wrote:One intriguing part will be how to gear the cars with a constant power and falling torque between 10.5 and 14 kRpm?
Is it obvious that you will keep the revs within that span?
Interesting figures. I very much doubt that Ferrari and Merc will stop at €50m. They could easily be spending €100-200m based on justification that basic research into hybrid power trains will benefit their performance road cars. Naturally they will not say so publicly. PURE or Cosworth need very deep pockets as only sovereign wealth funds have or they will fall by the way side IMO.F1 engine supplier Renault is now devoting 70 per cent of its efforts into the sport's new 6-cylinder turbo formula for 2014. This year's championship and the next are the last in which the cars will be powered by the current generation of normally-aspirated V8s.
"We are now working 70 per cent on the new engine," Red Bull supplier Renault Sport F1's Jean-Francois Caubet told Germany's Auto Bild. "Next year it will be 100pc," he added.
Renault also supplies the Lotus, Williams and Caterham teams. The report said Renault's estimated cost of development for the 1.6 litre V6 is EUR 50 million.
A significant part of that is KERS. "That (KERS) is an integral part of the new engine," Caubet explained. "In 2014 we will supply Red Bull not only with the engine, but the complete powertrain." (GMM)
Zweeler
This is why we both agree that PURE has a mighty benefactor behind itself, possibly an Austrian such.WhiteBlue wrote: ...
PURE or Cosworth need very deep pockets as only sovereign wealth funds have or they will fall by the way side IMO.
When Cosworth last made any noises about the turbo engines the budgets they talked about were €10-20m. By the time the first turbo season is under way the bill will probably run into several hundred millions because there is no homologation. The race is kicked off and will not stop unless they find something under the new Concord to limit it again. Surely the propaganda by Ferrari and Merc that the rules are self restricting the cost is not convincing.xpensive wrote:This is why we both agree that PURE has a mighty benefactor behind itself, possibly an Austrian such.WhiteBlue wrote: ...
PURE or Cosworth need very deep pockets as only sovereign wealth funds have or they will fall by the way side IMO.