2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[saviour stivala]

Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlets compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
I do not call what is presently used in F1 as a turbocharger, I call it and classify it as a turbosupercharger because: it is driven and used in two modes and by two means, driven by exhaust gasses or driven by an electric motor. Compressor is driven by either turbine with exhaust gasses (turbocharging mode) or by an electric motor (electric supercharging mode).

[dren]

In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.

I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.

There are numerous areas in the ICE to focus on for reduced friction. What's to stop an arms race on those? I'd also assume there isn't much that isn't already known about piston rings to develop further.

[hurril]

Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlets compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
I do not call what is presently used in F1 as a turbocharger, I call it and classify it as a turbosupercharger because: it is driven and used in two modes and by two means, driven by exhaust gasses or driven by an electric motor. Compressor is driven by either turbine with exhaust gasses (turbocharging mode) or by an electric motor (electric supercharging mode).

Turbosupercharger is the original term for what is colloquially known as a turbo.

[subcritical71]

Also, the discussion is not one of is it a two stage compressor because of the number of outlets/inlets as they have nothing to do with the number of compressor stages. The discussion is on how many stages exist on the compressor shown (RR Nene 10). With its seemingly split design I would think it would be classified as a two stage compressor, however, that normally means one stage feeding another. In the case of the photo, the flow is split... so is that a two stage compressor to the FIA?

[hurril]

Also, the discussion is not one of is it a two stage compressor because of the number of outlets/inlets as they have nothing to do with the number of compressor stages. The discussion is on how many stages exist on the compressor shown (RR Nene 10). With its seemingly split design I would think it would be classified as a two stage compressor, however, that normally means one stage feeding another. In the case of the photo, the flow is split... so is that a two stage compressor to the FIA?

Staging and splitting are not related. You can make twin scroll turbines (each scroll will have its own entry) to improve on "response times" because it'll reduce the interference between cylinder pairs that overlap in scavenge. Splitting the compressor, this is my guess, is probably just for convenience (with the plumbing) but I'll very much like to be corrected on that. (Or anything else I clearly don't understand for that matter.)

Staging can be done by either having multiple turbos in a serial configuration, or by having more than one turbine wheel on the same axle, possibly interspersed with stators. I don't know if one turbine wheel and one (or two) sets of stators would count as multi-staging however.

Multi-staging is done to improve on the overall pressure ratio across the entire compressor system or, I presume, the overall "recovery" of the whole turbine system.

[subcritical71]

Good points hurril. I still struggle (for myself) in this case of the nene 10. I could go either way honestly. And if it would be considered a single stage could you then modify one half of the 'stage' so that the pumping characteristics can be shifted slightly to give a better overall operation of the turbo? That would be really interesting.

[godlameroso]

In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.

I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.

There are numerous areas in the ICE to focus on for reduced friction. What's to stop an arms race on those? I'd also assume there isn't much that isn't already known about piston rings to develop further.

Piston rings are always improving, don't underestimate their importance. Since the rings tend to shear the oil on the cylinder walls they're a source of friction, more so than the piston skirts on their thrust side.

[saviour stivala]

Would a twin entry compressor contravene the single-stage rule?...

Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlet compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
When forced induction started to being used it was by means of supercharging, so it was called supercharging. When forced induction started to being used also by means of turbocharging it was called turbosupercharging. What differentiates supercharging from turbocharging is the means the compressor is driven with. In the forced induction used in present formula 1, the compressor is driven by the two different means that classify it as both a supercharger as well as a turbocharger.

[saviour stivala]

In my humble opinion, I believe that lowering friction through piston rings is what's prompting the oil burn saga. They don't want the manufacturers having an arms race as far as who can shed the most friction through the piston rings. So they try to curtail how much oil burning is going on and indirectly limit how extreme they can go with the rings.

I don't see it as an attack at friction reduction development. The formula is an efficiency one; reduced mechanical losses fits with the formula. Burning oil as fuel doesn't.

There are numerous areas in the ICE to focus on for reduced friction. What's to stop an arms race on those? I'd also assume there isn't much that isn't already known about piston rings to develop further.

Piston rings are always improving, don't underestimate their importance. Since the rings tend to shear the oil on the cylinder walls they're a source of friction, more so than the piston skirts on their thrust side.

Once again I find myself in full agreement with all said. I never bought the adage pushed out of burning oil as a fuel in addition to the fuel flow permitted to gain power. I am of the opinion that the piston rings pack friction are one of the biggest efficiency supping items. “it was found that friction of the TLOCR could be reduced with close to 50% with kept sealing capability by reducing tension and different geometry on the lands in contact with the cylinder liner”. (doctoral thesis, friction in piston ring-cylinder liner contact:- Markus Soderfjall machine elements, Lulea university of technology) a very good must read.

[hurril]

Would a twin entry compressor contravene the single-stage rule?...
http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/CW ... ne1005.jpg

Twin entry turbine housing as well as twin outlet compressor housing will not classify them as twin stage.
When forced induction started to being used it was by means of supercharging, so it was called supercharging. When forced induction started to being used also by means of turbocharging it was called turbosupercharging. What differentiates supercharging from turbocharging is the means the compressor is driven with. In the forced induction used in present formula 1, the compressor is driven by the two different means that classify it as both a supercharger as well as a turbocharger.

We get your point but a better term for the distinction you want to make is hybrid-turbo or somesuch, as in: powered by more than one means of drive. A turbo is a supercharger; the fact that we call mechanical superchargers just supercharger does not make that its own category.

There are even earlier examples of these hybrid-turbos, if that's a term anyone wants to apply, in the superchargers on old EMD engines. They are both mechanically and exhaust turbine driven; the mechanical coupling disengaging once there's enough drive coming from the exhaust turbine.

[saviour stivala]

I do not mind a forced induction system the compressor of which have two different drive systems being called a ‘hybrid turbocharger’ it is just down to a matter of opinion.
If there ever was a forced induction system that could rightly be called a ‘turbosupercharging’ system that surly is the EMD forced induction system with its gear-drive and over-running clutch for the exhaust gasses to take-over the drive when engine RPM gets sufficiently high to be able to drive the compressor. (We are here talking of an engine running up to a maximum speed of 900 RPM).

[saviour stivala]

While discussing an interesting technical subject on here in a civilized manner by expressing our individual personal opinion about said technical subject I was yesterday told, “ ‘WE’ get your point-----”. If I am permitted, I would like to ask, who are the “WE”, on whose behalf am I being fronted, why the need of “WE”?.

[hollus]

If I might be allowed to clarify, "we" probably means most posters in this thread and it is not referring to any group of persons in particular. It has certainly been used in the most loose and informal way, AFAICT.
The discussion on the exact terminology of different types of "turbos" is somewhat off topic, and most posters simply use "turbo", in this context, to refer the the forced induction devices as installed in the current breed of F1 cars (AFAICT) or on any other similar devices.

[hurril]

While discussing an interesting technical subject on here in a civilized manner by expressing our individual personal opinion about said technical subject I was yesterday told, “ ‘WE’ get your point-----”. If I am permitted, I would like to ask, who are the “WE”, on whose behalf am I being fronted, why the need of “WE”?.

I was merely trying to strike a friendly tone. We, as in, the guys talking together of which you are one.

[wuzak]

I do not mind a forced induction system the compressor of which have two different drive systems being called a ‘hybrid turbocharger’ it is just down to a matter of opinion.
If there ever was a forced induction system that could rightly be called a ‘turbosupercharging’ system that surly is the EMD forced induction system with its gear-drive and over-running clutch for the exhaust gasses to take-over the drive when engine RPM gets sufficiently high to be able to drive the compressor. (We are here talking of an engine running up to a maximum speed of 900 RPM).

Turbocharger is a contraction of turbo-supercharger.

As in, the device is a supercharger (the compressor) driven by a turbine (turbo).

General Electric were developing turbo-superchargers during the 1920s and 1930s, culminating in the B series turbo-superchargers used by B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and P-38s, and the C series turbo-supercharger, used primarily in the P-47.