Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

[Noah Prandtl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jjn9128]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[ENGINE TUNER]

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.

[Zynerji]

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]

"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)

[Rodak]

I am compare two identical cars just with different engines.

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

[Phil]

"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?

[Jolle]

"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]

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

[Jolle]

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.