Turbocharger assisted Aerodynamics in 2014 and beyond

[wuzak]

well those res say all air going into the engine.
It doesn't say all compressor air must go into the engine does it?

Those are rules for inlets, not outlets.

All fluids leaving compressor must exit the exhaust. That means the only place you could squirt compressed air is in the engine or straight out the exhaust. I don't think it gets much clearer in FIA terms.

Hmm.. You are giving new ideas now..

the air is compressed, therefore after it is used, it can be reintroduced in a low pressure state back to the exhaust stream.

Once it is used for aerodynamic purposes it is in the atmosphere and cannot be returned to the exhaust system.

[wuzak]

how about the turbo is used as a jet engine with afterburner lets not get silly

Actually the turbo could be run as a jet without going out of the regulations I think. Not with afterburner though But there would be no reason to do this as the power generated by this "jet turbine" could only feed the MGU-K with 160 HP.

How would that work Holm?

To be a "jet engine" would require some of the compressed air to bypass the ICE and be fed into the exhaust ahead of the turbine, with extra fuel added and burned to give extra power to the turbine. But fuel is only allowed to be added by the injectors in the cylinder.

[Holm86]

how about the turbo is used as a jet engine with afterburner lets not get silly

Actually the turbo could be run as a jet without going out of the regulations I think. Not with afterburner though But there would be no reason to do this as the power generated by this "jet turbine" could only feed the MGU-K with 160 HP.

How would that work Holm?

To be a "jet engine" would require some of the compressed air to bypass the ICE and be fed into the exhaust ahead of the turbine, with extra fuel added and burned to give extra power to the turbine. But fuel is only allowed to be added by the injectors in the cylinder.

Well the compressed air could be directed from the intake plenum and fed into the exhaust before the turbo. The fuel is injected into the cylinders but not fired. Perhaps 3 cylinders could do this and the remaining 3 could fire just to create hot enough exhaust to burn the rest of the fuel.

Though as stated I don't see any gain in this. The MGU-H could only direct 120 kw to the MGU-H and the total ES is 4MJ.

[wuzak]

Actually the turbo could be run as a jet without going out of the regulations I think. Not with afterburner though But there would be no reason to do this as the power generated by this "jet turbine" could only feed the MGU-K with 160 HP.

How would that work Holm?

To be a "jet engine" would require some of the compressed air to bypass the ICE and be fed into the exhaust ahead of the turbine, with extra fuel added and burned to give extra power to the turbine. But fuel is only allowed to be added by the injectors in the cylinder.

Well the compressed air could be directed from the intake plenum and fed into the exhaust before the turbo. The fuel is injected into the cylinders but not fired. Perhaps 3 cylinders could do this and the remaining 3 could fire just to create hot enough exhaust to burn the rest of the fuel.

Though as stated I don't see any gain in this. The MGU-H could only direct 120 kw to the MGU-H and the total ES is 4MJ.

I see what you are saying now.

I agree that it wouldn't be worth the effort. Doubtful that would work out to be more efficient than burning the mix in the combustion chamber.

Also, I don't think in that situation you would need to divert the air - the air could come direct from the non combusting cylinders too.

Napier's Nomad aero engine used a turbocompounding system with an axial flow compressor and axial flow turbines. The compressor fed the engine, and supplied excess air (used for scavenging the exhaust - it was a 2 stroke Diesel), into which fuel could be added and burned to provide extra recovered power and extra exhaust thrust in emergencies.

[1158]

Well the compressed air could be directed from the intake plenum and fed into the exhaust before the turbo. The fuel is injected into the cylinders but not fired. Perhaps 3 cylinders could do this and the remaining 3 could fire just to create hot enough exhaust to burn the rest of the fuel.

Though as stated I don't see any gain in this. The MGU-H could only direct 120 kw to the MGU-H and the total ES is 4MJ.

If I follow you correctly something similar is done in some motorsports where turbos are used, WRC is the most well known. The fuel will auto ignite in the turbo (it is done to help keep the turbo spooled). It is very damaging to the turbo and I suspect a turbo wouldn't survive a race weekend if this was done.

[PlatinumZealot]

All fluids leaving compressor must exit the exhaust. That means the only place you could squirt compressed air is in the engine or straight out the exhaust. I don't think it gets much clearer in FIA terms.

Hmm.. You are giving new ideas now..

the air is compressed, therefore after it is used, it can be reintroduced in a low pressure state back to the exhaust stream.

Once it is used for aerodynamic purposes it is in the atmosphere and cannot be returned to the exhaust system.

Not necessarily.

[Shaddock]

They must be exiting the air from the DV/blow off valve into the exhaust system if this is the case.

If they have them at all.

If you don't put one in it will add lag to the the turbo and potentially damage the blades during the surges.[/quote]

I'll quote something I wrote in another thread.

Im not quite sure about the blow-off.

But I suggested something earlier this year which would also remove much of the need of running a blow-off valve.


I suggested that they should run cold blowing of the engine if that is allowed in 2014. This means when the driver lifts off the throttle pedal the throttle plates should open 100% instead of closing as normal. This would keep a higher flow through the turbo so you can harvest more energy with the MGU-H. It would decrease pumping losses which would decrease natural engine braking effect which allows the MGU-K to harvest a larger procentage during braking. And last it would prevent the shockwave moving backward from the throttleplate to the compressor when the throttleplate closes. The fuel and ignition would off course be cut.

IMO it should be legal as there is no aerodynamic advantage from cold blowing next year with the new exhaust exit regulations.

And when it comes to the turbo assisted aero I think the regulations are pretty clear. Just like wuzak pointed out.

Any cold blowing will be as a part of an engine map. When your not cold blowing, ie, different map, without cold blowing, then the engine will need a DV. The advantage of this setup is that the escaping air is 'before' the compressor and should be exempt from the rules regrading exiting via the exhaust. This air could then be channeled into/onto certain area's of the bodywork for a gain in aero.

[wuzak]

If the air is dumped before the compressor then it hasn't entered the compressor and isn't compressed - it is just ambient air. And thus it would work just as the current systems do - independently of the engine.

I can't see the benefit of cold blowing for 2014 in any case. And I don't see why it would be allowed. The excuse for it continuing the last year or so was because Ranault claimed it was for reliability reasons. Which I think is BS, since their engine ran for 4 or 5 seasons without it.

The MGU-H can stop the compressor if need be. Its rotor can be locked (electronically) so that the turbo is not spinning. Renault have already stated that there will be a load of energy generated by the MGU-H under braking with the driver off throttle.

[wuzak]

Hmm.. You are giving new ideas now..

the air is compressed, therefore after it is used, it can be reintroduced in a low pressure state back to the exhaust stream.

Once it is used for aerodynamic purposes it is in the atmosphere and cannot be returned to the exhaust system.

Not necessarily.

Explain how you can use compressed air to alter aerodynamics without it exiting into the air stream.

You could use the compressed air to change profiles of parts and things like that, but they are specifically banned.

[ringo]

I think i know a method.
You can create a boundary layer suction effect by making the turbo intake a tranverse slit across the side pod.
This can be place strategically at a distance from the leading edge of the side pod, or further down but facing diagonally across the sidepod to suck air and add energy to the flow overt the sidepod.

Another alternative is to run a U pod with the winglets and put the turbo behind the wingles to suck the air. The winglet will see increased air speed and thus downforce.

[wuzak]

I think i know a method.
You can create a boundary layer suction effect by making the turbo intake a tranverse slit across the side pod.
This can be place strategically at a distance from the leading edge of the side pod, or further down but facing diagonally across the sidepod to suck air and add energy to the flow overt the sidepod.

Another alternative is to run a U pod with the winglets and put the turbo behind the wingles to suck the air. The winglet will see increased air speed and thus downforce.

For boundary layer control?

First thing is that the rules prohibit such slits - I believe this is the rule that covers that:

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :
a) The volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.
b) The volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.
c) The volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.
d) The volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 675mm above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any vertical surfaces which lie normal to the car centre line.

And then there are the intake rules.

5.14 Engine intake air :
5.14.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints or cooling ducts in the inlet system
(either into or out of the system), all air entering the engine must enter the bodywork through
a maximum of two inlets which are located :
a) Between the front of the cockpit entry template and a point 500mm forward of the rear
wheel centre line longitudinally.
b) No less than 200mm above the reference plane vertically.
c) On vertical cross-sections normal to the car centre line.
Furthermore, any such inlets must be visible in their entirety when viewed from the front of
the car and without the driver seated in the car.

I would question whether the solution would provide enough aerodynamic benefit to justify foregoing the ram effect that the roll hoop intake provides. Recalling that any air pressure increase in the intake due to ram effect reduces the pressure ratio the compressor needs for a given MAP that the engine requires, and thus potentially allows more energy to be recovered from the exhaust.

[riff_raff]

For the most part, airflow passing thru the engine and exiting thru the exhaust is not of much benefit for improving aerodynamics unless it has some energy added from combustion or from engine compression braking.

[Holm86]

I can't see the benefit of cold blowing for 2014 in any case. And I don't see why it would be allowed. The excuse for it continuing the last year or so was because Ranault claimed it was for reliability reasons. Which I think is BS, since their engine ran for 4 or 5 seasons without it.

The MGU-H can stop the compressor if need be. Its rotor can be locked (electronically) so that the turbo is not spinning. Renault have already stated that there will be a load of energy generated by the MGU-H under braking with the driver off throttle.

obviously I don't agree. I've stated why I feel cold blowing could be beneficial. And they could claim it to be for reliability reasons once again.

[Pierce89]

I think i know a method.
You can create a boundary layer suction effect by making the turbo intake a tranverse slit across the side pod.
This can be place strategically at a distance from the leading edge of the side pod, or further down but facing diagonally across the sidepod to suck air and add energy to the flow overt the sidepod.

Another alternative is to run a U pod with the winglets and put the turbo behind the wingles to suck the air. The winglet will see increased air speed and thus downforce.

The turbo intake has to be the roll structure as in current rules.

[wuzak]

I can't see the benefit of cold blowing for 2014 in any case. And I don't see why it would be allowed. The excuse for it continuing the last year or so was because Ranault claimed it was for reliability reasons. Which I think is BS, since their engine ran for 4 or 5 seasons without it.

The MGU-H can stop the compressor if need be. Its rotor can be locked (electronically) so that the turbo is not spinning. Renault have already stated that there will be a load of energy generated by the MGU-H under braking with the driver off throttle.

obviously I don't agree. I've stated why I feel cold blowing could be beneficial. And they could claim it to be for reliability reasons once again.

The reason they got away with the reliability excuse was because it was an existing engine. Tough argument to make for a new engine.