Turbo Boosted Engines

[<_Spike_>]

The return of turbo-charged Formula One engines could be on the agenda in future, if Max Mosley and the manufacturers decide to reflect the growing trend in road car technology.

Mosley and GPMA chairman Burkhard Goeschel revealed that turbos could be allowed back into the top flight from as early as 2011, as part of the sport's push towards more efficient, and greener, technology.

Turbo-charging was last allowed in 1988, before which flame-belching engines were the norm, some pushing out in excess of 1000bhp.

With one eye on the rapidly-escalating speeds that the technology was producing, the governing body first reduced the amount of boost allowed, then scrapped turbos altogether, returning F1 to normally-aspirated engines in time for the 1990s.

Now, however, with rapid advances in road-based turbo-charged engines and the desire to be seen as making a contribution towards the global environmental push, Mosley and Goeschel conceded that Formula One may be about to conduct another u-turn.

"In the longer term, we are looking at the possibility of a completely new F1 engine, reflecting the industry tendency which is to have a downsized, turbo-charged engine," Mosley told journalists after emerging from a summit meeting with Goeschel that effectively set the agenda for the sport's future.

"The capacity would be up for discussion, because we don't want to have a ridiculous level of horsepower. What we would be looking at is probably bringing in the regulation in 2011.

"There would then be a fuel-flow valve and you would size the engine so it still ran up in the 18,000-19,000rpm bracket, because that's what a racing engine is. Certainly, 15,000 plus.

"Then the size of the engine could be a function of the fuel you were using - probably a bio fuel - the amount of energy that teams were recovering from the brakes and then re-using, because that would increase the total power of the drivetrain, plus the energy recovered from surplus heat from the engine, [which would provide] also additional power for the drivetrain.

"Taking all those things into account, we wouldn't want to have much more power than we have today. So you would work back from those parameters and that would then determine the size of the engine."

Goeschel agreed with the basics, admitting that the fans would not settle for anything other than a 'proper' race engine.

"We have to develop the full picture of all components and then, in the end, we have to decide what kind of engine it is," he said.

"But it has to be a racing engine, a real racing car, the top league of a race car. That is clear."


Source: Skysports


Also more European races could be culled unless teams accept 20 races a year to get the balance right between European and Non-European countries.

 

[amp88]

It's all a load of rubbish, the way they're talking we're going to end up with 3 cylinder 900 cc turbo bio fuel pieces of rubbish with regenerative brakes and push to pass systems. Why not give us a proper engine? Bring back to the DFV!

 

[Jim Prower]

What we need is a 3.0+L N.A. engine with fewer than ten cylinders. See how they do without all those revs.

In fact, the DFV would be a perfect example.

 

[Milliethemutt]

If they bring in some sort of rev limit to current regulation engines wouldn't that reduce costs and bring about more transfer to road cars as they tried to get even more mid range and driveability. Road cars are never going going to be revving at up to 20k.

Hope that doesn't come back to bite me in 20 years. What am I saying of course I do.

 

[Blake]

I think the direction the FIA and GPMA are going in is a good direction. They are finally finding a direction to move in, which is awesome for the sport, and the direction they are going in is interesting &#8211; it will lead to new and better technologies for road cars (something which has not happened in F1 for a long time), and I can&#8217;t see it being bad for the racing.

Restricting the aero regulations further makes sense. They need to really tighten up the aero regulations, and then give us more ground effects. If they ever go down that road again, it will be awesome for the racing.

Introducing more electronics? That I&#8217;m not a fan of. Driver aids really decrease the level of driver involvement, and it becomes difficult for a driver to use his talent. Perhaps they are talking about introducing systems like active suspension, which are actually relevent to road cars.

The engine regulations are very interesting to me. Turbocharged engines will have to be very small. I don&#8217;t know much about biofuel, though I wonder if that includes products such as bio-ethanol&#8230; If so, they&#8217;d need the brake regenerative systems, and engine heat recovery systems to get decent mileage from them. The engine heat recovery systems are very interesting to me. This will be a real innovation is racing, and it has a lot of potential in the real world, too.

EDIT:

If they bring in some sort of rev limit to current regulation engines wouldn't that reduce costs and bring about more transfer to road cars as they tried to get even more mid range and driveability. Road cars are never going going to be revving at up to 20k.

Hope that doesn't come back to bite me in 20 years. What am I saying of course I do.

The curent engines have been homologated, and from now on only small modifications can be made. From 2007 onwards, there is a 19,000rpm rev limit on Formula 1 engines.

 

[Pupik]

What we need is a 3.0+L N.A. engine with fewer than ten cylinders. See how they do without all those revs.

In fact, the DFV would be a perfect example.

If you want to stop the revs from going sky-high, maybe 10.0 liter cast-iron block engines are the answer. There's just no way to make them reliably stay near 7000-8000 rpm for a full-race distance. Not yet, at least.

I don't think we'll see turbochargers in F1 again; engines blew up in qualifying at absurd rates (funny how there was no 2-race-engine rule then) due do tremendous amounts of boost; engines were just as thirsty then as they are now...turbochargers don't seem to be a solution to anything other than changing the rules for its own sake, although it would be neat to see many of the excessive restrictions on engine development disappear.

The catch is this: F1 is about the pinnacle of motorsport technology., so let it stay that way, even if the racing is NOT the most exciting. No amount of leveling the competiton has ever worked for long, and it's never improved "the show" in terms of an entire season.

 

[DQuaN]

Turbo is definately a wrong move IMO.

Back in the day, technology was so that a turbo would be introduced with out a significant power advantage.

There WAS a significant power advantage. 1.5l turbos had more power than naturally aspirated engine over twice the size.

The only way this could be efficiently regulated, would be to have all engines turbo'd which I don't think would be a good idea.




Blake, better F1 technology has been around for a long time. Turbos, ground affect, active suspension, are alll technologies that could make F1 faster. We are not looking for that.

I reckon that the FIA's plan of reducing aerodynamical grip, and promoting mechanical grip is the way to go.

The development teams will always make the cars go faster each year. Last year we had single tyres. Laps were faster. This year we had reduced aero. Laps were faster still.

The sport doesn't need to go faster, it just needs to get more competitive. More overtaking is the key and mechanical grip will promote that. Lower aero and slick tyres is the way to go.

 

[Blake]

I don't think we'll see turbochargers in F1 again; engines blew up in qualifying at absurd rates (funny how there was no 2-race-engine rule then) due do tremendous amounts of boost; engines were just as thirsty then as they are now...turbochargers don't seem to be a solution to anything other than changing the rules for its own sake, although it would be neat to see many of the excessive restrictions on engine development disappear.

As you mention, the boost will not be so high, because of the engine regulations. I suppose there will also be some limitations on the boost pressure anyway.

I think the point of the turbochargers is to increase the relevance to the auto industry. Developing high performance turbocharged engines that run on bio fuels is a hell of a lot more valuable than pouring money into small naturally aspirated V8s that rev at 20,000rpm, and are already basically max’d out.

The catch is this: F1 is about the pinnacle of motorsport technology., so let it stay that way, even if the racing is NOT the most exciting. No amount of leveling the competiton has ever worked for long, and it's never improved "the show" in terms of an entire season.

I think Formula 1 is leading the way into a new era in the automotive industry, and while the technology that will be implemented could have been here 20 years ago if they weren’t instantly banned, it is still something that hasn’t had that much money poured into it – this is a perfect way for F1 to showcase what is possible.

Blake, better F1 technology has been around for a long time. Turbos, ground affect, active suspension, are alll technologies that could make F1 faster. We are not looking for that.

I reckon that the FIA's plan of reducing aerodynamical grip, and promoting mechanical grip is the way to go.

The development teams will always make the cars go faster each year. Last year we had single tyres. Laps were faster. This year we had reduced aero. Laps were faster still.

The sport doesn't need to go faster, it just needs to get more competitive. More overtaking is the key and mechanical grip will promote that. Lower aero and slick tyres is the way to go.

If it is implemented correctly, these technologies will not result in an instant jump in lap times. I believe if the aero on top of the car is significantly restricted, and the potiential to use the aero under the car is increased, the cars will be able to overtake more easily.

The sport may not be made more competitive, because it is always up to the teams to determine their level of performance, but at least if teams have similar performance, they will actually be able to race.

The FIA needs to realise that aerodynamics are the key, the aero underneath the cars has to be completely exploited to promote overtaking. Winglets etc. make overtaking more difficult because they require clean air to work properly. But if you let the diffuser do most of the work, it becomes much easier to follow other cars and overtake.

Look at GP2, for example. The front wing is low to the ground, and there are no aerodynamic devices that do not need to be there. They use ground effects, the racing is great, and they’re only a few seconds a lap slower than F1 cars.

 

[DQuaN]

The FIA needs to realise that aerodynamics are the key, the aero underneath the cars has to be completely exploited to promote overtaking. Winglets etc. make overtaking more difficult because they require clean air to work properly. But if you let the diffuser do most of the work, it becomes much easier to follow other cars and overtake.

Look at GP2, for example. The front wing is low to the ground, and there are no aerodynamic devices that do not need to be there. They use ground effects, the racing is great, and they’re only a few seconds a lap slower than F1 cars.

Bingo.


Although I am worried that teams will bend the rules and develop their aerodynamics to make dirty air behind their car. If cleaner aero means more overtaking, then which way will teams go? They can go with the rule, and hope that this allows their drivers to overtake the car infront, or they can go aginst the rule, and try to develop their aero so their drivers can't be overtaken by the car behind.

It's and interesting dilemma.

 

[Sharky.]

I don&#8217;t know much about biofuel, though I wonder if that includes products such as bio-ethanol&#8230; If so, they&#8217;d need the brake regenerative systems, and engine heat recovery systems to get decent mileage from them. The engine heat recovery systems are very interesting to me. This will be a real innovation is racing, and it has a lot of potential in the real world, too.

Lotus made a biofuel Exige, the 265E, and whaddya know? It's faster than the standard petrol version.

I want to see engines 'only' capable of, say, 9000rpm - ala A1GP. Who would make a road car that revs to 19k?

 

[Blake]

Lotus made a biofuel Exige, the 265E, and whaddya know? It's faster than the standard petrol version.

Well I&#8217;d expect bio-ethanol to produce high levels of power, but I would also expect the mileage to be really really bad.

 

[Appie]

It's all a load of rubbish, the way they're talking we're going to end up with 3 cylinder 900 cc turbo bio fuel pieces of rubbish with regenerative brakes and push to pass systems. Why not give us a proper engine? Bring back to the DFV!

Amen to that