Still a little confused about 2014 F-1?

"desertdog5051" (desertdog5051) 02/01/2014 at 19:10 • Filed to: None

14

95

Me too. Here is a video explaining it from Renault. Yeah, I know, they had a crappy test in Jerez. But the explanation of how everything works is revealing.

Nitzer Ebblestone > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 20:00

4

Nice explanation by Mr. Scarborough. Thanks for posting.

Seitz > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 20:14

2

I'm amazed how simple this technology is. I'm surprised this stuff hasn't been around for 50+ years.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > Seitz 02/01/2014 at 20:20

6

mechanical direct injection has been around since the 1950s and turbos have also been around since the late 19th century and first applies to planes between the 2 big wars.

Incentive hasn't been around to advance this tech like this until just recently. That's the purpose of governing bodies (state, country, racing governments etc); make companies advance the tech

Seitz > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 02/01/2014 at 20:22

4

I'm actually talking about the KERS and the Anti-Lag hybrid systems. Forced induction is older than cars themselves, but hybrid technology hasn't progressed much until the last 15 years. Just very surprising that it hasn't.

jztemple > Nitzer Ebblestone 02/01/2014 at 20:27

3

His blog is excellent: http://scarbsf1.com/blog1

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > Seitz 02/01/2014 at 20:30

0

that's very true on the hybrid tech.... 1st hybrid electric mass-market car was the 1st gen Honda Insight from, what?, 2001?

Destructive Tester > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 20:46

6

The implications this could have on both small displacement turbocharged engines along with future hybrids is one of the most interesting things to come out of racing in quite some time.
I know it has nothing to do with performance cars but I could see this technology being particularly interesting to the overland trucking industry. Seeing as how diesel engines are pretty useless when off-boost, I could see a means of instantly boosting the motor along with an added push via electric motors (I'm thinking in the non-drive axles along with independent ERS systems coupled with the trailer brakes) to be the most realistic way of drastically improving fuel economy.

Nitzer Ebblestone > jztemple 02/01/2014 at 20:52

1

Follow him on twitter too - https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1

joekitch > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 21:39

4

im digging the absolute hell out of this battery assisted turbo to negate lag

i am now tempted to try something like this on a stock turbo and see what happens

dapper_otter > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 21:39

1

Something I haven't seen explained - I've never before seen a turbo with two separate inlets on the exhaust housing. Is this like a fancy version of a twin-scroll where one bank of cylinders is generating low-end boost and the other bank covers the high-end or are both sides of the exhaust contributing equally?

desertdog5051 > joekitch 02/01/2014 at 21:41

0

Do it and let us know how it goes. Interesting project.

desertdog5051 > dapper_otter 02/01/2014 at 21:43

1

As the title says. Still confused. Good question.

RaggedMile > Destructive Tester 02/01/2014 at 22:00

1

Regenerative braking on the trailer wheels sounds like a damn good idea.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > dapper_otter 02/01/2014 at 22:09

0

I think the reason you don't see it more is packaging. It's not too often anymore that you see a V engine and a single turbo. Usually you would see a twin turbo setup.
As for the twin scroll I disagree with your interpretation. Most twin scroll turbos are on inline for cylinders. The combo of equal length headers and twin scroll turbos is the turbo gets hit with for even exhaust pulses. Unequal headers or just one inlet means the turbo gets a muddier exhaust flow that makes for slower spooling.

d3v > dapper_otter 02/01/2014 at 22:10

0

No, there are two inlets because of its position mounted behind the engine. This means that it's best fed by two separate pipes, one from each side of the engine.

ComradeSlow > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 22:23

3

Haven't BMW and Subaru both been trying to come up with a consumer grade implementation of this for a number of years now as the solution to turbo lag?

desertdog5051 > ComradeSlow 02/01/2014 at 22:28

0

Don't know. It should be easier with F-1 involved.

d3v > desertdog5051 02/01/2014 at 22:34

1

What I'm wondering is if they really need that huge airbox up there. Can't they take that out and use a smaller intake hole (NACA duct maybe) so as to provide a cleaner path for air to pass over the car into the rear wing?

desertdog5051 > d3v 02/01/2014 at 22:36

0

Don't know. Good question. But I am sure they did it for a reason.

WarShrike > dapper_otter 02/01/2014 at 23:54

1

Audi is running something similar in their E-tron setup by Garrett-Honewell called the Monoturbo.

It has a few interesting advantages.

First off is packaging. You don't have to do a y-pipe merge. Because of this, you can save space as you want both banks feeding into the turbo at a proper angle, and that also adds weight.

With the monoturbo style setup you see on the Audi and new F1 engines, you can run the exhaust directly from either banks into the turbo on opposing sides but rotating the turbine/shaft/compressor in the same direction.

You won't have as much side load on the turbine bearings and you'll have more effective flow around the entire turbine.

Think of it as trying to spin a top, with two strings and you pulling the strings simultaneously with your left hand and right hand. <——-0____>

A cool article on it here:
http://www.speedhunters.com/2012/08/the-mo…

Hifrequency > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 00:11

0

Whats with the shape of the valve covers? They have a leading nose with a wing on either side on the other.

dapper_otter > Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius 02/02/2014 at 00:20

0

That's one benefit of twin-scrolls (assuming equal-length headers) but the other is that the exhaust is directed at different parts of the turbine for improved efficiencies at different engine speeds, which helps with faster spool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbochar…

dapper_otter > WarShrike 02/02/2014 at 00:21

0

That's a great explanation. The packaging aspect was obvious to me but I couldn't figure out if there were particular performance benefits over a single-inlet (y-pipe) or not.

Lindshrek > Seitz 02/02/2014 at 00:24

0

It's all about customer demand. Both racing and car manufacturers only reflects what the customer demands. In this case hybrid development is forced forward by new emissions laws.

But this level of complexity in engine control hasn't been possible until last few years. These systems demands huge computing power and advanced electronics to work.

Myself i still think fuel regulations suck in F1. Endurance racing is the right forum to develop fuel efficiency. F1 should be all about maximum speed always.

d3v > Hifrequency 02/02/2014 at 00:25

0

Because they also have some of the plumbing for the fuel pumps (one on each cylinder bank) for the direct injection.

Lindshrek > d3v 02/02/2014 at 00:28

0

regulations demand a certain height over the head of the driver for roll over protection. And inlet size is restricted. So by placing it in the traditional place, you get both "free boost" from the air pressure over the car, and a roll bar on the car. Thats why i think they keep it there.

Hifrequency > d3v 02/02/2014 at 00:29

0

I can't wait to see one installed, any pictures posted up on this yet?

dmcspeedy > Seitz 02/02/2014 at 00:48

1

There was never an economic incentive before - why add all that complexity and weight when you could just go faster by burning fuel more quickly? Plus battery technology has come a long way in the last couple of decades.

CassanovaFrankenstein > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 00:51

1

So its a modern day twin charger? Sorta?

CaptainStu > d3v 02/02/2014 at 01:13

0

Googled airbox, came up with this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz…

CaptainStu > Seitz 02/02/2014 at 01:30

1

The theory may be simple but the important components - the appropriate batteries and the computing power haven't been around for 50 years. But direct injection and turbo chargers were around before WWII. The big news here is the electric spin-up of the turbo. But if you're looking for instantaneous pressure there's already supercharging.

jeffgarner808 > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 01:31

0

Making the turbo rotor share the same shaft as the electric motor rotor seems problematic because of the heat. Im sure electric motors get crazy hot, but exhaust hot? That's glowing metal kind of hot.

CaptainStu > jeffgarner808 02/02/2014 at 01:42

0

How about a gen spinning at 100,000RPM?? DNFs are coming back!

jrfailma > Seitz 02/02/2014 at 02:22

0

Only three reason I can think of, or a combination of these three. Cost, size or weight.

d3v > CaptainStu 02/02/2014 at 02:28

0

But with the turbo sucking in air, you'd think that they'd be less reliant on this now.

Well Spoken Waffle > d3v 02/02/2014 at 03:02

0

the top of the car is where the roll over hoop is - that can't really be moved, in case a car lands upside down (like webber). since you've got that obstruction there anyway, the engineers may as well have the air box up there. the air box would take massive amounts of air - i'm not certain it would be beneficial to have smaller ducts elsewhere doing the same job.

i also doubt teams are worried about moving air over the top of the car - the key places to me seem to be over the front wheels and down the floor of the car to the rear diffuser; since 2009, getting as much out of the diffuser as possible has been key. brawn won with the double diffuser, red bull i believe twice with the floor mounted diffuser and off throttle exhaust gas combo, and with the conada effect exhausts (using magic to get the exhaust gases to flow over the rear bodywork to the diffuser).

that, and the fia probably have this rule laid out

DayWooTang > Nitzer Ebblestone 02/02/2014 at 03:05

0

I really enjoyed this step by step breakdown as well. My inner nerd is happy.

DayWooTang > jeffgarner808 02/02/2014 at 03:13

0

But the impeller is a buffer before it reaches the gen-motor surrounded by fresh air. It would be cool to see the temp differences along the shaft from one end to the other though.

Cole Paquette > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 03:15

0

No turbo lag due to the energy recovery when slowing down, and a single turbo for both banks... If it became a variable geometry turbo I could see this becoming a system in road cars pretty quickly.

DayWooTang > CaptainStu 02/02/2014 at 03:16

0

You could still finish without that component though.

Xelmon > joekitch 02/02/2014 at 05:22

0

Biggest problem is the balancing of the turbo in relation to the electric motor, since turbos turn at some 100,000 RPM's. You start having an imbalance/knock on the main shaft at that RPM, and it'll be dead very quickly.

Haven't watched the video, never the less, I wonder if the turbo-motor is 1:1 or if there is a very serious reduction.

kriskrusty > Hifrequency 02/02/2014 at 05:36

0

rbez > joekitch 02/02/2014 at 05:54

0

Plenty of guys in the UK are running hybrid turbos on their Land Rover Defenders. Google it.

d3v > Well Spoken Waffle 02/02/2014 at 06:41

0

You can have a roll-hoop without having the airbox. That's how many of the old turbo cars from the 1980s were (i.e. McLaren MP4/4). In fact, that is why alot of the turbo cars from that era didn't have an airbox on top.

b33g33 > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 02/02/2014 at 08:08

0

Shhhhhh!!

Don't tell the manic fans of Ayn Rand that 'Gubbinmints' and 'authorities' do anything to advance anything!

b33g33 > ComradeSlow 02/02/2014 at 08:10

0

There was speculation that the Fx M3/4 would have electric-turbos.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tech starts showing up in the next gen cars from Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW etc.

Autolegend86 > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 09:17

0

Everything in this vid is a lie.

This is how Renault wants it to work. Jerez laps proved it doesn't.

NOreasonY > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 10:39

0

I basically came away thinking, "wow these little added "hybrid" like technologies are really very simple." I think the trubo being spooled up by the elec ric motor to reduce any lag is awseome. I can totally see this trickling down to road cars in the future.

Which is, i guess, the point!

ffoc02 > Destructive Tester 02/02/2014 at 10:50

1

The other element is that instead of dumping exhaust pressure or varying vane geometry to regulate boost, now you can recover that energy making sure as little exhaust energy is wasted as possible.

Now put it all together. Think something along the lines of Fusion Hybrid dumping the NA 2.0l for the 1.0l 3cyl, making more power due to exhaust energy recovery. Then add a pair of in wheel motors at the rear, say 20hp/ea, for AWD. Prob about the same curb weight, more power and efficiency. Just have to ignore the $10k or so in extra sticker shock.

nikiaf27 > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 11:30

1

One thing I've found confusing by the way people speak about the horsepower numbers is how it's being measured.

From what I understand is that the engine on its own produces 600hp, but is that including the extra power from the turbocharger, or is it strictly what the engine outputs before the boost?

Detroit Velvet Smooth > CaptainStu 02/02/2014 at 11:45

0

I recall the German Fighter planes using FUEL injection in WWII. But wasn't aware that DIRECT injection was used till somewhat recently no? They are different from each other.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > dapper_otter 02/02/2014 at 12:01

1

Interesting. I hadn't read that before.

Either way, the only 'twin port' turbo applications I could see right now are the V8 Diesels in the trucks. I can't picture anything else on the market that is using two banks aimed at one turbo.

desertdog5051 > nikiaf27 02/02/2014 at 12:13

0

Don't know. I would assume that it includes boost from the turbo.

nikiaf27 > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 12:47

0

That's what I would be led to believe, but then how do they only get 600hp when in the 80s they were getting upwards of twice that number?

jeffgarner808 > DayWooTang 02/02/2014 at 12:57

0

Even in a regular turbo, the "cool side" fan blade is hundreds of degrees F. It is all metal, and metal will transfer the heat from the exhaust into the "cool side" of the turbo, and on into the electric motor.

Ian Higgins > desertdog5051 02/02/2014 at 13:31

0

Just out of curiosity, is the KERS able to act as the starter motor for the engine? I thought about it last season but I wasn't sure if it was just geared too high to provide enough torque to spin the motor over.

kllrnohj > nikiaf27 02/02/2014 at 13:32

1

Because F1 keeps adding restrictions specifically to limit power, such as fuel flow restrictions. The engines in the 80s were also twin turbo instead of the single turbo.

desertdog5051 > Ian Higgins 02/02/2014 at 13:34

0

Good question. I don't know.

LoverOfAllThingsFast > nikiaf27 02/02/2014 at 13:53

0

Reliabilty and mileage. Yes, in the 80's there was more power, however the regs also allowed for more fuel flow and companies were using an engine just for qualifying. Money isn't as free flowing as it used to be, neither is the fuel.

Icemanmaybeirunoutofthetalents > nikiaf27 02/02/2014 at 14:19

0

Fuel flow limits and reliability constraints make a significant dent on the hp extractable from engines. You could make an engine that puts out ridiculous power if it only had to last one session :) This season a driver can only use 5 engines in all and would incur penalties if he had to use more than that. No such restrictions back then. The Honda engine of the 1988 Mclaren according to wiki -

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

It produced only 650bhp according to wiki though. So we have come along quite a bit.

Icemanmaybeirunoutofthetalents > Cole Paquette 02/02/2014 at 14:21

0

I think Remi Taffin, head of Renault's Energy F1 said the impeller blades were vari-able type. So it could happen

nikiaf27 > Icemanmaybeirunoutofthetalents 02/02/2014 at 14:37

1

Fair enough. I remember seeing a video on YouTube where they were explaining how they ran the turbos so hard in qualifying they would only last 4 minutes at full throttle. I hadn't been considering the almost total lack of limitations on engine units back then.

Brosenkranz > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 02/02/2014 at 15:04

0

Completely off topic but I almost puked when you said the purpose of government bodies was to make private companies innovate. Good lord son. Also, racing organizations like the FIA or SCCA are not related to governments in any way. They're private entities, and that is why they're actually allowed to force innovation.

Brosenkranz > Seitz 02/02/2014 at 15:06

0

The main reason is because battery technology hasn't progressed. Again, partly because it wasn't totally necessary. But for the past couple decades, the demand for battery powered portable devices, first and foremost, has required small batteries which charge quickly and can hold a lot of power for a long time.

Hifrequency > kriskrusty 02/02/2014 at 15:10

0

Wow that is pretty aerodynamic!

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > Brosenkranz 02/02/2014 at 15:44

0

The likeness still stands for my intent though....forcing innovation

Kylemaro > joekitch 02/02/2014 at 16:25

0

solution to turbo lag, sequential turbos

CaptainStu > d3v 02/02/2014 at 23:55

0

There'd still be pressurization with a NACA vent. I'm no aerodynamacist though.

CaptainStu > DayWooTang 02/02/2014 at 23:56

0

I'm looking for precipitating destruction.

CaptainStu > Detroit Velvet Smooth 02/02/2014 at 23:57

0

My only reference in life is wikipedia.

d3v > CaptainStu 02/03/2014 at 00:06

0

But a NACA duct has the advantage of being not as distruptive to the airflow.

CaptainStu > d3v 02/03/2014 at 00:32

0

It must just be taking advantage of the mandatory roll hoop surface area.

Siman > dapper_otter 02/03/2014 at 09:20

0

its quite common as long as the exhauset energy gets to the turbine in an efficient way its not a problem garrett has been making them for years. they are called top mount turbos ford also uses a similar turbo on the new power stroke. helps save weight aswell.

TommyG_57 > d3v 02/03/2014 at 11:19

0

Its all down to volume. 6 cylinders spinning at up to 15,000rpm is a huge amount of air. You can run a smaller inlet, but then you are effectively choking the turbo (and engine) and you would not be able to run the rpms possible.

TommyG_57 > desertdog5051 02/03/2014 at 11:22

1

Just wait till one of the motor/generators grenades itself at 100,000rpm.. it will tear the top of the car off.

The motor/generator alone must be wondrous device to withstand that much rotation.

d3v > TommyG_57 02/03/2014 at 11:51

0

But the old F1 turbos were producing even more power at slightly lower RPMs without the scoop, which seems to indicate that getting air into the engine wasn't a problem. For example, Honda's 1.6 liter RA168E V6 was putting out around 1,050 hp at 14,000RPM in qualifying trim back in 1987. In 1988, with the boost limited to 2.5 bar, it was still doing 650 hp at the same engine speed.

TommyG_57 > d3v 02/03/2014 at 12:16

0

The pictures of the Williams car of that time shows 2 inlet scoops (1 on each side pod) to feed the turbos. The combined surface area of those scoops looks pretty close to a modern day F1 car.

FastAndBoxy > Seitz 02/03/2014 at 12:20

0

It only looks simple, but you're partially right. The mechanical bits are pretty simple and proven. The most complicated portion of all this is how it is controlled. The algorithms balancing the energy output/input from two motor/generator units, a turbo charged gas engine, and the driver's demands for torque are going to be insanely complicated.

d3v > TommyG_57 02/03/2014 at 12:27

0

But they were never on the same place at the top of the car. McLaren tried the same thing at a few races with the MP4/4 in 1988. Even with those scoops, there was still a clearer path for over the top of the car to the rear wing.

IMO, it seems right now that the main reason for having the airbox integrated into the rollhoop is to make the cars look aesthetically similar to how F1 cars have looked for the past 2 decades. That, and advertisment space.

racermd > d3v 02/03/2014 at 12:35

1

Part of it is that it's a mandated structural member on the car and part of it is that it's in relatively clean, cool air - above the driver's head, away from the aero bits forward of that position, and ahead of anything generating serious heat. If you're going to have to build into that area, anyway, it makes sense to use it for its strengths.

d3v > racermd 02/03/2014 at 12:49

0

As previously mentioned, you can have a rollhoop there while still having a clearer path for the air. Numerous turbo cars in the 80's used these in place of the scoops.

racermd > d3v 02/03/2014 at 13:56

0

I'm not saying you can/can't or should/shouldn't use that space as the engine's primary air intake. The point I'm trying to convey (along with a number of other people) is that, as long as that space is mandated by the FIA as a safety structure and would otherwise go unused, you may as well take advantage of it. By NOT using it, you'd have to move air around and/or above that structure and would create other aerodynamic behaviors to be addressed downstream of the car. As an intake, you're both funneling that pressurized air into the engine and avoiding having to deal with the bulk of a bow-wake that structure would otherwise cause.

Another interesting bit - the large volume of the airbox itself is (probably) providing benefits by removing a lot of the pulsing and uneven airflow coming into the front of the intake thereby giving a smoother, more consistent intake charge to the engine. Like a muffler, only mounted on the intake side.

d3v > racermd 02/03/2014 at 14:11

0

Maybe, but at the same time, it's telling that the only time we've seen cars win the World Championship with a scoop since the turbo days was when the turbos were banned, resulting in people putting the intake back in there for the NA engines.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > desertdog5051 02/03/2014 at 16:42

0

Is it just my eyeballs or does that appear to be a 90 degree angle on the block? Assuming my eye is correct, I wonder why the are using a 90* block instead of a 60* block.

desertdog5051 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 02/03/2014 at 17:05

0

It looks like a 90 degree to me as well. I wonder if it has anything to do with balancing. I know that 90 and 60 have their differences when it comes to balance.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > desertdog5051 02/03/2014 at 17:14

1

First Opponaut to put one of these in a road car wins.

desertdog5051 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/03/2014 at 17:18

1

You steal the driveline from Mercedes and I'll fit it to your car. :)

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > desertdog5051 02/03/2014 at 17:35

0

For V6 a 60° block should balance better. Maybe they need more room in there for the intake manifold? And 90° should give slightly lower COG. But I would guess <5 mm difference in COG with the caveat that it is a complete guess.

desertdog5051 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 02/03/2014 at 17:41

0

Now you have your next assignment to work on. :)

Chris Havill > nikiaf27 02/04/2014 at 10:55

0

because it was ONE team getting NEAR twice the number for ONE lap.

these engines are designed to last many race weekends.

Chris Havill > Ian Higgins 02/04/2014 at 10:58

0

seeing as they want to make the pit lane electric only, i think starter motors may disappear anyway.

pull out of pits on electric, and fire up the motor by just adding fuel.

actually, i think the reason they don't use the KERS as a starter is that in the pits the batteries are usually discharged, and don't actually have a charge until they go out on track and built it up.

Ian Higgins > Chris Havill 02/04/2014 at 13:52

0

The motors are started in the pits. They already don't have starter motors.

Chris Havill > Ian Higgins 02/05/2014 at 10:43

0

i meant the external starter motors.

Ian Higgins > Chris Havill 02/05/2014 at 11:36

0

oh

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > desertdog5051 02/06/2014 at 14:41

1

I dug around a little and didn't find anything actually said as to why they are running a 90 degree vee. In another video on Scarbs he did mention that the 90 degree isn't ideal and that probably isn't what the engine designers would have used if they had a choice. Nobody elaborated on whether it is mandated to use a 90 degree vee or not. Assuming it is not mandated by the FIA, my theory is that they have gone to a 90 degree vee to make room for the ERS-H motor between the cylinder banks. That looks to nestle between the banks and is straddled by the intake manifold and plenum. Really the intake manifold isn't that big, there is just a lot of room under it to make room for the motor/generator that is used on the turbo.