Grand Prix Rejects

I've been wondering about this for quite a long time... the best f1 times were with turbo, also building a competitive engine would be less costy, bringing the $$$$ needed to race down...

what do you guys think about it?

I'm not much of a mechanic, but I don't see how extracting the maximum performance and reliability from a smaller engine (let's say 1800cc) and a turbo charger that'd be subject to a boost limit, probably within a small window before the FIA introduce another engine freeze, is any easier and cheaper than extracting maximum performance and reliability from a bigger, normally aspirated engine that's subject to a rev-limit.

What it might do is have people eat a load of fuel with high boost early on in a race, and then have to "wind it down" to get to the finish line, and potentially be caught by other drivers, creating more overtaking. Or more trains because they can't follow each other through corners, one or the other.

Having turbos would also be a bit of a handicap in wet races as well (There is a reason for this, but I cant remember it exactly. Was it anything to do with turbolag?)

Collieafc wrote:Having turbos would also be a bit of a handicap in wet races as well (There is a reason for this, but I cant remember it exactly. Was it anything to do with turbolag?)

Could be the big spike of power and torque you get when the turbo kicks in creating wheelspin either. Although I reckon F1 engineers would be able to smooth that out with some engine-mapping wizardry.

As for lag, they'd be lower in the revs in the wet, so they would lag more. Although teams would probably get around this with more gears. And I have it in my head that some modern performance cars have something called "anti-lag" that I have no knowlegde of the mechanics of...

I was thinking how about alowing turbos back but they gotta be diesel......would entice a certain german car maker in to formula 1........

Personally Turbos wont come back. They cost alot and all the parnoid F1 saftey people will go mad over the power. Also with no refulling anymore like we saw in the 80's the cars ran out of fuel easly. Turbo isn't the way.

It would be nice. Cars would be more temperamental and, with smaller engines, fuel consumption and contamination would go down as a side effect But, as TeamTipper said, there's too much paranoia with security, and they'd immediately associate turbos with danger. Although today F1 is a very safe sport...

Enforcer wrote:

Collieafc wrote:Having turbos would also be a bit of a handicap in wet races as well (There is a reason for this, but I cant remember it exactly. Was it anything to do with turbolag?)

Could be the big spike of power and torque you get when the turbo kicks in creating wheelspin either. Although I reckon F1 engineers would be able to smooth that out with some engine-mapping wizardry.

As for lag, they'd be lower in the revs in the wet, so they would lag more. Although teams would probably get around this with more gears. And I have it in my head that some modern performance cars have something called "anti-lag" that I have no knowlegde of the mechanics of...

Anti-lag uses some additional motive source to get the turbine blades up to operational rpm sooner. Sometimes it's a differential that takes some power from the main driveshaft and routes it to the blades, sometimes it's an electric motor. In either case, for an F1 car it seems as though the anti-lag would have to work not just at the start, but at other gear changes as well. If there was some type of rule introduced where the turbo layout could be adjusted at each race weekend to suit a particular track, then such a system might actually be not too much of a weight penalty (since the necessary gear transitions would be known, and a special anti-lag operating at those transitions could be built). I'm not sure that this would lower costs, however. I don't know how the teams would deal with the additional source of vibrations and gyroscopic forces transmitted to the chassis as a result. (Unlike road cars which have anti-lag, engines are a stressed member of the chassis in F1 - so the anti-lag unit would have chassis parts bolted on.) The Williams team used a flywheel KERS this year - does anyone know how they dealt with the chassis vibrations from that? (Or to be more precise, how much of a weight penalty they incurred in dealing with the vibrations?)

Phoenix wrote:It would be nice. Cars would be more temperamental and, with smaller engines, fuel consumption and contamination would go down as a side effect But, as TeamTipper said, there's too much paranoia with security, and they'd immediately associate turbos with danger. Although today F1 is a very safe sport...

The FIA and FOTA have already been discussing the idea of bringing in turbo engines after 2012, when the rules on the current engine configurations are due to be revised. Judging by the FIA's world engine proposal, the most likely option would be a 2 litre straight four petrol unit with a moderate boost pressure, whihc most of FOTA thought was a reasonable proposal. Part of the reason for this format was the fact that other manufacturers were interested in the world engine concept - in particular, VW has put out statements saying that they were interested in the world engine initiative, and would potentially be willing to enter as an engine supplier. Given that the FIA is looking at increasing the relevance of F1 to the motor industry, it is not surprising that they would want to promite the use of smaller capacity and more fuel efficient engines.
That said, I doubt that the reliability would be that different from what it is now; after all, if the boost pressure is only a few bar, the engine is not going to be that badly stressed, and research into high temperature alloys and materials has advanced quite a bit in the past few decades. After all, they run turbo engines in rallying, yet how often do the cars fail to finish due to engine problems?

WeirdKerr wrote:I was thinking how about alowing turbos back but they gotta be diesel......would entice a certain german car maker in to formula 1........

Audi won't enter F1 - why would they want to, when they are more interested in Le Mans (and the technology used in the R10 and R15 can be more easily transferred to their retail arm)? Besides, the engine rules have banned anything but reciprocating piston petrol engines for around 40 years - I can't see them changing now.

fondmetal-fond wrote:

Enforcer wrote:

Collieafc wrote:Having turbos would also be a bit of a handicap in wet races as well (There is a reason for this, but I cant remember it exactly. Was it anything to do with turbolag?)

Could be the big spike of power and torque you get when the turbo kicks in creating wheelspin either. Although I reckon F1 engineers would be able to smooth that out with some engine-mapping wizardry.

As for lag, they'd be lower in the revs in the wet, so they would lag more. Although teams would probably get around this with more gears. And I have it in my head that some modern performance cars have something called "anti-lag" that I have no knowlegde of the mechanics of...

Anti-lag uses some additional motive source to get the turbine blades up to operational rpm sooner. Sometimes it's a differential that takes some power from the main driveshaft and routes it to the blades, sometimes it's an electric motor. In either case, for an F1 car it seems as though the anti-lag would have to work not just at the start, but at other gear changes as well. If there was some type of rule introduced where the turbo layout could be adjusted at each race weekend to suit a particular track, then such a system might actually be not too much of a weight penalty (since the necessary gear transitions would be known, and a special anti-lag operating at those transitions could be built). I'm not sure that this would lower costs, however. I don't know how the teams would deal with the additional source of vibrations and gyroscopic forces transmitted to the chassis as a result. (Unlike road cars which have anti-lag, engines are a stressed member of the chassis in F1 - so the anti-lag unit would have chassis parts bolted on.) The Williams team used a flywheel KERS this year - does anyone know how they dealt with the chassis vibrations from that? (Or to be more precise, how much of a weight penalty they incurred in dealing with the vibrations?)

Williams never actually ran that KERS in a race.

mario wrote:

Phoenix wrote:It would be nice. Cars would be more temperamental and, with smaller engines, fuel consumption and contamination would go down as a side effect But, as TeamTipper said, there's too much paranoia with security, and they'd immediately associate turbos with danger. Although today F1 is a very safe sport...

The FIA and FOTA have already been discussing the idea of bringing in turbo engines after 2012, when the rules on the current engine configurations are due to be revised. Judging by the FIA's world engine proposal, the most likely option would be a 2 litre straight four petrol unit with a moderate boost pressure, whihc most of FOTA thought was a reasonable proposal. Part of the reason for this format was the fact that other manufacturers were interested in the world engine concept - in particular, VW has put out statements saying that they were interested in the world engine initiative, and would potentially be willing to enter as an engine supplier. Given that the FIA is looking at increasing the relevance of F1 to the motor industry, it is not surprising that they would want to promite the use of smaller capacity and more fuel efficient engines.
That said, I doubt that the reliability would be that different from what it is now; after all, if the boost pressure is only a few bar, the engine is not going to be that badly stressed, and research into high temperature alloys and materials has advanced quite a bit in the past few decades. After all, they run turbo engines in rallying, yet how often do the cars fail to finish due to engine problems?

I think turbos are the future, because with all that environmental hype turbo engines are more efficient, until they got something like hybrids/fuel cell/electric *jitters*. And, as pointed by Mario, new manufacturers would be interested.

Were turbos not hideous to drive? They'd be easier now of course, but I can't imagine that drivers would be too enamoured with a return.

shinji wrote:Were turbos not hideous to drive? They'd be easier now of course, but I can't imagine that drivers would be too enamoured with a return.

Well, FIA rarely listens to the drivers.
I mean, iirc every driver who had driven on slicks absolutely hated the grooved tyres and yet it took 11 years to get rid of them...

WeirdKerr wrote:I was thinking how about alowing turbos back but they gotta be diesel......would entice a certain german car maker in to formula 1........

Ermmmm...... Trabant?

When I first saw this topic I thought it would be unrealistic, but after reading it the possibility actually sounds quite interesting. I wonder how much it would effect the design of the cars and by association the technicalities of racing.

shinji wrote:Were turbos not hideous to drive? They'd be easier now of course, but I can't imagine that drivers would be too enamoured with a return.

Some of them were very difficult to drive, it is true. The BMW M12 engines were notorious for lag, since they used only one big turbocharger (a Garrett turbo unit, if I recall well) - and because of the way it was designed, the power band was very narrow (according to Patrese, the power band was barely 1000rpm wide), and the surge in power very difficult to deal with. Dyno tests and stats here: http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
The early Honda turbo engines were pretty difficult as well - Mansell recalled that most observers thought that the car (the FW10, I think) was the most powerful, because it could easily spin it's wheels through the gears - in reality, it was because the power cut in and out like a switch. However, Honda worked very hard to correct that, and the engine in the FW10B was much easier to live with. And come the end of the turbo era, the Honda turbo engine was probably one of the best engines out there.
However, some of the turbo engines were easier to drive compared to others - for a start, the Renault engines were quite good, because they had a long time to develop twin turbo technology, so the lag was much smaller and the power curve was much smoother.

The BMW turbo engine was just an aberration...Brabham and Ligier experienced it in 1987...