Forced induction in F1

[nocturnaljon]

Having read on here that the method of induction isn't set in the proposed new engine regulation for F1. Either turbos or superchargers are acceptable.

Got me thinking, what about something different.

Could the battery power from KERS be used to compress the intake air for instance?

Would there be any benefit to this?

what other methods of forced induction are out there that we have never heard of?

[davepoth]

I'm not sure the rules would allow it, but there would certainly be enough battery power aboard to work it. It'll be turbos all the way though, as it's pretty much free power.

-edit-

Actually, I'm not sure if it would be just turbos. They're fine for most things, but I'm guessing the huge restriction in the exhaust system is going to cock up the blown diffusers terribly.

[Eric Mc]

Don't airboxes compress the air somewhat?

Otherwise, they would produce more drag than they were worth in additional horepower.

[Life Saab Itch]

davepoth said:

I'm not sure the rules would allow it, but there would certainly be enough battery power aboard to work it. It'll be turbos all the way though, as it's pretty much free power.

-edit-

Actually, I'm not sure if it would be just turbos. They're fine for most things, but I'm guessing the huge restriction in the exhaust system is going to cock up the blown diffusers terribly.

I'm not sure there will be blown diffusers with the ground effect venturi...

[Dangerous2]

the engines will most likely be supercharged (for power at low revs) turbocharged (high revs) and turbo compounded (amother turbine in the exhaust flow) to generate electricity for the KERS boost. You could have an electrical supercharger too i guess, i don't know if this is more efficient than a mechanically driven one though. So the KERS will recover energy from both the engine and braking. I wonder if they will also manage to include a heat recovery system too.

[deveng]

Unless they relax the rules on KERS storage there is no need to engine charge, you have more than enough energy to store from braking so it would be a waste of fuel to engine charge.

As for what method of forced induction, I'd imagine they go for gold ol' fashion turbo charging, since race engines are always in the power band it's not particularly important where the power comes in. Turbos are (as far as I'm aware) more efficient than superchargers so it seems a bit pointless having a really wide power band by combining turbos and superchargers if you'll not need the low end power!

[PhillipM]

Life Saab Itch said:

I'm not sure there will be blown diffusers with the ground effect venturi...

Blown venturi?

[PhillipM]

deveng said:

Unless they relax the rules on KERS storage there is no need to engine charge, you have more than enough energy to store from braking so it would be a waste of fuel to engine charge.

80bhp into a supercharger would result in a lot more than 80bhp extra at the wheels though, provided the engine will take it.

[deveng]

PhillipM said:

80bhp into a supercharger would result in a lot more than 80bhp extra at the wheels though, provided the engine will take it.

For 6.6 sec a lap it hardly seems worth over speccing the engine to deliver the extra power, and you would still have to burn extra fuel to make that power, meaning a weight disadvantage in both fuel and KERS.

[Dangerous2]

I thought that for 2013, the KERS power would be increased so the motor can generate 120 kW. and even more importantly the energy storage capacity would be increased from 400kJ to something like 2 - 4 mJ - so thats about 5-10 times more energy stored.
I wonder if they will put motors in the front wheels.

[Life Saab Itch]

Dangerous2 said:

I wonder if they will put motors in the front wheels.

The guys on that F1 tech forum seemed to reckon that it doesn't ban it in the new regs...

[davepoth]

PhillipM said:

Blown venturi?

Not a thing to joke about - gas over a diffuser/venturi makes downforce...

[cosicave]

Life Saab Itch said:

Dangerous2 said:

I wonder if they will put motors in the front wheels.

The guys on that F1 tech forum seemed to reckon that it doesn't ban it in the new regs...

As things stand, the regulations dictate that power is delivered via the rear wheels only. If KERS produces power - as we know it does - it is obviously included as being required to drive the rear wheels only.

[Zad]

I had forgotten this until I saw those YouTube videos which followed the development of the Ford/Cosworth turbo motor in the 1980s, but the original idea was to use a third turbo to provide additional drive. It would seem sensible to use that to generate electrical power. It is definitely one thing that could trickle-down to road cars.

[deveng]

cosicave said:

As things stand, the regulations dictate that power is delivered via the rear wheels only. If KERS produces power - as we know it does - it is obviously included as being required to drive the rear wheels only.

And would there really be much point packaging it all when the FIA would clearly prevent recovery/delivery during corners which is the primary reason for wheel hub motor KERS (using the torque recovery/delivery to steer the car for you).

And if you didn't fit the motors in the hubs and had to package a single motor with a diff and driveshafts in the front of the car then there would be no point what so ever because a) it just wouldn't fit b) it would ruin the aero if you made it fit c) would weigh too much

[Life Saab Itch]

deveng said:

And would there really be much point packaging it all when the FIA would clearly prevent recovery/delivery during corners which is the primary reason for wheel hub motor KERS (using the torque recovery/delivery to steer the car for you).

And if you didn't fit the motors in the hubs and had to package a single motor with a diff and driveshafts in the front of the car then there would be no point what so ever because a) it just wouldn't fit b) it would ruin the aero if you made it fit c) would weigh too much

Point A and B are not correct. The size of the 80hp motors is tiny when they were on the TV 2 years ago. I have no doubt that they are more compact now.

The only possible issue would be weight, but the amount of weight that Ferrari and Renault were supposed to be running it wouldn't make that much difference. It would just be usable weight, rather than dead weight.

[deveng]

Life Saab Itch said:

deveng said:

And would there really be much point packaging it all when the FIA would clearly prevent recovery/delivery during corners which is the primary reason for wheel hub motor KERS (using the torque recovery/delivery to steer the car for you).

And if you didn't fit the motors in the hubs and had to package a single motor with a diff and driveshafts in the front of the car then there would be no point what so ever because a) it just wouldn't fit b) it would ruin the aero if you made it fit c) would weigh too much

Point A and B are not correct. The size of the 80hp motors is tiny when they were on the TV 2 years ago. I have no doubt that they are more compact now.

The only possible issue would be weight, but the amount of weight that Ferrari and Renault were supposed to be running it wouldn't make that much difference. It would just be usable weight, rather than dead weight.

But they were motors that were fitted to existing drive train. To put motors at the front end would change mean putting them in the driver survival cell (otherwise changing front wings would take an age) and there is so little room as it is.

and it would ruin the aero having front drive shafts. To highlight just how sensitive it is, F1 suspension isn't designed to be good kinematically, its designed to give the best aero. If you stick a driveshaft in the mix its going to change the space the suspension has to be routed, interfere with the air flow between front wing and side pods as well as introduce a rotating object into airflow (creates lots of drag and lift). Also with regard to aero, if you did make it fit by changing/enlarge the driver cell, the only real space to move into would be under the nose, which is an extremely sensitive area for aero.

[cosicave]

I'm inclined to agree with deveng here, who makes some very good points.

However, unless there is a revolution in F1 thinking which sees a complete turn-around of the one thing that has been constant*; rear wheel drive is the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'; this particular diversion will remain redundant.

• [Edited due to the point made below. Thanks Eric]

Edited by cosicave on Wednesday 27th April 13:02

[Eric Mc]

4 wheel drive has been tried a few times.

[cosicave]

Eric Mc said:

4 wheel drive has been tried a few times.

Yes Eric, it has.

But F1 turned its back on that a long long time ago (1969 I believe?) and has fully embraced a RWD policy ever since. This is why I say it will require a paradigm shift in thinking, which I cannot foresee in the near future.