F1 Turbo Engines
Discussion
rev-erend said:
Looks like F1 is heading back to small capacity turbo's once again. Will be interesting how they hope to contain the costs.
BTCC are doing a similer thing! its a great idea in my eyes! for BTCC you need say 300bhp. Well a pretty stock Duratec engine could turbo those numbers with a well developed turbo system. Ok so even if a stock motor couldn't it would be pretty cheap to build a motor that could! in fact Ford are looking to use a new 2.0 'ecoboost' (read turbocharged) engine in the next Focus ST. For bigger applications, AER (or ARE i cant rember) build some lovely V8 race engines that turn out about 500bhp, rev to over 10Krpm and cost a rather large fortune to run (think JUDD engines are about £60k a year to lease!!!). They also build some very nice 2.0ltr engines that make similar power and i bet cost rather a lot less to run!
The major advantage to running smaller turbo engines is you dont need to trubo the RPM you do with an N/A engine, you simply run higher cylinder presures. This puts ALOT less stress on both the bottom and top end of the engine making them more reliable.
Thanks,
Chris.
God the F1 hass(team) v6 turbo motor,it was that ausi guy jeezzz what was his name ????,was documented in the 80's on ch4,was called equinox,they were testing it on a brit airfield in the snow,comon gents vid please, this was when F1 was real :-),today its all too gay to watch,thats why i dont its utter rubbish,didnt do well this v6 lol,4cyl nelson piquet that unit was hard work but the thing did what it had to do,was there in the 80's at brands hatch lovin it for many years and up to silverstone,mansell :-),all one saw were glowing turbines's in the sidepods,its all gone now F1 is so boring havent watched it its utter crap.
[/quote]
Hi the red lola is the same as the one from the ch4 documentary,the ausi was Alan Jones!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwbqRcKFyL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unaNXrILig4&fea...
[/quote]
Hi the red lola is the same as the one from the ch4 documentary,the ausi was Alan Jones!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwbqRcKFyL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unaNXrILig4&fea...
PhillipM said:
Not really, if the power is limited you end up like WRC engines where they run immense boost levels down low and complex turbo setups in order to get that 300bhp limit as far through the rev range as they can.
That's not cheap.
....and that why BTCC are restricting boost presure and not fitting restrictors. Aslo as BTCC use common data logging systems its very easy for officals to check for overboosting. That's not cheap.
Chris.
Every time i see pics of that type of formula car it just reminds me what massive "bol**ks" the guys driving them must have had! the engines look massively powerful, and chassis' mostly look like someone knocked them up in their shed......... Massive turbo lag and power, massive fat rear tyres, huge downforce, huge speed and lateral G, and only a bit of 18gauge ally between the driver and what ever he hit, almost certainly at some significant speed 
Max_Torque said:
Every time i see pics of that type of formula car it just reminds me what massive "bol**ks" the guys driving them must have had! the engines look massively powerful, and chassis' mostly look like someone knocked them up in their shed......... Massive turbo lag and power, massive fat rear tyres, huge downforce, huge speed and lateral G, and only a bit of 18gauge ally between the driver and what ever he hit, almost certainly at some significant speed
from what i have heard they ran very little downforce compread to modern cars. I saw a program where Hamilton drove an old turbo'ed car. He LOVED it for the few laps he did,but said that they where much hard and more dangerous machines back then! must be pretty nervracing if you managed to spool the turbo(s) at the appex and lit the rear tires up! Chris.
i suspect looking at the aero features on those cars, that even if the absolute level of downforce was less than a modern F1 car (and i suspect that it wasn't as they weren't forced to have a plank under the car to kill the ground effect back then??) i bet the "downforce vs yaw" gain was frankly lethal! (i.e. very little attempt to keep the wings working if the car started to yaw and the air started to flow transversly across the aero features, whereas modern cars have all sorts of bargeboards and flaps to try to keep the air going straight over the cord of the wings all the time.) i.e. straight line = hundreds of kg of downforce, 5deg of yaw = probably positive downforce, i.e. lift, which all equals a big accident...... 
It interesting to see they all have pre-compressor throttles (and one has a very nice quartic twist throttle!!) to try to maximise shaft rpm during shifts / lifts etc! Must have playyed hell with the compressor oil seals, but i guess an f1 race is pretty short, and the odd puff of oil being burnt wasnt the end of the world??
Max_Torque said:
It interesting to see they all have pre-compressor throttles (and one has a very nice quartic twist throttle!!) to try to maximise shaft rpm during shifts / lifts etc! Must have playyed hell with the compressor oil seals, but i guess an f1 race is pretty short, and the odd puff of oil being burnt wasnt the end of the world??
yeah i wondered why thye would put the throttle there. Guess it also eleviates the need for a BOV saving weight and chance of it failing. I wonder what the engines would look like if the rules then where used today with todays better tech?.......Chris.
Edited by chuntington101 on Friday 1st October 12:46
Just thought I would add this
A few years ago, (1993) I went to a talk by Geoff Goddard, then Cosworth’s chief engine designer. He said the power levels achieved by the turbo cars were due to the fuel. There was no way even anything like normal petrol/avgas would allow the boost required to deliver that specific fuel output. It was thought to be 80% toluene, and was the reason why the fuel men were suited up big style and filled the cars in the pits when everyone else had been cleared off- if they had any sense. I saw this for myself at Silverstone GP when paddock marshalling in 1985.
It was also said they could not believe the power that Renault were getting from the v10’s in ’92. It was thought (only thought) that the power was got from treating the fuel with some very weird radiation effect, that tweaked the carbon bonds, so that some of them carried more hydrogen with them (!) and so it had a much higher calorific value. – No I don’t understand how it works either... this was surmising as they learnt that the French had a nuclear research facility just down the road from the Elf research facility. Does anyone know if this is true?
Renault didn’t let the fuel out of their sight. In addition, every single drop was accounted for, no drips, nothing. It certainly didn’t smell like normal fuel.
A few years ago, (1993) I went to a talk by Geoff Goddard, then Cosworth’s chief engine designer. He said the power levels achieved by the turbo cars were due to the fuel. There was no way even anything like normal petrol/avgas would allow the boost required to deliver that specific fuel output. It was thought to be 80% toluene, and was the reason why the fuel men were suited up big style and filled the cars in the pits when everyone else had been cleared off- if they had any sense. I saw this for myself at Silverstone GP when paddock marshalling in 1985.
It was also said they could not believe the power that Renault were getting from the v10’s in ’92. It was thought (only thought) that the power was got from treating the fuel with some very weird radiation effect, that tweaked the carbon bonds, so that some of them carried more hydrogen with them (!) and so it had a much higher calorific value. – No I don’t understand how it works either... this was surmising as they learnt that the French had a nuclear research facility just down the road from the Elf research facility. Does anyone know if this is true?
Renault didn’t let the fuel out of their sight. In addition, every single drop was accounted for, no drips, nothing. It certainly didn’t smell like normal fuel.
A few interesting pics and bits of information in this article about the Cosworth GBA:
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletyp...
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletyp...
chuntington101 said:
Max_Torque said:
It interesting to see they all have pre-compressor throttles (and one has a very nice quartic twist throttle!!) to try to maximise shaft rpm during shifts / lifts etc! Must have playyed hell with the compressor oil seals, but i guess an f1 race is pretty short, and the odd puff of oil being burnt wasnt the end of the world??
yeah i wondered why thye would put the throttle there. Guess it also eleviates the need for a BOV saving weight and chance of it failing. I wonder what the engines would look like if the rules then where used today with todays better tech?.......Chris.
Edited by chuntington101 on Friday 1st October 12:46
Gompo said:
A few interesting pics and bits of information in this article about the Cosworth GBA:
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletyp...
Interesting article, one question though, what is gelled toluene? I know what toluene is but I've never heard of gelled toluene.http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletyp...
being a40year old,i was lucky enough to have seen the turbo era,it was my favourite era of f1 by far.those 1500cc turbo's did give amazing power,bmw powered brabham was meant to produce 1200hp for qualify laps,about 850 in race trim.amazing fact the engine block was from a production 1500cc bmw saloon which they stood outside to weather a bit until surface rust appeared then modified it for use.
renorti said:
amazing fact the engine block was from a production 1500cc bmw saloon which they stood outside to weather a bit until surface rust appeared then modified it for use.
Always wondered if that was an urban myth or not. There are similar stories floating around regarding the Nissan RB26 blocks used in GpA racing.Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff