F1 Turbo Engines for 2013

[sportsman]

Re: Turbos for 2013

Ground effects.I was watching F1 in the eighties when ground effects made there first appearance.
Firstly, I hope we don't have those horrible skirts again.Always made me think of my old gran going to market.

Secondly is how will todays drivers get on with these cars. G/E cars don't take kindly to kerbing.They are very likely to break "stuction" over kerbs with spectacular results.

 

[MajorDanby]

I don't understand why they would want to bring back ground effect cars. They were banned for safety reasons and I can't see how the inherent danger has changed.

Reading the article again, with them talking about ground effect cars, I am not sure they mean a return to the sliding skirts of the eighties. I think they are just talking about increasing downforce contributions from the diffuser and floor.

Still seems there would be a problem with the drivers getting rattled to bits though

 

[F1Yorkshire]

Maybe the Tyrrell twin chassis car may make a return.

 

[Wombcat]

Maybe the Tyrrell twin chassis car may make a return.

Tyrrell?
I'm pretty sure it was Lotus who had a twin chassis car. That never raced.

 

[Brogan]

Maybe the Tyrrell twin chassis car may make a return.

Tyrrell?
I'm pretty sure it was Lotus who had a twin chassis car. That never raced.

That's correct.

At the 1981 Long Beach (United States West) GP, a protest was lodged by a majority of the teams over the new twin-chassis Lotus, although they did not specify what rules it contravened. The car was initially approved by the FIA and passed by the scrutineers, enabling it to take part in Friday practice. However, the appeal was upheld and the car was banned, forcing Lotus to use their conventional chassis for qualification and the race.

 

[Enja]

Wonder what the 2013 engines will sound like?

Oh and 650hp is a piddly number for a turbocharged F1 engine. And why? Just build a set of reasonable parameters and let the engineers come up with what they want?

Want your turbo engine to be really efficient but down on power? Well sure!

Want to build a behemoth of an engine that spews power but uses up a load of fuel? Go ahead!

Want to blend the two! Be my guest!

 

[sportsman]

Methinks that won't happen.

"In a bid to further increase F1's green credentials, teams are also keen for there to be a fuel flow rate limit - which will ensure the engines are economical.

Williams technical director Sam Michael said: "Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre - so you won't be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

 

[Enja]

Of course it won't, wishful thinking

 

[Flood1]

The engine will likely be a twin turbocharged 1.6L 4 cylinder with Kers. The turbo boost is expected to be around 3 bar in order to reach a BHP of 500 to 550. RPM's will be limited to approximately 10,000 to 11,000. The Kers output is expected to be 112kw (150 HP) and the battery storage is expected to increase to 2200 kJ. Quite frankly, I find those storage capacities to be a bit hard to believe. I doubt that the current batteries have that kind of capacity. If true, Kers would supply 150BHP for 24 seconds. If so, the car would have a maximum combined power of around 650 to 700 BHP.

Regarding the battery storage capacity, I think the more likely option would be to allow unlimited recharges and usages rather than the current limits based on total power available per lap. Storage capacity could be much lower if there were no per lap limitations on usage, and current battery design and capacity would probably suffice.

Further thoughts are on the blog: http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/09/ ... lood1.html

 

[Brogan]

The engine will likely be a twin turbocharged 1.6L 4 cylinder with Kers. The turbo boost is expected to be around 3 bar in order to reach a BHP of 500 to 550. RPM's will be limited to approximately 10,000 to 11,000. The Kers output is expected to be 112kw (150 HP) and the battery storage is expected to increase to 2200 kJ. Quite frankly, I find those storage capacities to be a bit hard to believe. I doubt that the current batteries have that kind of capacity. If true, Kers would supply 150BHP for 24 seconds. If so, the car would have a maximum combined power of around 650 to 700 BHP.

Ugh! <shudders>

A max RPM of 11,000?! It's going to sound like a bloody tractor!

 

[sportsman]

I very much suspect that I will be in a minority of 1 with my opinion.

I welcome all of these proposals with open arms.Especially those relating to chassis design.
If adopted they will allow real slipstreamng and in combination with steel brakes and hopefully 18" tyres overtaking will be a realistic possibility.
On the subject of engines and limited revs, to my ears the sweetest engine sound comes from a straight 6 racing engine at about 8000 rpm.
But I fully accept that this is probably related to my advanced years.
This very much reminds me of the huge changes in F1 in the 60's.That was when the migration of the engine was from the front to the rear of the car.
Enzo was was most voiceferous in his oppostion to this development until his cars were being trounced by the rear engined cars.
If these proposals are implemented then F1 can truly call itself the "pinnacle of technology" which isn't at present.

Its a great article.There is a great deal of research in writing an article such as this.

 

[Wombcat]

The engine will likely be a twin turbocharged 1.6L 4 cylinder with Kers. The turbo boost is expected to be around 3 bar in order to reach a BHP of 500 to 550. RPM's will be limited to approximately 10,000 to 11,000. The Kers output is expected to be 112kw (150 HP) and the battery storage is expected to increase to 2200 kJ. Quite frankly, I find those storage capacities to be a bit hard to believe. I doubt that the current batteries have that kind of capacity. If true, Kers would supply 150BHP for 24 seconds. If so, the car would have a maximum combined power of around 650 to 700 BHP.

Ugh! <shudders>

A max RPM of 11,000?! It's going to sound like a bloody tractor!

11,000 RPM is about what they had in the 70s.

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

If adopted they will allow real slipstreamng and in combination with steel brakes and hopefully 18" tyres overtaking will be a realistic possibility.

Can i just ask why you would want steel brakes back in?

if its for the reasons i think i.e longer braking distances. Then i believe it makes not one jot of difference and its a common misconception.

im not too clued up on brakes, but the reason corbon brakes are used is more todo with weight and tyres rather then literally shorter braking distances and that steel brakes could give the same performance in terms of braking distances.

for some resaon Frank Dernie pops up in my head it might of been him explaining it somewhere.

sorry just something i picked up on

If it isnt what i thinking tho i would love to hear why. Never understood brakes and why some could better then others (materials and stuff), and I don't like not understand things in F1


Annyhow. I just wish F1 enignes would be a little more powerful and i sincerely hope F1 regs allow for ground effect to stop F1 cars being so aero reliant and not just have a very minimal effect. As for safety hopefully with the modern day rules being so tight and with Aero presumably having more prominence then in the 80's. The regulations could be made so the stalling that was big reason of Ground effect being banned could be prevented or at least the effects not so detrimental to the car.

 

[Flood1]

Hi Moda, I don't think we have talked. Carbon brakes are lighter and that's an advantage. But they must be used agressively, stood on very hard, or they will glaze over. So the technique is to just mash them as hard as you can. The true measure of braking power is the point at which the brake overcomes the force of the grip of the tires. Then, lockup occurs.

Steel can be feathered by gentle braking and can be warped by overdoing braking. They can easily be overheated, so drivers must be very careful. As such, the driver has more responsibility. Errors under braking are more likely.

But, most of all, steel rotors cost about 10% of carbon ones, and carbon does not improve the racing. They are unnecessary.

 

[sportsman]

Ground effects had nothing to do with wing stalling or even wings for that matter.
Ground effect was to generate a low pressure area under the car essentially creating a "suction" which stuck the car to the ground.
To create this effect the cars were run very low to the ground with sliding skirts to prevent any of of the ducted air escaping from the sides.
It was banned because the moment that this suction was broken, which could be caused by simply hitting the kerb to hard the car became uncontrollable and resulted in many accidents.

This explains it quite well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_cars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
Thats all.

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

Yh sportsman that was what i meant.

Thought was considered a stall in itself even though obviously works different to an aerodynamic stall, because the sudden loss of most of downforce the 80's cars generated.

right idea wrong terminology.

And thanks flood for the heads up on brakes. One thing i didn't realize is how different the style of braking is, thought or rather presumed that at F1 levels the steel brakes would be similar to the 'mash them hard' style.

 

[sportsman]

This is worth a read.There is a link on this thread.
This type of downforce would be very effective without the inherent dangers.


Chassis – The one thing of note that I have seen regarding the chassis is the possible return to ground effects. Many people fear that this may signal a return to the type of cars that were banned in the '80s. Those cars had zero-travel suspensions, ground hugging skirts, and a very unpredictable and dangerous nature. That's not what I expect in the new generation of F1 car.


Instead, I expect to see a conventional looking car with a curved bottom. It will produce a venturi effect and provide about 60% of the total downforce. I would expect to see the wing size reduced and the shapes simplified. I suspect it will be a lot like the DP-01 that was used by Champ Car in 2007. The car will be safe and predictable

http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/09/ ... lood1.html

 

[Porceliamone]

I'm afraid after the morning I've had I have nothing positive or constructive to say at all about the proposed regulations for 2013. F1 cars with 500-600bhp? We already have that, it's called GP2. The proposals turn me right off - which is what I'll do if they go ahead. Anyone actually heard the sound of the turbocharged 2-litre GP3 cars live? I have and frankly they sound rubbish. I've heard better sounding Citroen Saxo's thrashing it down the road.

 

[MajorDanby]

Carbon breaks are used for serval reasons.

As has already been stated, being lighter is the major reason. They are very difficult to overcook and run at higher temperatures that other ceramic brakes.

Carbon/Carbon has a much high coefficient of friction that carbon / steel pad systems, the extra friction generates more heat, resulting a greater retardation force. If you remember from you school physics classes the kinetic energy of a car is (energy cannot be made or destroyed, only changed) reduced by energy transfer, in the case of brakes, the kinetic energy of the car is transformed into heat through friction.

Therefore the more heat generated by the brakes, the more effective the breaks are. Carbon brakes start working effectively at around 600 C, and by 800 C are in their prime working zone. They will start to degrade at around 2000 C. Therefore they can withstand a huge amount of energy, and can quickly and effectively stop the car.

Steel brakes fade at the temperature Carbon brakes start to work at.

Also, I have to ask the question, are Carbon brakes really more expensive than steel ones? Initially, yes of course. Carbon brakes work for the entire GP weekend though, including all practise and qualifying and race.

Steel brakes would have to be changed much much more frequently. I remember reading an excerpt about LeMans stating that the Mazdas changed their carbon brake pads once, as opposed to 17 times for the steel clad porches.

 

[Grizzly]

The engine will likely be a twin turbocharged 1.6L 4 cylinder with Kers. The turbo boost is expected to be around 3 bar in order to reach a BHP of 500 to 550. RPM's will be limited to approximately 10,000 to 11,000.

Something here doesn't sound quite right.

This is just my own take on those numbers with a little attempted justification as to why one or more of those figures, revs/boost/hp sound wrong or misquoted.

Current engines - 8 cylinders, 2400cc, 18krpm = Estimated 600 - 650hp

Proposed engine - 4 Cylinders, 1600cc, 11krpm + 3 Bar = Estimated 500 - 550hp???

Assuming a similar VE.

Capacity: 1600/2400 = 2/3 = ((650/3)*2) 433

Revs: 18/11 = ((433/18)*11) = 265

Leaves you with a rough estimate figure of 265hp @ 11 000rpm. Naturally Aspirated.

Without any of the above, a reasonable estimate for a 1600 race engine at 11 000rpm IMO would be 250 - 300hp and the simple maths downgrading the current engines back that figure.

Now, pump 1 Bar (double atmospheric pressure) through it and i would be very disappointed if i did not reach the quoted 500 - 550hp with that alone (265 * 1.9 (assumes 10% loss in VE) = 503), hence my earlier assumption that boost levels will be limited to 1 - 1.5Bar, because it is my educated guess that teams and the FIA would intend to keep similar power levels to today.

Pump 2 Bar through that engine and i would be expecting somewhere in the region of 700 - 750hp. (265*1.9 + 265*0.8 (assumes further 10% drop in VE) = 715)

Pump 3 Bar though that engine and 900hp plus is on the cards. (265*1.9 + 265*0.8 + 265*0.7 (assumes further 10% drop in VE) = 900)

Remember the Renault engines were making way over my 900hp figure with 3 Bar, 12krpm, 100cc less capacity and two more cylinders. A pretty comparable, now over 20 year old design.

I think it most likely the boost numbers are way over estimated, but i would love someone to prove me wrong!

Apart from the strange numbers there are other interesting factors. The engines stroke will be optimised to the target 11krpm peak power which will result in a much much larger torque peak for the same hp figure we have today, so not knowing the torque figures for current engines, assuming say 200lbft @ 18k i would expect around 300 - 350lbft with the same hp at 11krpm.

Tell me this is....