Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wings or ground effect?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#51 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 September 2013 - 13:15

...comes back to the argument that it's always horses for courses...where and how you race will determine what equipment you use. The bottom line in engineering is determined by cost, practicability, what is available and how far you want to take an idea, there is always the optimal crossover point of pros and cons. Why limit your fan to a fixed ratio to say, engine rpm? why be tied to a single engine (see Brabham fan vs. Chapparal), why be limited to a reciprocating engine, after all the quote was completely free regs.[/size]
If one uses, say a fan-jet engine, the by-pass could be used to evacuate the under car plenum, thus providing downforce, whilst the central spool drives the wheels, if you take the drive mechanically to the wheel, it could be a pure thrust car, or the turbine could turn a generator that in turn would drive separate in-hub motors computer controlled to work at the limit of slip in each individual wheel, possibly with individual steer to improve handling, effectively a real drive-by-wire, with the computer changing parameters to make car follow a driver determined trajectory. Think big... :cool:[/size] [/size]
 
The spectre of car performance outstripping human physical capability will always be a barrier, we were coming close to it in the skirted ground effect cars, if only on the non-assisted steering of the time, plus the lateral and longitudinal G forces being developed, think the evolution of fighter planes, from fly-by-wire to the ultimate (well, for a while) transition to drones and missiles. Thanks to Moore's law, the silicon side of engineering will very quickly outstrip the evolution driven development of this all too mortal flesh. Yikes, we are sliding into philosophical ground here... :eek:[/size] [/size] [/size] [/size]


I think you are right - it would be all fly-by-wire - it didn't occur to me before you said it. But the basic car - fully enclosed wheels - enclosed cockpit - probably 1500/2000BHP - fan car (very high suction) - 4 wheel drive - very wide tyres - possibly variable wings/ground effect stuff - and all the drive by wire stuff you mentioned.

As for "predictive" - I have always assumed that the fully automatic F1 cars (when was that? I recall Michael Andretti at McLaren drove his car fully automatic) must have "known" where they were on the circuit by some circuit mapping method.

Or would a "no-rules" car be ultra simple - maybe very much like a current F1 car - but with a 5 or 6 litre (or whatever) engine giving over 1500BHP - maybe variable-cammed, extra gears - and even lighter than current F1 cars. The type of car might be changed for a particular circuit.

When you think about it, it is not surprising that F1 does actually have fairly strict rules.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 14 September 2013 - 13:25.


Advertisement

#52 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 September 2013 - 14:37

One should remember that racing aerodynamics was in it's infancy in the early 80s, rudimentary wind-tunnels and no CFD.

 

Modern day venturis would be outright awesome.



#53 Keith Young

Keith Young
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 14 September 2013 - 15:18

For an idea of what an unregulated car would look like, check out the Gran Turismo Red Bull x2011.



#54 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,734 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 September 2013 - 16:12

Before one talks too much about ground effects as a modern thing, let's have a look at 1928=

bdd1.jpg

r4jo.jpg
:smoking:


#55 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 September 2013 - 17:57

WTF, are you serious, where did you find this stuff, it's like digging up the original tables of Moses?



#56 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,734 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 September 2013 - 18:49

Found it @ 1980 when researching venturis in ground effect. When discussing it with a friend, he did some more research and they published the result in Octane...it was CAD rendered and then CFD by totalsim, seems it would have worked reasonably well.

See more here.

 

Mr. Prevost explains his thoughts quite well in the article, so, once again, there is nothing new under the sun. As discussed in the thread, it is all a matter of finance, results and conditions at the time. Shall one mention Leonardo?



#57 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 September 2013 - 19:10

No reason to go back as far as Leonardo, but the sheer documentation, 40 years before Tony Rudd and 50 years ahead of Chapman and Ogilvie.

 

Can you give reference to the book?



#58 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,734 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 September 2013 - 19:26

It was in a letter to The Automobile Engineer, september 1928 edition. I had the sideview on my desk for many, many years, always thought it amusing. Having been addicted to mechanical pr0n, aviation and mechanics from a very early age, was always surprised at things turning up as cutting edge when they had been around for years. Example F-ducts....first saw it in The Scientific American in december 64 , the interesting thing was the eventual surfacing of it in F1 , as usual, driven by rules. The Coanda effect? Henri Coandă started experimenting with it in 1910, but it derived from a description by Thomas Young in a lecture given to The Royal Society in 1800. And so on...



#59 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 September 2013 - 19:42

I guess the general idea has been around since Bernoulli, as if anyone would recall that name today, but documenting the application on an automobile as early as 1928 is nothing but sensational.



Advertisement

#60 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 September 2013 - 20:24

For an idea of what an unregulated car would look like, check out the Gran Turismo Red Bull x2011.

Give it a floor to utilise ground effects and it might be.

 

Realisticly i suspect it would look more like a LMP prototype with a smaller drivers cabin.

 

Something like this.

http://lmpnone.files...jpg?w=644&h=404

http://lmpnone.files...jpg?w=644&h=404

http://lmpnone.files...jpg?w=644&h=404



#61 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 485 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 September 2013 - 00:03

Computer can drive it. Ugly meat bag need not compromise the ultimate design.



#62 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:05

Found it @ 1980 when researching venturis in ground effect. When discussing it with a friend, he did some more research and they published the result in Octane...it was CAD rendered and then CFD by totalsim, seems it would have worked reasonably well.

See more here.

 

Mr. Prevost explains his thoughts quite well in the article, so, once again, there is nothing new under the sun. As discussed in the thread, it is all a matter of finance, results and conditions at the time. Shall one mention Leonardo?

That is awesome! Thanks for sharing it with us.  :clap:



#63 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 September 2013 - 11:13

Regarding the "wing" car from 1928 - I have also seen a photo of a racing (or LSR?)car from about the same period where a large wing was mounted above the car - but it was the right way up - apparently intended to take some of the load off the tyres.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 15 September 2013 - 11:13.


#64 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:43

...comes back to the argument that it's always horses for courses...where and how you race will determine what equipment you use. The bottom line in engineering is determined by cost, practicability, what is available and how far you want to take an idea, there is always the optimal crossover point of pros and cons. Why limit your fan to a fixed ratio to say, engine rpm? why be tied to a single engine (see Brabham fan vs. Chapparal), why be limited to a reciprocating engine, after all the quote was completely free regs.

If one uses, say a fan-jet engine, the by-pass could be used to evacuate the under car plenum, thus providing downforce, whilst the central spool drives the wheels, if you take the drive mechanically to the wheel, it could be a pure thrust car, or the turbine could turn a generator that in turn would drive separate in-hub motors computer controlled to work at the limit of slip in each individual wheel, possibly with individual steer to improve handling, effectively a real drive-by-wire, with the computer changing parameters to make car follow a driver determined trajectory. Think big... :cool: 

 

The spectre of car performance outstripping human physical capability will always be a barrier, we were coming close to it in the skirted ground effect cars, if only on the non-assisted steering of the time, plus the lateral and longitudinal G forces being developed, think the evolution of fighter planes, from fly-by-wire to the ultimate (well, for a while) transition to drones and missiles. Thanks to Moore's law, the silicon side of engineering will very quickly outstrip the evolution driven development of this all too mortal flesh. Yikes, we are sliding into philosophical ground here... :eek:   

I believe fan offer variations, it would be a the eventual winner but I was exercising possibilities to mainstream. I mean, the advantage of a fan car off throttle having divert all that horsepower to the fan, say braking, entering, slightly fettling at mid corner and exit traction control diverts power to fan is just too immense yet having looking at that alternative, I can believe a car without fan can generate more downforce if sweetspots were to meet sweetspots


Edited by Powersteer, 16 September 2013 - 09:45.


#65 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 96 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 16 September 2013 - 20:16

For an idea of what an unregulated car would look like, check out the Gran Turismo Red Bull x2011.

 

you mean the car that was styled by Sony, to sell more copies of Grand Turismo?



#66 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 22 September 2013 - 10:09

A fan car witch active aerodynamics. By active aero I mean cooling inlets etc, aerodynamic brakes and winglets/small wings to automatically alter the balance from turn to turn. If the fan doesn't generate enough downforce for the fast turns, than make the wings bigger. Their impact on the straights would be minimal. Active cooling could reduce overheating problems to the minimum and optimize drag.

 

The fan would be powered by a separate engine. If for some reason we don't want to or can't use it, then replace it with proper ground effect underbody. Some active aero could probably be used there as well (to optimize the effect for different speeds, ride height etc). Active suspension would help as well.

 

The active wings could be used for a stability/traction control like effect. If the car starts to understeer or oversteer too much, alter the balance. If the rear wheels stat to spin too much, increase the rear wing AoA  With clever software and good enough sensors this could work. 

 

I did a mod for one of the racing simulators doing exactly the above. It actually worked surprisingly well given that the only way to detect what's going one with the car was by slip ratio of the powered wheels calculated from the difference of the cars actual velocity and the speed indicator readout. The car behaved a bit strange when pushed over the limit, but you could push harder. I really wonder how it would work out (or fail miserably) in real life with full telemetry and proper sensors. And a real racing driver :)



#67 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 22 September 2013 - 18:09

All this active everything is adding up on weight and if there is no limit to weight there will be som fairly simple designs out.

 

And 1000hp from a turbine into a Electric motor is just not competitive with say a Nitro fueled 1L charged engine north of 1000hp.



#68 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 22 September 2013 - 19:33

If it gives you significantly more laptime than you loose due to increased weight, then it's valid.



#69 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,543 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 September 2013 - 22:52

My old mechanic used to race off road trucks quite succesfully. That class has become 2 or 3 ton trucks with 400 hp, 24 inch shocks etc etc that add up to ~$150k machines. I am reminded that they are beaten on shorter races by $25000 single seaters with motorbike engines. Similarly, idle pub chatter suggests the fastest machine around Bathhurst would not be a V8 taxi or an f1, it would be a superkart.

 

My point is that racing series may well converge on a non optimal solution, particularly if it is relatively open ended. So those waving the flag for small light simple machines may well have a point.


Edited by Greg Locock, 22 September 2013 - 23:57.


#70 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 23 September 2013 - 09:52

It's a good point. I think it all comes down to finding the proper balance, which may be difficult when you have all the options you can think of available :)



#71 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 September 2013 - 16:36

Well lets narrow it down/add something to discuss.

 

My guessings.

 

Fuel: Probably a nitromethanol mix but with less nitro than in drag racing as you would have to carry a huge amount of fuel. runing nitromethane reduces/removes the need for radiators and big intercoolers as well as some weight and drag.

 

Engine: Straight four with turbo. Not sure about what power figures that would be considered sufficient but if 1k-1,5khp will do a 1L engine should be good for that on nitromethane (easily)

 

Main body shape: Fully closed cockpit not too far away looking from todays F1 cars. The seating would be as today or worse to cope with the G-forces. If say fan car as it would probably prove superior on most tracks. It would be a sleek looking car with no or little wings with main focus on drag as the underbody alone would do the trick for grip. And to be clear. The entire underbody would probably be a part of the fan operated system. No red bull looking car. In addition there is allways the possiblity to combine fan car with normal diffusers to make use of the added potential at higher speeds. Imagine a diffuser with gills/slots/valves to the fan above that gets closed of at high speed in a addition to a sliding panel to let the diffuser start working. This would let the fan work more efficient with the increased air coming in at the front. Having a fan capable for full speed would perhaps make it too heavy and big.

 

Rims would be designed in similar fashion to the 2009 wheels.

deh0912ma202.jpg

And the rest of the wheel would probably be fully enclosed and vented to aid in reducing drag and lift.

 

Brakes: In addition to the obvious carbon brakes there is some big air brakes/wings that gets hydraulically actuated by the otherwise "idle" engine. These could also get used for downforce/altering of balance in the corners.

 

The car could very well have 4WD and the driveshaft would go on the side of the driver.

 

The exhaust system would aid in generating downforce by assisting the fan in some way.

 

Active aero: 10kg+

4WD: 40kg+

 

Weight: 400kg. roughly the same as a Formula ford

Ford-Formula_2012_800x600_wallpaper_02.j


Edited by MatsNorway, 23 September 2013 - 17:10.


#72 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 23 September 2013 - 18:30

I'm not convinced about making it 4WD (even though I'm a fan of rally cars :) ). It never worked particularly well in formula racing. In a high downforce (especially fan assisted) with TC the added weight and compromised packaging/reliability could overweight the benefits.

 

The engine power would probably be limited by the distance the car has to cover. 1L Turbo with 1000-1500 HP suggests (very) short race distances, I guess. I wonder if NA engines could be considered - the V10s had up to 900 hp weighting only ~90 kg and were reliable enough. Turbo adds the need for intercoolers etc.

Fuel? I'm no expert but in the 80s they used in F1 dense fuel mixes, like 85% Toluene 15% nitromethanol. Smaller fuel tank equals better packaging, but what is the compromise compared to nitromethane? Do really nitromethane reduce the cooling requirements (interesting!)?

 

Using a fan to drive the underbody, I also thought about that. I'm not convinced about using the exhausts, because it makes the downforce throttle sensitive. A compromise that may not be needed in such a open formula.

 

Nice topic  :up:



#73 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 September 2013 - 18:40

Methanol dragsters dont run intercoolers :)

 

turbo banger is the way to go if piston engine at all.

Wankel could do the trick too.

4ROTARY_6105.jpg

 

Nitro got the potensial to double or more the power but the fuelusage goes throught the roof! And no.. they did not run nitro with those turbo engines.

 

The suggestion was not that the fan was powered by exhaust. But aided/assisted. off throttle blowing is a option. And if not you could allways just dump the fuel in the exhaust or other violent solutions. Think turbine made from turboes.

 

4WD or not is perhaps a question. But the more the power the more competitive it gets. 1000-1500hp does give 4WD quite the edge out of the corners.


Edited by MatsNorway, 23 September 2013 - 18:48.


#74 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,388 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 September 2013 - 22:20

Methanol dragsters dont run intercoolers :)

.

Methanol Indy cars do.



#75 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 September 2013 - 12:55

Methanol Indy cars do.

Got info on that. what year and so on. I have wondered why dragsters do not run it.



#76 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 September 2013 - 13:11

My old mechanic used to race off road trucks quite succesfully. That class has become 2 or 3 ton trucks with 400 hp, 24 inch shocks etc etc that add up to ~$150k machines. I am reminded that they are beaten on shorter races by $25000 single seaters with motorbike engines. Similarly, idle pub chatter suggests the fastest machine around Bathhurst would not be a V8 taxi or an f1, it would be a superkart.
 
My point is that racing series may well converge on a non optimal solution, particularly if it is relatively open ended. So those waving the flag for small light simple machines may well have a point.


I suspect the V8 would be faster than a Superkart and the F1 would be very much faster. The two long straights at Bathurst would suit the F1 (probably about 220mph down Conrod) and the V8 (185mph?) against the Kart's maybe 160mph(at best). The F1 maybe 30secs (or more) faster lap time?

#77 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 24 September 2013 - 18:29

How much miles/km do these dragster engines do between rebuilds?



#78 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 September 2013 - 19:26

I suspect the V8 would be faster than a Superkart and the F1 would be very much faster. The two long straights at Bathurst would suit the F1 (probably about 220mph down Conrod) and the V8 (185mph?) against the Kart's maybe 160mph(at best). The F1 maybe 30secs (or more) faster lap time?

http://www.250superk...UT250RACING.htm

 

http://www.southbayr...threads/121360/



#79 Fondles

Fondles
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 24 September 2013 - 20:21

I suspect the V8 would be faster than a Superkart and the F1 would be very much faster. The two long straights at Bathurst would suit the F1 (probably about 220mph down Conrod) and the V8 (185mph?) against the Kart's maybe 160mph(at best). The F1 maybe 30secs (or more) faster lap time?

 

FWIW the V8's get up to 298 km/h down Conrod Straight and a few years ago McLaren brought a slightly older model F1 car to Bathurst for a promotional thing and Button got down to a 1:40 I think. The best V8 time is 2:06.
I don't know anything about the Superkarts to comment on them.

 



Advertisement

#80 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 24 September 2013 - 21:13

SuperKarts are awesome, but I don't think they could beat F1 cars (unless the circuit would be really tight). Aren't their laptimes usually in F3 regions?

 

Though an idea of a very light and relatively low power and simple car as an alternative is interesting,

 

The McLaren Bathurst run was a demo run, I doubt the car had proper setup (also gear ratios) and was properly pushed.



#81 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,543 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 September 2013 - 23:03

The actual time in the F1 was 1'48 and Button reckoned he could get it down to 1'40



#82 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,543 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:16

Superkarts are faster round Phillip Island than taxis are, and of course are faster than any motorbike. I'm not sure how that translates into Bathurst times, but it seems likely that a development of a superkart might be in with a chance.


Edited by Greg Locock, 25 September 2013 - 02:38.


#83 jeremy durward

jeremy durward
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:37

Methanol Indy cars do.

When did they do that? All the indycars I've seen run the turbo just behind the engine blowing straight into the plenum with no intercooler. I thought that due to the methanol dropping the inlet temps an intercooler was not needed.



#84 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:51

All this stuff about comparing the lap times of various classes is very interesting but ultimately I think you can only compare like with like in the same class. You could say about the Superkart - "let's give it 600cc" (to raise the top speed - they are only 250cc after all), but then you could say "let's give the F1 car 3.5l and no rev limit and maybe variable wings". My favourite would be an Oz V8 Taxi with the full 5.9l Nascar block but with all the V8 Supercar electronics and no rev limit or CR limit (like Nascar) - the local cars would probably give over 1000 horsepower.
The only thing that surprises me in comparing different class lap times is how slow MotoGP bikes are - much the same as a Taxi (Nevertheless I prefer generally to watch MotoGP racing).

#85 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 26 September 2013 - 00:51

How much miles/km do these dragster engines do between rebuilds?

Here in the colonies they put new rods and pistons in after every run. That's even if nothing bad happens during the run.



#86 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 384 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:47

Here in the colonies they put new rods and pistons in after every run. That's even if nothing bad happens during the run.

 

Less than 1000 total engine revolutions I believe



#87 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:59

Less than 1000 total engine revolutions I believe


I have seen 400 to 450 revs mentioned.

#88 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,388 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:40

When did they do that? All the indycars I've seen run the turbo just behind the engine blowing straight into the plenum with no intercooler. I thought that due to the methanol dropping the inlet temps an intercooler was not needed.

Sorry, I think you are correct there. I am not sure if there were any intercooled cars in the modern era (apart from the current cars which run E85 fuel). I remembered Hugh MacInnes making a good case for intercooling Indycars in his 1978 book but the combination of low boost regulations (= low intake temperature) and liberal fuel consumption rules (which allowed lots of excess methanol for intercooling) combined to make intercoolers a marginal proposition.

 

OTOH there is no question that any high-boost methanol engine would benefit from an intercooler - in terms of both power output and fuel economy.



#89 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 27 September 2013 - 13:31

I have seen 400 to 450 revs mentioned.

 

Is that just revs spent at power (a second or so laying down rubber before the start, and the few seconds of the race itself), or does it also include the revs spent idling on the grid?



#90 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 907 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 September 2013 - 13:52

Is that just revs spent at power (a second or so laying down rubber before the start, and the few seconds of the race itself), or does it also include the revs spent idling on the grid?


Just the four and a half seconds of the race itself. 41/2 divided by 60 times the average race revs. Would seem to be a little more than 450 revs - 600 maybe?

Edited by Kelpiecross, 27 September 2013 - 13:53.


#91 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 October 2013 - 00:21

I think Peter Wright sort of answered some of these questions way back when he described his " perfect" F1 car.

 

1,500 bhp shaft gas turbine driving only rear wheels but 20" wide rear tyres with GE venturi's and wings. The venturi's had swing down fans to boost low speed downforce.

 

He estimated 6g plus IIRC but pointed out the driver coudn't take the G force and it would need refuelling too often.



#92 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,388 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 October 2013 - 03:11

The gas turbine would have sufficient airflow to blow the venturis and eliminate the swing down fans. For that matter, you wouldn't even need venturis, just a skirted perimeter evacuated by ejectors powered by turbine exhaust or just use the turbine inlet directly to evacuate the underbody.



#93 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:51

I think Peter Wright sort of answered some of these questions way back when he described his " perfect" F1 car.

 

1,500 bhp shaft gas turbine driving only rear wheels but 20" wide rear tyres with GE venturi's and wings. The venturi's had swing down fans to boost low speed downforce.

 

He estimated 6g plus IIRC but pointed out the driver coudn't take the G force and it would need refuelling too often.

 

Even the most advanced 1500hp turboshaft engine currently available would not be competitive on a road course against a modern 1500hp recip piston engine.  Turboshaft engines have very limited operating speed/load ranges.  Their speed range is usually limited to between 70% and 105% of rated speed, and the rate at which they can increase/decrease speed or load is quite limited by combustion stability. If speeds/loads are changed too rapidly the combustor will "flame out".  Turboshaft engines are also very easily damaged by the torsional impulse loads that would be produced by gear changes in an F1 drivetrain.



#94 Fondles

Fondles
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 11 October 2013 - 20:03

Even the most advanced 1500hp turboshaft engine currently available would not be competitive on a road course against a modern 1500hp recip piston engine.  Turboshaft engines have very limited operating speed/load ranges.  Their speed range is usually limited to between 70% and 105% of rated speed, and the rate at which they can increase/decrease speed or load is quite limited by combustion stability. If speeds/loads are changed too rapidly the combustor will "flame out".  Turboshaft engines are also very easily damaged by the torsional impulse loads that would be produced by gear changes in an F1 drivetrain.

 

No need to gear the turbine directly to the drivetrain, use a free turbine section with variable-pitch blades so the gas generator section can run at 100% all the time.

Though as you say, even with the very best of all that configuration it would still have only a fraction of the response of a petrol engine and so get beaten comprehensively.



#95 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2013 - 18:52

Even the most advanced 1500hp turboshaft engine currently available would not be competitive on a road course against a modern 1500hp recip piston engine.  Turboshaft engines have very limited operating speed/load ranges.  Their speed range is usually limited to between 70% and 105% of rated speed, and the rate at which they can increase/decrease speed or load is quite limited by combustion stability. If speeds/loads are changed too rapidly the combustor will "flame out".  Turboshaft engines are also very easily damaged by the torsional impulse loads that would be produced by gear changes in an F1 drivetrain.

A Williams-like CVT of the early 90s comes to mind. Oh F1 technology, where did you go, how could you desert us this way?

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=x3UpBKXMRto



#96 brakedisc

brakedisc
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:49

As the thread starter and since we seem to have exhausted the debate, here is a sketch and a model of what I fancy.

Carbon tub , (high nose in case we have to go to wings) bike engine, full ground effect with fully enclosed bodywork. Flaps on the tunnels, the fronts exit the sides to give some adjustment.

Calculations suggest under 400kg.

i5ws.th.jpg

5rzf.th.png

Edited by brakedisc, 28 December 2013 - 10:50.


#97 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 472 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 December 2013 - 04:03

Superkarts are faster round Phillip Island than taxis are, and of course are faster than any motorbike. I'm not sure how that translates into Bathurst times, but it seems likely that a development of a superkart might be in with a chance.

 

Formula Holden 23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png Simon Wills Reynard 94D Holden 1:24.2215 13 February 2000

Formula 3 23px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Tim Macrow Dallara F307 Mercedes-Benz 1:24.5146 21 September 2013

Superkart 23px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Russell Jamieson Anderson Maverick-DEA 1:28.1232 21 September 2013

Formula 5000 23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png Chris Hyde McRae GM1 Chevrolet 1:30.1205 9 March 2008

Formula Ford 23px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Anton De Pasquale Mygale SJ13a-Ford 1:35.8901 24 November 2013


Edited by NeilR, 31 December 2013 - 04:04.


#98 senna400

senna400
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 11 September 2014 - 18:04

People keep asking why F1 is so boring these days and nobody is going to the races, the reason is simple, the cars are boring and irrelevent.  The manufacturers want to showcase their road-going technology the problem is that their technology is boring everybody.  This is what I would do to F1 to make the cars more exciting and be able to race closely;

 

1. Wings Front 40% less downforce

2. Wings Rear 60% less downforce

3. Ground effects introduced to the underneath of the car to produce an overall of 50% of the car's total downforce

4. 17 inch wheels and lower profile tyres at the front

5. 20 inch wheels and lower profile tyres at the rear.

6. Wider rear tyres by 20%

7. Brake discs 30% smaller front and rear to make braking distances longer

8. Skid plates to make the cars spark over bumps

9. 15% smaller wheelbase

10. DRS banned

11. KERS banned

12. Launch control banned

13. Better/louder sounding engines by changing the exhausts/turbo

 

It's quite simple to fix but we all know the FIA or teams won't make these kind of changes because most of them are stupid :(



#99 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,076 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 11 September 2014 - 19:01

I don't get the numbers above. If you were to say "more" or "less" of each, then fair enough I guess, but you've pulled numbers out of <somewhere> and pasted them in as if those numbers meant anything. And the opening paragraph assumes "facts" not in evidence, i.e. that today's racing is boring, which it really isn't IMO. Or no more so at least than F1 has been or perhaps even should be if it is to be a technical as well as driving competition. If you want less "boring" the clear answer is spec cars drawn by random lot on Sunday mornings to equalize performance up and down the grid. No, thank you.

Advertisement

#100 senna400

senna400
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 11 September 2014 - 19:09

Tjhe numbers are based on the golden era of F1 1970's 1980's.  When cars have ground effects it allws for smaller wings as the car is generating downforce with the flow of air under the car rather than over the top.  This drastically reduces the hole in the air made by wings.  If ground effects we re-introduced it'd allow follwing cars to follow far more closely in corners.  A shorter wheelbase and bigger tyres would alow the cars to slide a bit more.  DRS, and overtake KERS are take the slill away from the deriver which is why the audiences are reduced this year.