12 replies to this topic

[pbrett]

Over the years I've seen lots of posts advocating ( or not ) the re-introduction of turbo charged engines in F1.

My question ( or debating point ) is this :-

Assuming the CC's were limited in the same proportion as before giving 1300-1400CC ( I'm guessing ) engines and all other rules as of today, would they be worth running ?

Specific areas I was thinking of are :-

1) Fuel. No special fuel any more so boost pressures can't be very high.

2) Traction control. How's that going to work without the risk of dumping all the boost and waiting many 1/10's seconds to build it up again.

3) General drivability. I've driven many turbo car's with 0.5's seconds lag. Not conducive to fast lap's compared with the same power out over a 'normal' engine.

Regards

Phil

[Limey]

Turbo charging was legal from the beginning of the 3 liter era in 1966. In other formula the factor was 1.4 not 2 as in F1.

It wasn't until Renault figured out how to get the same sort of power out of 1500cc turbocharged as 3000cc normally aspirated that the first turbo appeared. Then the dam gates opened.

After that the technology gains made them more powerful.

1. Without special fuel, they probably wouldn't be as powerful.

2. There are ways of keeping the turbos spinning and avoiding having to dump boost.

3. The engine management systems of the time minimised any lag and the rest was how the driver drove his car.

So if there is no advantage in turbo charging, its' unlikely that anyone would build turbo engines.

[Ickster]

As Limey mentioned, there are ways around some of the disadvantages posed by turbos, so I don't think that any of those would be a factor in using them should they be legalized again. However, I'm not sure what kind of power trade-offs there would be between a turbo 1.4 liter and a 3 liter atmospheric engine. Given the engine development since turbos were banned, there might not be a big difference, given the regular gasoline.

One positive might be development: would a turbo be cheaper to engineer than an 18,000 rpm atmospheric engine on a per HP basis?

[GunStar]

Few things about turbos. First, the NA engines also used to use special fuels. They've lost those as well. Second, the current tech for preventing turbo lag after they spin up is phenomenal now. They would deliver the power almost instantly (GTP style Pop-Off valves). Fourth, given the lag, they just step on it a little sooner.

Back in late 88, early 89, Prost and Senna were given the first new Honda NA engines. They were so used to turbos that they put the power down in the middle of the turn, and were spinning like a novice. They were so used to stepping on the gas and waiting a sec for the power.

In regards to HP vs. 18000 RPM for power, a 1.5L turbo running at 4bar is the equivilent of a 6L NA...or close to. When the turbo engine runs at 14000 RPM, it produces way more power. In 1986, BMW had their engine running at 1000+ HP in race trim. The qualifying engines went past the limit of their dyno.

[slipstream]

The Current NA F1 engines would have a big acceleration advantage over the Turbo charged engines used during the 1980`s. Those turbo engines may have had alot of power but they also had very bad turbo Lag and engine response. Coming out of a corner the NA car could get on the gas sooner and quicker and gain the advantage over the Turbo charged car and it would take a long straight for the Turbo charged F1 car to catch up and pass the NA F1 car.

[Real Estate Queen]

With current technology, IMO a 1.5 liter engine would deliver more power, more torque, and would be more compact and reliable than current NA engines. The importans issues would be fuel consumption and allowed boost, and also whether intercoolers were allowed or not. I also think that with the state of computer engine management technology, turbo lag wouldn't be much of an issue either.
Electronics and computers have become one of the most important parts of today's F1 engines. With the recent changes in regulations on this subject we can expect to see huge differences among the teams in terms of performance in about 6 months to one year, once they are able to digest the whole thing. Quite the opposite of FIA's original intention of having a more level playing field:down:

[MacFan]

Originally posted by slipstream
The Current NA F1 engines would have a big acceleration advantage over the Turbo charged engines used during the 1980`s. Those turbo engines may have had alot of power but they also had very bad turbo Lag and engine response. Coming out of a corner the NA car could get on the gas sooner and quicker and gain the advantage over the Turbo charged car and it would take a long straight for the Turbo charged F1 car to catch up and pass the NA F1 car.

Not sure this is true. If you compare turbo and NA-powered cars of similar power, the turbo car tends to have much more torque and significantly better acceleration. Also, as mentioned above, the technology to avoid turbo lag is now very sophisticated.

[slipstream]

I would agree that with modern technology the Turbo lag would be reduced but the NA engine would still have a wider poweband, a nicer torque curve, and quicker Engine response. I remember a few years ago Gerhard Berger was asked to compare the Turbo engines of the 1980`s with the 3.0 L NA Engines used today and he said that the NA F1 cars have quicker Acceleration but the Turbo F1 car would have a faster Top Speed. This interview was in 1997 so if anything the difference in Acceleration would be even greater today .

[Jon Allen]

How much more power would modern F1 cars need to be able to run significantly higher wing settings and still make good time on the straights? To phrase the question in a technically illiterate way (my specialty:rolleyes: ), for every degree of wing added, how many more HP would be required to reach the same speed on a given straight? Does this question even make sense?

It seems like if there is ever a return of turbo engines to F1, the FIA, based on their experience in the '80s, would find an equivalency formula that resulted in all the cars having roughly equivalent horsepower. I'm sure they intended that the first time as well, but we've all read about (and boggled at) the monstrous 1300-1500 HP "grenade" qualifying engines in that period, which was what - twice the output of the NA 3.0 litre V8s used then?

Much as I love reading about the legendary turbo era, it seems as if the current regulations have resulted in a more level playing field, and the cars are hardly power-starved.

[GunStar]

Slipstream, the interview with Berger was dealing with 80s turbos and 90s NAs. Think of a new turbo today. Much different in most respects to the stuff he drove. Even in the late 80s/early 90s, IMSA made serious leaps in turbo tech. Given the power curve of the turbos, yes they accelerate slower from 0-100kph, but from 100-200kph and above, the turbo is faster.

Mr. Allen, in a study done in the early 90s, Porsche found it takes about 3HP to drive their radio arrials at 100kph. Once they found that out, they made the passenger side rear view mirror optional. Those wings in F1 aren't so nice to the air. The faster they go, the more HP required, so I'd say about 40 to 50HP for all the wings. The tires add the most though.

[Jon Allen]

Hmmm, interesting. So, if the regulations were changed to allow for a turbo specification, do you think teams would jump on it, despite the potential drawbacks in acceleration, fuel economy, and reliability?

[GunStar]

Depends on the regs for them. How restricted would they be? That and fuel would be the most defining factors IMO.

[Top Fuel F1]

Having Turbos for the sake of having Turbos??? What would that buy you other than making the cars sound like sewing machines. In any event, even if this gave some advantage they are already worried about the F1 cars going too fast. By the way, CART is having a race this week end on a small high speed oval. The cars will have such substained speed that they will use what they call half turbos. That is using only the exhaust from half the cylinders to drive the Turbo. Some guy on RPM2DAY said the sound would be spectator unfriendly. Give me a break!

Rgds;