68 replies to this topic

[scolbourne]

With current technology road cars do not use gas turbine hybrids  because of price, reliability, fuel economy, and not meeting the customers needs.

All of these problems will be fixed in the near future.

Price: It is possible to 3d-print the engine in titanium and this has already been achieved. Expect turbine prices to drop.

Reliability: With air bearings, and a good filter this should not be a problem

Fuel economy: A turbine in ideal circumstances will be more economical than a piston engine.

Customers needs: Old turbine car s drove with gearing , and were not responsive to the throttle. Future turbine cars will be hybrids using a gas turbine running at optimum speed to drive a generator , charging a super capacitor or battery which then powers electric motors. For short journeys the turbine would not be needed and battery power would be sufficient.

 

I would like to see Formula 1 car racing, using turbines to help push the technology. To set a standard some teams could use V12 piston engines, so we get the sound craved by the spectators, whilst the big car companies are developing the turbines which will eventually power their road cars. Each year allowed fuel would be reduced to encourage economy (while still having to beat the V12 cars). Ideally we could have teams running one or more of each type of car.

Edited by scolbourne, 30 January 2018 - 00:01.

[scolbourne]

https://www.wrightspeed.com/technology

 

There is one company that actually is using micro gas turbine hybrid powertrain for commercial vehicles. It is interesting to know that it is a company owned by co-founder of Tesla, Ian Wright. The company is called Wrightspeed Range-Extended Electric Powertrains. They have really worked around this concept and getting it to reality. So in the near future you would see gas turbine hybrid vehicles around.

[Wuzak]

Fuel economy: A turbine in ideal circumstances will be more economical than a piston engine.

 

Not actually true.

 

Large gas turbines, like those used in power plants, have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range. Small turbines have quite a bit lower efficiency. Micro-turbines (which are in the power range used by cars, trucks and buses) can have efficiencies as low as 25%.

 

Piston engines can have higher efficiencies, such as the Toyota Prius engine, or the current F1 engines. 

 

Piston engines running at constant speed can also be optimised, leading to higher efficiencies.

 

The advantage of micorturbines for the hybrid vehicle is that they tend to be smaller and lighter for their output, and do not require a cooling system. They also can use different fuels.

 

The company that made the turbines for the Jaguar C-X75 show car was http://www.bladonjet...micro-turbines/.

 

Edited by Wuzak, 29 January 2018 - 05:35.

[DrF]

Anything which reduces the number of moving parts in any propulsion system will also improve the reliability and running costs.

Just had a hybrid car serviced. Nearly 400 quid. Everything was the IC engine. Everything. Even the brake pads last longer with regenerative braking.

Gas turbine range extension is fine while we wait for the right battery/electrical storage system but the real holy grail is full electric with useful range.

I'd like to see electrified race tracks where cars can charge themselves as they race

https://www.autocar....ur-electric-car

Currently (scuse the pun) you can't charge cars at high speed, but that's where Research and Technology in F1 will benefit all of us.

This is the kind of technology which will finally wean us off fossil fuel. In the mean time bring on the gas turbine!

Edited by DrF, 29 January 2018 - 07:34.

[scolbourne]

If the turbine cars are going to keep up with the benchmark V12's they would need to provide the same order of power ie  500kW which will allow higher power via the electric motors from battery reserves and regen from braking. Hopefully efficiencies in fuel use will be gained by competition.

[scolbourne]

https://www.wbdg.org...s/microturbines

 

MICROTURBINE EFFICIENCY Configuration Efficiency Unrecuperated 15% Recuperated 20–30% With Heat Recovery Up to 85%

(Courtesy of California Distributed Energy Resources Guide on Microturbines)

[Kalmake]

F1 is not going to have this ever. They are looking backwards and compromising with fans.

 

Le Mans is more realistic. If someone wants to race one I'm sure ACO will BoP it in.

[scolbourne]

F1 is not going to have this ever. They are looking backwards and compromising with fans.

 

Le Mans is more realistic. If someone wants to race one I'm sure ACO will BoP it in.

Thats why I suggest also having the V12's.   Should keep all fans happy that way.

[Kalmake]

Sorry I missed that part.

 

I would be extremely unhappy if F1 became a BoP series.

[7MGTEsup]

Just had a hybrid car serviced. Nearly 400 quid. Everything was the IC engine. Everything. Even the brake pads last longer with regenerative braking.
 

 

I have heard from people with Hybrid/electric cars that they have had large bills for brake replacement when they come to the first MOT after 3 years. The discs are all corroded and sliders seized from lack of use because of the regen braking.

[scolbourne]

I have heard from people with Hybrid/electric cars that they have had large bills for brake replacement when they come to the first MOT after 3 years. The discs are all corroded and sliders seized from lack of use because of the regen braking.

 

I thought the brakes would still be used for actally stopping. There was the opposite  problem with the high speed  trains in England using regen braking that their brakes were not up standard and were not safe, because when slow the regen braking did not provide enough braking. Was this problem with just one manufacturers car, or does it affect all cars with regen braking ?

[TennisUK]

If you think modern f1 cars sound lame, wait until you hear a gas turbine...

[jonpollak]

WOOSH..

Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 29 January 2018 - 23:36.

[scolbourne]

If you think modern f1 cars sound lame, wait until you hear a gas turbine...

Thats why I recommend that they have half the field using V12's. The contrast between the two types of cars should add to the atmosphere, and possibly their different power delivery will lead to more overtaking.

 

Edited by scolbourne, 30 January 2018 - 00:14.

[Wuzak]

https://www.wbdg.org...s/microturbines

 

MICROTURBINE EFFICIENCY Configuration Efficiency Unrecuperated 15% Recuperated 20–30% With Heat Recovery Up to 85%

(Courtesy of California Distributed Energy Resources Guide on Microturbines)

 

Note that "with heat recovery" means using the exhaust heat to warm a building or hot water.

 

Recuperation uses exhaust heat to increase the temperature of the air at the outlet of the compressor.

[RA2]

Would love to see this range extender tech in racing

 

Mitsubishi Turbocharger and Engine Europe Introduces RANGE+
Turbine Technology to Boost Affordability, Driving Distance, and Environmental Appeal of BEVs
Mitsubishi Turbocharger and Engine Europe B.V. (MTEE), a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group company, introduces the RANGE+, a power generator capable of rapidly charging the battery of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) while driving. It allows for fast recharging, increased driving distance and independence from recharging infrastructure.
With environmental norms expected to grow more stringent, MTEE, along with its partner Prodrive Technologies, has designed and developed the RANGE+ prototype as a range extender for BEVs focused on affordability and practicality.
“The RANGE+ solves many of the issues which are currently holding back consumers from purchasing BEVs,” said Bas Bonnier, General Manager Turbocharger Division, MTEE. “In back-up situations, the RANGE+ increases the driving range by charging the battery as you drive. And thanks to its multi fuel capability, a vehicle can be refueled in only few minutes,” he continued.
The RANGE+ prototype is based on proven turbocharger and gas turbine technology; it uses a gas turbine to drive a generator that charges the battery. In addition, its inherent high power-to-weight ratio and low number of parts allows compact, lightweight and cost-effective designs. Furthermore, BEV’s will be more affordable to manufacture and have a further reduced environmental footprint because, with the RANGE+, a smaller battery pack will be sufficient to power the vehicle.
Advanced combustion combined with the right matched turbocharger technology, leads to a low combustion temperature, and thereby low emissions. The future series production version of the RANGE+ will be designed with low NOx emissions and to comply with the SULEV 2025 (California) emission standard.
The target specification for the produced RANGE+ series is a 31% overall efficiency, which will generate 30kWe, sufficient to drive a passenger vehicle at 130km/h speed continuously.

https://www.mtee.eu/...17/09/RANGE.png

 

 

 

31% efficiency is very good point to start, racing will get this number much higher. When combined with a fully charged battery and ReGen braking it should be at the same level as a Prius but hopefully cheaper 

Edited by RA2, 30 January 2018 - 07:38.

[Wuzak]

This table in Wiki gives a sense of the efficiencies of different types of engine:

 

https://en.wikipedia...r_shaft_engines

 

Note, the only two open cycle turbines on the list are the Rolls-Royce Trent Marine Turbine, with 40.7% efficiency and 36.0MW output, and the General Electric LM6000, with 42.1% efficiency and 42.4MW output.

 

The current F1 engines are only below the big marine diesels and the GE combined cycle gas turbine (gas turbine + steam turbine), which has 62.6% efficiency and 605MW output.

[Wuzak]

31% efficiency is very good point to start, racing will get this number much higher. When combined with a fully charged battery and ReGen braking it should be at the same level as a Prius but hopefully cheaper 

 

The efficiency of the generator won't change with regen braking. The Prius engine as a range extender would still be far more efficient.

 

However, the Prius engine is heavier and requires more space and ancillaries. Plus there is the whole idea that you could use just about anything that burns in the turbine.

[Wuzak]

Interesting that they should say this:

 

 

Advanced combustion combined with the right matched turbocharger technology, leads to a low combustion temperature, and thereby low emissions. The future series production version of the RANGE+ will be designed with low NOx emissions and to comply with the SULEV 2025 (California) emission standard.

 

For efficiency I believe you want higher combustion temperatures with the turbine extracting as much energy as possible to have a lower exhaust temperature.

[pdac]

Thats why I recommend that they have half the field using V12's. The contrast between the two types of cars should add to the atmosphere, and possibly their different power delivery will lead to more overtaking.

 

 

But how do you decide which teams must use which type? We all know that, left to their own devices, F1 teams will always move towards one solution - all teams pretty much copy what the winning team are doing.

[scolbourne]

But how do you decide which teams must use which type? We all know that, left to their own devices, F1 teams will always move towards one solution - all teams pretty much copy what the winning team are doing.

I would allocate, assuming a total desired grid size of 26, 8 places reserved for each engine type  and then once those are filled allow the others to be as teams prefer. Championship points (and therefore payments) would be allocated with a percentage for the win overall and a percentage for the position for that engine type. To get maximum points from each race their would be an incentive for a team to race in both classes. The management would try to equalise the rules each year to balance the two classes , probably by fuel limits.

[Wuzak]

Using a gas turbine should placate those who desire more rpm....

 

Of course, using the electrical drive system would mean that the rpm remains constant.

[PayasYouRace]

I would allocate, assuming a total desired grid size of 26, 8 places reserved for each engine type  and then once those are filled allow the others to be as teams prefer. Championship points (and therefore payments) would be allocated with a percentage for the win overall and a percentage for the position for that engine type. To get maximum points from each race their would be an incentive for a team to race in both classes. The management would try to equalise the rules each year to balance the two classes , probably by fuel limits.

There’s enough people complaining about “2 tier” F1 now wi5out it being actually a 2 tier championship. Best leave everyone with the same rules and leave the multi-class racing to sports cars.

[scolbourne]

There’s enough people complaining about “2 tier” F1 now wi5out it being actually a 2 tier championship. Best leave everyone with the same rules and leave the multi-class racing to sports cars.

The two tier now is rich teams V poor teams ie fast v slow which nobody wants. I propose something more like we have had since the beginning until recently, which was NA v Supercharged.  I suggest giving points to the winner of both categories , but hope the racing can be balanced.

Even if not balanced it should be fun watching the two races unfold between the two groups of cars.

[PayasYouRace]

The two tier now is rich teams V poor teams ie fast v slow which nobody wants. I propose something more like we have had since the beginning until recently, which was NA v Supercharged.  I suggest giving points to the winner of both categories , but hope the racing can be balanced.

Even if not balanced it should be fun watching the two races unfold between the two groups of cars.

 

Equivalency formulae never work, and one always comes out better than the others. The last time it happened was when turbos came in, and after a few year's NA engines were abandoned. There were some transition years then when turbo's were banned, i.e. 1987 and 88. But nobody really cared about the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups in 1987 and in 1988 they were not awarded.

 

I think most watching F1 would prefer if everyone was building to the same rules.

[scolbourne]

Equivalency formulae never work, and one always comes out better than the others. The last time it happened was when turbos came in, and after a few year's NA engines were abandoned. There were some transition years then when turbo's were banned, i.e. 1987 and 88. But nobody really cared about the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups in 1987 and in 1988 they were not awarded.

 

I think most watching F1 would prefer if everyone was building to the same rules.

But many fans want NA engines and the manufacturers want something which relates to future road technology. I like variety, so want both. I am probably more suited to Le Mans style sports cars where they have many classes each with their own rules. I would like to see new technologies being pushed in F1 but I am rather bored of the turbos we have now.

[Henri Greuter]

But many fans want NA engines and the manufacturers want something which relates to future road technology. I like variety, so want both. I am probably more suited to Le Mans style sports cars where they have many classes each with their own rules. I would like to see new technologies being pushed in F1 but I am rather bored of the turbos we have now.

 

 

No offence intended but if you like to see new technologies being pushed in F1, I think the current PU's are quite an example of that. Maybe not because of all the indicidual components themselves being new innovations but the levels of performancece asked from it, and that in combination with all the other hardware of the PU, also pushed to the limit ia, at least for me still a challenge.

 

Other then that, I must agree with what has been stated by others in previous posts alreay. Allowing more options under an equvalency formula, history has proven several times that it is a receipy for disaster, sooner or later. I only have to think about what I saw at Indy in '94 of think about Keith Duckworth laughing away efforts with turbocharged engines against his V8 that for a long time didn't stand a chance much to his liking but once the tide turned he was moaning and complaining about how unfair the formula was now the shoe was on a different foot then his.....

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 January 2018 - 11:53.

[scolbourne]

No offence intended but if you like to see new technologies being pushed in F1, I think the current PU's are quite an example of that. Maybe not because of all the indicidual components themselves being new innovations but the levels of performancece asked from it, and that in combination with all the other hardware of the PU, also pushed to the limit ia, at least for me still a challenge.

 

Other then that, I must agree with what has been stated by others in previous posts alreay. Allowing more options under an equvalency formula, history has proven several times that it is a receipy for disaster, sooner or later. I only have to think about what I saw at Indy in '94 of think about Keith Duckworth laughing away efforts with turbocharged engines against his V8 that for a long time didn't stand a chance much to his liking but once the tide turned he was moaning and complaining about how unfair the formula was now the shoe was on a different foot then his.....

 

 

Henri

 

I did support the current design and do appreciate the advances that have been made and the efficiencies achieved but by 2020, I think many people will be ready for something else.

 

It is because we had the two engines choices that we had the chance to watch the turbos catch up and overtake the NA engines.

I would hope to see the turbines enter under fairly open rules and initially the V12's  would be winning. By the end of the season the turbines should be up to scratch and the rules will have to be tightened to prevent them running away with the series for the next year, probably start imposing fuel load limits to achieve this. I would initially like to see engine and drive train improvements allowed every race so we don't end up with the farce, when the current turbos were released and Mercedes dominated for the next few years. Gradual improvements over the season is much cheaper and more exciting to watch than allowing teams unlimited budgets to design an engine that is frozen (ruining all competition).

 

I would like and expect to see a totally different power source for the next engine in 2025 or whenever the 2020 rules expire.

Edited by scolbourne, 31 January 2018 - 12:21.

[Kalmake]

So basically normal BoP situation where it also becomes disguised success ballast. You get more mixed races and results, but it becomes impossible to honestly value or appreciate as a competition.

 

...in my opinion. Many people follow and even cheer teams in BoP series so I can't say it couldn't work. General audience probably prefers close racing regardless of how manufactured it is.

[scolbourne]

So basically normal BoP situation where it also becomes disguised success ballast. You get more mixed races and results, but it becomes impossible to honestly value or appreciate as a competition.

 

...in my opinion. Many people follow and even cheer teams in BoP series so I can't say it couldn't work. General audience probably prefers close racing regardless of how manufactured it is.

You do not balance between teams, only by power source. It might just be a case of saying V12's get 150 Kg of fuel . Turbines get 160Kg of fuel. The following year , you may reduce the turbines to 150Kg as well depending on the success they had in the previous year. Each team is still competing against all the others .

[Kalmake]

You do not balance between teams, only by power source. It might just be a case of saying V12's get 150 Kg of fuel . Turbines get 160Kg of fuel. The following year , you may reduce the turbines to 150Kg as well depending on the success they had in the previous year. Each team is still competing against all the others .

Like I said I'm not interested and I hope it never happens to F1.

[pdac]

I would allocate, assuming a total desired grid size of 26, 8 places reserved for each engine type  and then once those are filled allow the others to be as teams prefer. Championship points (and therefore payments) would be allocated with a percentage for the win overall and a percentage for the position for that engine type. To get maximum points from each race their would be an incentive for a team to race in both classes. The management would try to equalise the rules each year to balance the two classes , probably by fuel limits.

 

Ah, so just like now. Where Red Bull wanted shot of Renault, but they couldn't get a Merc PU as the Merc allocation was already taken. And then McLaren wanted shot of Honda, but they couldn't get a Merc PU because the Merc allocation was already taken. I see.

[scolbourne]

Ah, so just like now. Where Red Bull wanted shot of Renault, but they couldn't get a Merc PU as the Merc allocation was already taken. And then McLaren wanted shot of Honda, but they couldn't get a Merc PU because the Merc allocation was already taken. I see.

At least 18 cars would be able to use their preferred power source, and these do not have to come from the same engine manufacturer. Their would be lots of incentive to use the least preferred engine as it would be easier to get points that way. A team could race one of each type and get the full advantage in the manufacturers championship, although the cost may put off some teams but this should be made up for by the higher total points and payments.

Edited by scolbourne, 05 February 2018 - 05:06.

[Henri Greuter]

It reads to me as if a very complicated manner in order to achieve the ultmate dream of some out here: Get V12s on the grid come what may and whatever it takes......

 

 

Henri

[PayasYouRace]

At least 18 cars would be able to use their preferred power source, and these do not have to come from the same engine manufacturer. Their would be lots of incentive to use the least preferred engine as it would be easier to get points that way. A team could race one of each type and get the full advantage in the manufacturers championship, although the cost may put off some teams but this should be made up for by the higher total points and payments.

 

Sounds like it would not only be very expensive, but we could end up with champions coming from class B. Nobody likes that.

[scolbourne]

Sounds like it would not only be very expensive, but we could end up with champions coming from class B. Nobody likes that.

 

There is no class B. Both classes are adjusted to be as equal as possible ( at the start of the season). A driver would probably stick with one car type, but the team could get points from both car types.

[PayasYouRace]

There is no class B. Both classes are adjusted to be as equal as possible ( at the start of the season). A driver would probably stick with one car type, but the team could get points from both car types.

 

And you could potentially have drivers or constructors scoring more points by not winning overall.

[Ickx]

If unrealistic and unsuitable power generation is was we want, why not go for steam engines powered by beautiful clean coal? Nothing looks faster than a  powerfull steam locomotive and the cars are claimed to go by rails anyway. Diffrent coloured smoke could be used to indicate power mode/fan boost.  

[pdac]

If unrealistic and unsuitable power generation is was we want, why not go for steam engines powered by beautiful clean coal? Nothing looks faster than a  powerfull steam locomotive and the cars are claimed to go by rails anyway. Diffrent coloured smoke could be used to indicate power mode/fan boost.  

 

Anything that gives the spectator more insight into what the driver and car are doing at any particular moment would be most welcome, I feel.

[Henri Greuter]

There is no class B. Both classes are adjusted to be as equal as possible ( at the start of the season). A driver would probably stick with one car type, but the team could get points from both car types.

 

 

I inderstand the desire for variety of cars. I am fully behind the work on more effective engines too.

But unless you force a team to accept both options of engine and thus run two different kind of cars within the same team i can't see how this will work. No team will opt for one option and if it turns out it was the wrong option accept the fact they're stuck with what they got.

How to make two such entirely different kind of cars equal is another point that's beyond me for the time being. Certainly within open wheelers. Wit cars that have a much more volumosu kind of bodywork  to store hardware within it might be more easy to achieve.

 

Only if teams have entirely equal chances it might work: being: run both the turbine you envison as well as the crowd pleasing option.

But as I can see it, it is a very complicated and expensive formula you envision....

 

 

Henri

[scolbourne]

Balancing the two types of car would be as simple as changing the total fuel  allowance. I dont see this being any more expensive than the current engines, and it is potentially much cheaper as the whole 1.6 litre engine package including turbos etc. is replaced by one simple gas turbine. The hybrid electric side and kers will stay much the same.

For those teams who want the traditional V12 , I would say this is proven technology and most development has already been carried out, I expect all the designs already exist if we stick with the capacity as used before.

I recommend against trying to impose engine life rules as these just add to the expense and reduce the running through practice sessions at the detriment of spectator enjoyment. They also hold back engine development and are more likely to lead to one team running away with the championship.

 

Just ask yourself, if this was the engine formula for 2021 would you be more likely to follow F1 at the circuit and on TV than if we stick with the same 1.6l turbos.

[pdac]

Balancing the two types of car would be as simple as changing the total fuel  allowance. I dont see this being any more expensive than the current engines, and it is potentially much cheaper as the whole 1.6 litre engine package including turbos etc. is replaced by one simple gas turbine. The hybrid electric side and kers will stay much the same.

For those teams who want the traditional V12 , I would say this is proven technology and most development has already been carried out, I expect all the designs already exist if we stick with the capacity as used before.

I recommend against trying to impose engine life rules as these just add to the expense and reduce the running through practice sessions at the detriment of spectator enjoyment. They also hold back engine development and are more likely to lead to one team running away with the championship.

 

Just ask yourself, if this was the engine formula for 2021 would you be more likely to follow F1 at the circuit and on TV than if we stick with the same 1.6l turbos.

 

Do you not see that no one wants this except the fans. Fans are into the sport. Everyone else involved in F1 are into the business of making lots of money.

[Sterzo]

Just ask yourself, if this was the engine formula for 2021 would you be more likely to follow F1 at the circuit and on TV than if we stick with the same 1.6l turbos.

 

No, is the honest answer.

 

Nevertheless it's a fun topic to discuss. One part of your argument I can't relate to is the implication this is related to road car developments. Are any manufacturers or governments backing turbines as a future power source? I thought all the interest was in electric and hybrid.

[nickyvida]

Do you not see that no one wants this except the fans. Fans are into the sport. Everyone else involved in F1 are into the business of making lots of money.

Without fans there is no making money. Eventually if fans keep getting pushed away or turned off by the choices such as persisting with the 1.6L there will be a day when push comes to shove as the number continues to decrease

I have already quit watching F1 since they switched from NA engines to the abdomination we have today. And this is coming from someone who has gone or watched every grand prix live during the NA era.

[Wuzak]

Are any manufacturers or governments backing turbines as a future power source? I thought all the interest was in electric and hybrid.

 

The proposal was for a gas turbine hybrid system.

 

The turbine would run at constant speed and drive a generator. The wheels would be driven by electric motors. The generator would feed the drive motors or a battery/capacitor, depending on power demand.

 

The turbine probably won't be as efficient as an ICE, so would be down on power. However, the turbine would only need to produce the average power required on a lap. When the power demand is lower, the excess would be routed to the battery and when full power is required, the power from the generator would be augmented by the battery/capacitor.

 

The balance of performance would depend on how efficient the turbine could be made, compared to the N/A engine.

 

eg, if the turbine had an efficiency of 30% and the N/A engine 40%, their power would be 375kW and 500kW, respectively, based on a 100kg/h fuel flow and figures given by Andy Cowell a couple of years ago for fuel (=45MJ/kg). Depending on the circuit and how much full power is required, the turbine may be way off or reasonably competitive.

[Wuzak]

Without fans there is no making money. Eventually if fans keep getting pushed away or turned off by the choices such as persisting with the 1.6L there will be a day when push comes to shove as the number continues to decrease

I have already quit watching F1 since they switched from NA engines to the abdomination we have today. And this is coming from someone who has gone or watched every grand prix live during the NA era.

 

I doubt that changing to a N/A engine would make much difference in the viewing figures.

 

Meanwhile, have you tried holding your breath and stomping your feet until you get your way?

[nickyvida]

I doubt that changing to a N/A engine would make much difference in the viewing figures.

Meanwhile, have you tried holding your breath and stomping your feet until you get your way?

Your hypothesis either way. But i stand by the fact and which im sure many will agree that literally anything is better than the 1.6 we have now. Switching to NA will bring back at least those who quit due to the engine change rather than sticking with the status quo of turbo engines which was always flawed and a contributing factor of lowering viewing figures

Edited by nickyvida, 07 February 2018 - 02:53.

[scolbourne]

Gas turbines are very light, so for an electric car which only makes long trips occasionally they are perfect as a range extender. By using a light weight range extender, the cost and weight of required batteries is reduced , while still keeping the performance and range that is needed. I occasionally make long trips of 1000km - 3000km and charging a full electric car  would probably be very difficult. The turbine could be filled with fuel at any petrol/diesel station.

For short trips the extra weight of the turbine would have little effect on performance compared with the weight of a piston engine.

There is even talk of using turbines to power lap tops and phones , but I don't see this as something in the near future except for people working in very remote locations.

 

It might eventually be an option for F1 to have a third class of all electric to show the benefits of each power source. Each year the cars will get lighter (rather than heavier as we see now) as technology improves, and with sensible rules.

[scolbourne]

The proposal was for a gas turbine hybrid system.

 

The turbine would run at constant speed and drive a generator. The wheels would be driven by electric motors. The generator would feed the drive motors or a battery/capacitor, depending on power demand.

 

The turbine probably won't be as efficient as an ICE, so would be down on power. However, the turbine would only need to produce the average power required on a lap. When the power demand is lower, the excess would be routed to the battery and when full power is required, the power from the generator would be augmented by the battery/capacitor.

 

The balance of performance would depend on how efficient the turbine could be made, compared to the N/A engine.

 

eg, if the turbine had an efficiency of 30% and the N/A engine 40%, their power would be 375kW and 500kW, respectively, based on a 100kg/h fuel flow and figures given by Andy Cowell a couple of years ago for fuel (=45MJ/kg). Depending on the circuit and how much full power is required, the turbine may be way off or reasonably competitive.

They should have a low minimum for total car weight including fuel at the start of the race, so that a lighter power unit is an advantage (as in the real world for road use), The driver plus seat plus ballast would be fixed so as not to penalise heavier drivers too much. I expect turbines will become more efficient through competition.

[Wuzak]

They should have a low minimum for total car weight including fuel at the start of the race, so that a lighter power unit is an advantage (as in the real world for road use), The driver plus seat plus ballast would be fixed so as not to penalise heavier drivers too much. I expect turbines will become more efficient through competition.

 

They should not include fuel in the starting weight of the car.