The New Turbo Generation?
2013 should see new engine designs unless the FIA decide that the move is too costly. However, what form they will take is still very much open to debate. The FIA supported by the car manufacturers are keen to be more road relevant. The aborted KERS project was part of that plan and it could yet surface in the engine department with a move away from the normally aspirated units currently employed.
Turbo or Not Turbo?
One possible move (and which was discussed here some 18 months before one website this week claimed to have an exclusive) is a switch to turbo engines. However, before you start thinking about a return to the monsters of the late ’80’s, these could be very different beasts.
About two years ago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a small turbocharged engine fitted with direct fuel injection that matched the performance of current hybrid motors at a fraction of the cost. They also offered better fuel consumption due to their small weight. With European Union rules in the pipeline to judge car manufacturers by the average CO2 emission across their entire fleet, I suggested that this was exactly the kind of engine that manufacturers were crying out for, especially performance manufacturers such as Ferrari.
And where better to develop the technology than Formula One?
After a number of spectacularly off-target predictions (okay, it seems McLaren weren’t sandbagging, Brawn were as good as their testing speed and Michael Schumacher would return to F1) it looks like I might have hit the bulls-eye on this one with Ferrari talking about exactly the power-unit I described.
“If F1 has to develop something helpful for real driving conditions, then the best solution is for an engine that is turbocharged and GDI. That is what we would support.”
Amedeo Felisa, Ferrari CEO
Gasoline Direct Injection, GDI offers even greater fuel economy. It is a form of fuel injection whereby instead of injection of the fuel under pressure into the inlet stream it is injected directly into the cylinder. This allows precise control of the amount of fuel injected and by careful design of the injector can also lead to a more controlled combustion. The result is improved efficiency.
What About KERS?
It’s looking more likely that KERS could return, even before 2013, although it may be a standard unit available to all the teams. The talk is of less restrictions on the amount it can be used compared with 2009 in order to offset the weight penalty of carrying the system which was marginal last year. However, the issue with that is in further developing the system and the cost incurred. McLaren were class leading last year and Williams’ system while never seeing the race track is turning into a commercial success. Either could be supplied to the rest of the field but the cost of the development needed to increase storage and transfer rates would have to be passed on.
Interestingly, KERS makes an ideal partner for the small turbo engines discussed above. The lighter engine will help offset the weight of carrying KERS while the energy recovery system is the perfect way to eliminate turbo lag. Potentially, in a road going car, stored energy could be released automatically in order to cover the engine lag and again Formula 1 could play a part in developing the technology side-by-side.
Any Alternatives?
Improved normally-aspirated engines, perhaps extended with direct injection technology would be the low cost option although with the lowest benefit. There is also of course the rotary engine although there has been little interest in developing the system outside of Mazda.
One alternative mentioned this week is the gas turbine engine, something that Colin Chapman tinkered with in the early 1970’s with moderate success. A company has reportedly contacted the FIA with a proposal to supply such engines, however, the big question is whether the manufacturer teams would want to go along with such an idea. The idea of a single engine supplier was quickly shot down and it is difficult to see Ferrari wanting to go the gas turbine route. The technology’s one hope may be in a multiple engine configuration series, with some form of equalising factor between types – potentially an unpopular route if one developing technology is seen to be favoured over another. The other issue with the gas turbine is that it’s green credentials rely on using biofuels, the subject of continued debate as to just how green they really are.
At the moment, the teams look to be closing in on 1.5 litre turbo-powered engines, able to produce something like 670 bhp. They may not be totally clean but they seem to be taking Formula 1 in the right direction.
Image © Bridgestone Corporation
There’s no doubt in my mind that turbos are the way forward for both F1 and road cars, and the two can surely work hand-in-hand. Hey, BMW used a 3-series engine block for their 80’s 1300bhp monster, so why not today?
Consider that even in the boost-limited 1988 season the turbo engines gave around 700bhp but ran a full race distance on just 150 litres of fuel. Today’s cars have similar power but need over 220 litres of fuel – that’s around 50% more! Is that progress?
And of course more fuel means more greenhouse gasses – where do you think the carbon comes from to make the CO2 with? So by becoming more fuel efficient you are also becoing greener – the two go hand in hand.
The use of turbochargers in modern road cars is a world away from how it was 20 or 30 years ago, when Cosworths and Integrale’s were the main reason people heard the word turbo.
Nowadays every diesel has a turbo (and look how economical they are!) and light-pressure-turbos are the thing. Most small-to-medium sized cars have the option of a 1.4 turbo engine that produces the power of a 2.0 but the economy of a much smaller unit. These could even form the basis of the F1 engine, as the BMW unit did all those years ago (see above)
And of course by adjusting the boost you can get a huge variations in power if that’s what you want. Take VW/Audi for example.
Their petrol 1.8T (used in the Golf, TT etc) can produce 150, 180, 210 or 225 bhp. Their 1.9TDI engine can produce 90, 100, 130 or 150 bhp. The main difference in every case is boost levels and a bit of ECU tuning.
This adjustability could be a massive advantage for the FIA if they want to fiddle around with engine outputs again :-
* Want to have a “push-to-pass” feature? Allow an over-boost facility.
* Want to increase engine power across the board, because the sport needs ’spicing up’? Increase the maximum alowable boost pressure.
* Want to reduce the power for safety reasons? Just reduce the boost pressure. A hell of a lot easier and cheaper than going from 3.5-ltre V10s, to 3.0-litre V10’s, to 2.4-litre V8’s…
A few years after the turbos were banned I read an article where a Honda engineer said that every single horsepower the gained cost ten times more with a normally-aspirated engine than it did with a turbo engine, because they couldn’t just increase the boost a little.
So more power, less fuel used, less greenhouse gasses, more green-ness, a much closer link with road cars, relevance to the real world, more adjustability of engine power for the FIA, push-to-pass, potentially lower costs – what’s not to like? It’s a no-brainer for me: turbos should be back.
Pitmonster(Quote) (Reply)
Ive read that GDI is already being developed and should be in use by car manufacturers by 2012-2013
ebike(Quote) (Reply)
When you put it like that PM it makes it sound like what are we waiting for!
Is one thing that’s stopping them going down the turbo route that its somehow uncool? Would you buy a turbo-engined Ferrari for instance or would you want a V8. In terms of raw power (and I admit I know nothing) would a turbo engine be slower off the mark and in acceleration or have those sort of misconceptions already been addressed?
saltire(Quote) (Reply)
Teamed with KERS, Ferrari can have the best of both worlds. Much more driveable at low speeds around town with extra power on tap at the push of a button or even automatically kicking in whenever a bigger surge of power is needed for acceleration. The key is the smaller, lighter engine offsetting the weight of KERS.
Maverick(Quote) (Reply)
Mercedes were using it in the ’50’s actually and I think it was employed on their W196 Formula 1 car so it wouldn’t even be new to F1. Mitsubishi started using it again in the ’90’s and they supposedly own “GDI” as a trademark. The Ferrari California and 458 Italia have GDI.
The difference now is the very refined way that the fuel is being used – it’s not just injected into the cylinder but sprayed in very specific patterns to maximise efficiency. Inevitably, that means it is ripe for further development.
Maverick(Quote) (Reply)
Look up the Ferrari F40. And the new McLaren uses turbos, as does the Bugatti Veryron
Pitmonster(Quote) (Reply)
Some turbo engines (Porsche 959 for example, if memory serves) have two-stage tubocharging. This combines a small turbo for low-speed responsiveness (very little lag but only mild boost) and a bigger turbo for higher speed (more boost and more power, but more lag). The benefits of one offset the disadvantages of the other, and you end up with the best of both worlds.
But which would be bulkier/heavier/more expensive? Two-stage turbocharging or KERS? If the rulemakes say you can only have one turbo then obviously they can never go down this route in F1, but is it the better solutuion overall?
Pitmonster(Quote) (Reply)
Interesting question. Porsche’s system was a sequential one with a second unit coming on line at higher revs, that means several inlets and outlets that need controlling, so I guess a weight penalty. They seem to be much more popular in diesels for some reason.
The alternative arrangement is two smaller, parallel turbos, one for each bank of a v-arranged engine. Each has better low-speed response and combine to achieve similar boost.
I’m guessing I’m thinking of a push-to-pass system. Pull out into the outside lane and press the steering wheel mounted button. Wooooooo!!! Now who wouldn’t want one of those on your Ferrari?
Maverick(Quote) (Reply)
Pitmonster wrote “Take VW/Audi for example. Their petrol 1.8T (used in the Golf, TT etc) can produce 150, 180, 210 or 225 bhp. ”
Did you know that the same basic engine is used in the FIA Formula 2 car where it produces 400bhp?
It’s amazing what a few tweaks to the boost level can produce…
Pitmonster(Quote) (Reply)
Leave your response!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Tags
Blogroll
2013 Circuit Guides
All the data for every stop on the 2013 calendar... [More]
Statistics
Grand Prix
Results Summary
Drivers:
Full Standings
Categories
Archives
Awards
Search the Blog
About Us
Most Commented
Most Viewed