Printable View
FIA will allow 1.6L turbo engines for 2014
they may have the turbo connected to a motor/generator that charges batteries with excess power and its electric motor will compress air to avoid turbo-lag.
Supposedly cars can only move in the pit lanes thru electric power.
Will this tech make it to road cars?
[quote=Big time;984193] charges batteries with excess power and its electric motor will compress air [/quote]
This isnt a turbocharger as it isnt run off of exhaust gasses. It's actually an "electric" supercharger because it is run directly off the powertrain (or atleast A powertrain, ie. The electric motor). And it already has reached street cars as legal modifications. As far as being put on cars from the factory? I don't see it happening for a looong time.
[quote=elemein;984426]This isnt a turbocharger as it isnt run off of exhaust gasses. It's actually an "electric" supercharger because it is run directly off the powertrain (or atleast A powertrain, ie. The electric motor). And it already has reached street cars as legal modifications. As far as being put on cars from the factory? I don't see it happening for a looong time.[/quote]
so the electric motor drives the supercharger, that will then behave as a normal super charger?
[quote=henk4;984437]so the electric motor drives the supercharger, that will then behave as a normal super charger?[/quote]
I think that is how it works. There are rumours that the new M3 will employ some kind of electric supercharger as well as a twin turbo; but this could be a crock.
[quote=Kitdy;984449]I think that is how it works. There are rumours that the new M3 will employ some kind of electric supercharger as well as a twin turbo; but this could be a crock.[/quote]
A new TT Production Car? :eek: :eek: :eek: Blasphemy!
As far as "behaves like a normal supercharger", that's isnt exactly how it works per se. It has certain pros and cons to a normal supercharger; it is'nt infintely better.
Pros of Electric-Supercharger:
- Can produce any amount of boost (within the motor's capabilities) at any RPM range unlike a normal supercharger which controls how much boost via how much RPM
- Takes less power from the primary powertrain to run (big amounts of electricity is still less than big amounts of direct crankshaft power
- Can be places anywhere along the intake manifold, unlike a Whipple or Twin Scroll supercharger (does not apply to centrifugal as they can be placed in many places as well)
Cons of Electric-Supercharger:
- HHEEEEAAAATTTT!!! WAY more than a conventional supercharger! If you build enough of it, you can overheat the electric motor and effectively make your supecharger go out of comission until cool down, or completely kill it altogether, which is an expensive replacement
- Electric problems. This draws huge volts from the battery. More than a starter motor. The engine is going to need a STRONG alternator and electric system to run an electric motor of such caliber
- Weight. They are usually lighter than Whipple or Roots superchargers, but centrifugal is lighter; and at the end of the day, centrifugal is the most common.
- Reliability. Yeah the supercharger has more moving parts; that's true, but we all know how screwy electric gadgets can be. Most superchargers are extremely reliable if you keep it all lubed up (:rolleyes: hehe. Lube. Oh I'm so immature :( ), but no amount of oil is going to keep an electric motor's heat down if it's been going long and fast enough.
Personally, I would'nt use these electric superchargers. Electric water pump? Sign me up. Electric fan? Sign me up. Electric supercharger? No thanks.
Actually, the 2014 formula 1 regulations do not allow a solely electric supercharging arrangement. In the arrangement described by Elemein, there is no direct mechanical connection between the turbine and the compressor. The turbine drives a generator, and the electricity generated drives a motor that drives the inlet compressor. This allows the turbine and compressor to operate independently.
The 2014 F1 regulations specify that the turbine and the compressor must be mounted on a common shaft, as in a conventional turbocharger, so that their speeds must be equal. An electric motor may be driven by excess power from this shaft, by a fixed ratio mechanical connection. The electric motor may be clutched. The motor is not mandatory, so I would expect some teams to go without, in order to reduce weight and cost, and to avoid possible reliability problems. This motor is in addition to the conventional motor-generator, which is mechanically integrated somewhere in the mechanical drivetrain, and which will drive the car through pit lane.
As for the transfer of this technology, I do not know enough about the optimal configuration of this technology, and cannot guess if it would be beneficial to road cars. If energy can be recovered efficiently from the exhaust, it may be worth using a higher boost pressure, lower compression ratio, and recovering electricity from the turbo, rather than depending upon the crankshaft as the sole source of mechanical output from the expanding gases. It might even be worth revisiting the old triple-expansion principle, with the pistons being the first expansion stage, the high-pressure turbocharger the second stage, and a low pressure turbo-electric generator the third stage. On the other hand, if it is only useful for reducing lag, or recovering energy on the engine over-run, it might not be worth the cost and complexity, for production car purposes.
In general, recent F1 rules have been written so that there is almost no technology transfer allowed either way. Formula 1 cars cannot benefit from common production car technology and advances, like variable valve systems, variable geometry turbochargers, electronic driver aids, electronic throttle mapping, continuously variable transmissions, or even simple refinements, like a choice of tyre sizes, profiles, designs and brands. Likewise, most production cars are still not being made with adequate aerodynamic downforce to drive on the ceiling, 18,000rpm engines, carbon-fibre crash structures, or particularly light weight construction. As far as I can remember, the last F1 technologies to make it to road cars would be the flappy-paddle gearbox, and electronic driver aids, which both originated in the 1980's.
I do think that something needs to be done considering the great amount of pollution that motor racing brings. Hybrid technology is definitely the way to go.
[URL="http://servicingstop.co.uk/car_mot.html"]mercedes service[/URL] | [URL="http://servicingstop.co.uk/car_mot.html"]MOT test centres[/URL]
"pollution" of cars during a race is NEGLIGIBLE :)
One of those myths anti-car people put out !!
Just look in the car park at all the CO2 produced getting to the track, not to mention the flights for the spectators and teams :)
Back in 2007, Honda reported that Jensons F1 car woudl produce an estimated 17 TONS of CO2 for the season ahead.
Sounds a lot, till your realise that flying Jenson to the events and practice etc will rack up about 30 TONS of CO2 from the flights !! [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/02/formulaone.sport"]Formula One: Earth car will emit over 50 tonnes of CO2 | Environment | The Guardian [/url]
Hello! I really liked your story. Thank you!
file extension apk