Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
I doubt anything from the 80s turbos could be transferred to this new generation. The biggest challenges are the energy recovery which didn't exist in the 80s.
I just think that if Honda were serious not only would we know more, but also they would be looking for more than 1 customer.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
I just think that if Honda were serious not only would we know more, but also they would be looking for more than 1 customer.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
Soldato
Similar capacity, same layout and aspiration. They've got a proven design and engine components to reference which reliably ran at 900+hp in race trim even with now-primitive 80s electronics. Plus all sorts of knowledge as regards materials and the ancillaries such as cooling.
Someone like Merc have never made a small capacity turbo V6 that I'm aware of, hence why they've had engines on the testbed for a couple of years.
There's obviously been major innovations in the use of electronics etc, but the base engine design still has merit. The BMW Turbo was develpped from a 1960s road car engine...
Soldato
Soldato
I think you are looking at that far too simply, its not as easy as that, things have moved on a little since the 80's, cylinder count, and aspiration will be the only thing the engines have in common, if honda are making an engine for the new regs they will be starting from a clean slate like the rest of the teams.
Im the first to admit I know absolutely nothing about engine design so if the below wouldnt work then fine
But why couldnt KERS be added on after the original design was set (if worst comes to the worst)?
Before KERS came along there was regular commentary comments about "engine breaking" in comparison to "normal" breaking. Does KERS have to be intrinsic to the engine design (couldnt McLaren design their own 160bhp system ready for 2015)?
From the brief Wiki I just read there seem to be four different makes of KERS used in F1 (they mention Williams flywheel, but that it was never used due to packaging issues). I appreicate these KERS systems now wont be of any use (apart from being underpowered) but does introduction of Turbos mean a complete redesign of how KERS works as well/ necessity for it to be internal to the engine?
Soldato
I didn't say they wouldn't start from a clean slate. Honda would have an advantage in that they have a good idea of what will work and what won't from prior experience. You don't spend all that money and win multiple championships without learning something in the process. It's of little significance if it was 5,10 or 20 years ago - the engineering principles of an internal combustion engine havn't changed.
Soldato
Nope, they haven't. But thats not where the challenge is for the 2014 engines.
Put simply, KERS (or ERS, to be correct) gets faaaaar more complicated next year.
It has been badly represented by the press as just "double the power" next year, which is very, very wrong. It goes much further than that.
This year, the car can deliver 400KJ of power per lap at a rate of 60KW to the drive chain (rear wheels) of the car. The power is also harvested through the drive chain. 400KJ of power at 60KW equates to the 6.7 seconds of boost the driver controls. Basically they have an 80bhp motor strapped to the drive shaft they can turn on for just under 7 seconds per lap. This is very much a bolt on to an engine.
For 2014, everything changes. Energy can be recovered both from the drive shaft, but also from the exhaust turbine of the turbo. The energy can then be delivered back to both of these. The amount of energy that can go back to the drive chain is 4MJ (10x that of this year) at a rate of 120KW (2x that of this year). There is no limit to the rate of quantity of power that can be delivered to the turbo, although there is a limit to the discharge of the battery, so its not unlimited.
So, if you think of the energy to the rear wheels the same as this year, it means they have 10x the energy per lap delivered at twice the speed, so basically a 160bhp motor they can turn on for ~35 seconds a lap. However, the requirement for power delivery to be driver controlled is gone. There will be no more buttons (well, there might for power boosts). The delivery of the 4MJ of energy per lap will be controlled by the ECU and used to maximise the engine power when they need it. They may use it to boost top speed, or bost acceleration. They might want to use it in a couple of big lumps, or they might want to half the delivery and push it out at 60bhp all the time. Its entirely tunable to the track or driver and a key part of the engine.
But thats only half of it. There is also the connection to the turbo. The exhaust gasses will be used to generate energy that would be lost as heat, and this energy can then be delivered back to the turbo. Basically they have the ability to spin the turbo using stored electricity at times when the exhaust gasses wont do it. ERS powered anti lag, if you will. This will of course need to be built into the design of the engine from the start.
Also, there is only 1 energy store, so turbo harvested energy can be delivered to the drive chain, or vice versa.
It is a very complicated system. Far more complicated than the "double the power KERS" that the press have tought everyone about, and its why I don't think its going to be a simple job for Honda to produce a 2014 spec engine. They cannot just build a V6 and bolt on a 160bhp KERS motor. The ERS is an integral part of the whole design of the engine and turbo and how they all work together. The engine, turbo, and motors will come as a complete 'power unit' set from the manufactuer, with the motor for the drive chain within the block, and the motor for the turbo attached to the turbo.
Basically, Honda don't have to produce an engine, they have to produce a complete 'power unit'. Knowing how to build 1.5 V6's from the 80's doesn't help.
Last edited:
And the KERS, ERS, engine and turbo, the whole lot is classed as a 'power unit' and they can only use 8 power units per year. Blow a turbo but the engine isn't damaged? New unit, 10 place grid penalty. KERS battery gives up the ghost? New unit. Should drive reliability as the most important factor which is why Renault and Mercedes have been benching their engines already.
Not quite, the Energy Store (ES) is considered a seperate part to the Power Unit meaning it can be located elsewhere within the car (it actually has to be within the driver safety cell) and can be replaced without penalty. But everything else is as you say, all part of one Power Unit produced and used as one complete set.
The new rules are extremely exciting and complicated and interesting if your into the techie bits. I'm actually really annoyed that the press have just dismissed them as being "V6's with double the KERS" and not bothered to go into details about just how much of a change they are.
Soldato
WOW, i knew things were much more complicated, but thats a lot of variables, it will be very interesting on how the teams each approach the use of this system and who can make the most of it, this is without a doubt going to be one of the biggest factors in 2014, ERS mapping! some extremely geeky people will be doing a lot of work running simulations to see what combination produces the fastest laps in the run up to 2014 season, i reckon this system is going to be responsible for a massive field spread at the start of the season, as everyone gets to grips with it.
Soldato
Because mass media is for plebs.
What you've described is truly fascinating, and I can't wait for the 2013 season now let alone 2014, that's going to be amazingly exiting!
What you've described is truly fascinating, and I can't wait for the 2013 season now let alone 2014, that's going to be amazingly exiting!
Thank you Skeeter that was very interesting indeed, much appreciated
I do find it fascinating (and a bit of added danger surely) that the ES is a seperate unit, although I guess the least interesting part of the KERS /ERS from a technical pov. Surely the energy storage is the part of the unit where the battery acid is, admittedly not for a while but there have been cases where the acid has leaked and to have this location stipulated in the rules does seem a little strange on the FIA 's part.
In one sense its ideal for the teams, from the weight distribution pov - but I wonder how many drivers are equally as happy......
Last edited: