108.000 RPM is reasonable good result for them. Their turbo from the very beginning (2014) was running slow. It (was) not necessary bad thing considering its sizing.
This is certainly true. How do we know about the Mercedes and Ferrari RPM:s though?noname wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 12:17108.000 RPM is reasonable good result for them. Their turbo from the very beginning (2014) was running slow. It (was) not necessary bad thing considering its sizing.
Quantifying the gap can be tricky, however 2 years without major developments for sure does not help. Especially when both Merc and Ferrari put significant efforts into their turbos.
I assumed that the turbo was run at higher rpm to make up for `the higher altitude. More rpm would keep the engines at approximately the same HP as at sea level. However they did not cope with the forces involvedJejking wrote: ↑05 Nov 2017, 23:17Why would Mexico cause problems? The circuit seems to be reasonably smooth so it probably has nothing to do with the bumpiness. Ambient temperature might have been problematic, or the altitude?baybars wrote: ↑05 Nov 2017, 20:17Renault’s woes were track-specific
http://www.f1technical.net/news/21434
Renault let its turbochargers run at 108.000/min at the beginning of the weekend. As the engineers found out after the early issues experienced during the practice sessions that this running value it too high, the rev speed was decreased to 102.000/min for the race. This decrease meant a loss of 0.15 of a second in pure lap time.
Interestingly, Ferrari could run its turbochargers at the maximum of 125.000/min while Mercedes was only a tiny bit below that limit.
Nonsense, shaft speed drives mechanical loads. What do turbo speed sensors measure in the turbo industry ?MHR650 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 17:46In the turbo industry nobody uses RPM, what is important is tip speed of the compressor wheel in meters per second. A turbo spinning 108,000 rpm can have a much higher tip speed than one running 125,000 depending on the size of the wheels. For reference a really small turbo like from a 3 cylinder Smart car spins more like 300,000.
MHR650 is right in saying tip speed matters. Although it is much easier to measure RPM, but you do need to know what wheels are inside. Quite often compressor maps are showing tip speed, not RPM.
I've not said it does not matter. Also, most compressor maps I've seen plot shaft speed rather than tip speed.noname wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 23:00MHR650 is right in saying tip speed matters. Although it is much easier to measure RPM, but you do need to know what wheels are inside. Quite often compressor maps are showing tip speed, not RPM.
Good luck in trying to spin this beauty to 100.000 RPM
http://www.motorship.com/__data/assets/ ... harger.jpg
BTW, also in this department Renault falls behind.
The regulations stipulate max rpm though, so its relevant for that fact alone.MHR650 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 17:46In the turbo industry nobody uses RPM, what is important is tip speed of the compressor wheel in meters per second. A turbo spinning 108,000 rpm can have a much higher tip speed than one running 125,000 depending on the size of the wheels. For reference a really small turbo like from a 3 cylinder Smart car spins more like 300,000.
Rotational energy dissipated in the impact is 0.5 x inertia x shaft speed ^ 2. Where is the tip speed in that ?noname wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 23:38"Almost" makes a difference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y01Ed4Sg3U
The regulations stipulate the maximum rpm of the MGUH, not the turbo. The MGUH can be geared up or geared down from the turbo.FPV GTHO wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 23:46The regulations stipulate max rpm though, so its relevant for that fact alone.MHR650 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2017, 17:46In the turbo industry nobody uses RPM, what is important is tip speed of the compressor wheel in meters per second. A turbo spinning 108,000 rpm can have a much higher tip speed than one running 125,000 depending on the size of the wheels. For reference a really small turbo like from a 3 cylinder Smart car spins more like 300,000.