Turbo Era F1

[Bathrone]

I am particularly interested in turbo era F1.

Q: Did the turbo era F1 use turbo antilag strategy where ignition advnace was cut, more fuel dumped via the injectors and the resultant unburnt fuel exploding on the hot turbine wheel spinning up the turbine wheel?

Q: Did any F1 turbo engines have a blow off valve or did the turbo(s) surge under cavitation in transient throttle close conditions between gears?

Thanks

[Guest]

Does the words "afterburn fifth stroke era" bring to light anyones memory on the matter?

[CTsoldier]

I want to know that if the Turbo F1 car in 80' were faster than today F1 car?

[scarbs]

Antilag was used in the pre fuel efficiency formula, the fuel injected during the overrun (with out igntions) also served to cool the combustion chamber as well as the antilag effect of it buring in the exhast pipe. blow off valves were soon on the first renault engines. While the engines were eventually more powerful than today, most of the turbos were probably less powerful and less drivable in race trim. the surrounding car was well below the speed of todays cars.

[CTsoldier]

ok,thx
I think 2004's car is fastest in any years before.

[CTsoldier]

There ia a question.I read a magzine,it said that in turbo era F1,Berger in Monaco GP .One time he steer left in massent coner,his speed is 310km/h!!.I want to know if the turbo F1 car's top speed is higher than today F1 car?

[Guest]

berger set a fastest speed of about 350 km/h in 1986 at Monza during qualification. It was the year of the most powerful engines nerver seen in F1, more than 1200 Cv in qualif. If the speed was not faster, it was because of the big wings the cars had at that time.

[riff raff]

bathrone:

Prior to 1988, F1 cars could run unlimited boost. Most of the front runners were running manifold pressures in excess of 4 atm (58 psi). After 1988, manifold pressures were limited to 2.5 atm by "pop-off" valves. By that time though, the engines were becoming very sophisticated. Honda was using it's "VTEC" variable valve timing system, as well as fueling their turbocharged 1500 cc V6 engines with 85 percent Tolulene race fuel. It was toxic as hell, but the fuel was dense and detonation-proof in a 12:1 turbocharged engine.

regards,
riff raff

[Reca]

Honda was using it's "VTEC" variable valve timing system

There's no VTEC on the RA168E, the 1988 Honda engine, but an interesting solution in the valve department, the finger followers, the norm in F1 nowadays.

[Guest]

there's some books about the turbo era, but the ultimate one with many technical informations is called " the 1000 bhp cars" by Bamsey.

[riff_raff]

There is an excellent book by Ian Bamsey, "McLaren Honda Turbo- A Technical Appraisal" about the RA168E. There is also an excellent SAE paper (#890877) from Honda that covers the RA166E to RA168E engines.

The Honda F1 engine was dominant during this period, primarily for one reason: fuel consumption. A review of the patent files shows that Honda was developing the VTEC rocker system during this period. The cross-section drawings of the Honda V6 turbo F1 engine, that I have seen, show "finger followers". All other engines of this period used "bucket followers". Logic would dictate a bucket follower design because it has less mass/inertia. It's just my guess, but the reason Honda used finger (rocker) followers was so that they could incorporate their new (at that time) VTEC technology. Remember now, F1 racing in 1988 was heavily influenced by fuel consumption rules, so a dual camshaft profile provided by VTEC would be a significant advantage.

Regards,
Terry

[Reca]

The cross-section drawings of the Honda V6 turbo F1 engine, that I have seen, show "finger followers".

In fact I said that the RA168E had finger followers. But the fact that VTEC has finger follower, doesn’t imply that you can’t have finger followers without VTEC.

All other engines of this period used "bucket followers". Logic would dictate a bucket follower design because it has less mass/inertia.

Logic doesn’t dictate bucket follower to reduce mass/inertia, on the contrary, on high performance engines (with high valve lift) the logic requires finger followers exactly to reduce the mass/inertia of the valvetrain. The finger followers also reduce friction hence the wasted power. The bucket followers main advantage is the simplicity especially because the finger requires an accurate design to achieve the required level of stiffness. Excluding that problem the bucket follower is an inferior solution in almost all accounts compared with the finger follower. Although the idea wasn’t new at the time, other engines didn’t use it because nobody was using it... (if you understand what I mean), when Honda started to use it everybody else copied the design.

It's just my guess, but the reason Honda used finger (rocker) followers was so that they could incorporate their new (at that time) VTEC technology.
Remember now, F1 racing in 1988 was heavily influenced by fuel consumption rules, so a dual camshaft profile provided by VTEC would be a significant advantage.

Here a pic of the RA168E in pieces : http://www.billzilla.org/ra168e.jpg
You can easily see the finger followers (on the left right under the valves) but you can also easily see that there are just 6 cam lobes per camshaft, both at the intake and at the exhaust.

The 1988 was a very particular year, last year of turbo, limited boost, limited fuel etc... to, theoretically, balance competitiveness of turbo and N/A. Most of the engine manufacturers were focusing on the N/A, some used it in 1988, others just detuned the previous years turbo engines, most of teams adapted the previous year cars. Honda was the only engine manufacturer that designed a brand new engine optimised for that level of boost (contemporarily developing the 3.5l V10...), McLaren designed a car expressively for that engine. Add Senna and Prost... You don’t need VTEC to explain McLaren’s record of 15 wins out of 16.

[riff_raff]

You may be right about the valve train on the RA168. I don't have any intimate knowledge about the engine, I'm just speculating based on what I've read. The SAE paper I have goes into great detail on how Honda got unbelieveable fuel economy from that F1 engine. It describes the high content tolulene fuel chemistry and the complex fuel conditioning aparatus and heat exchangers required to get the fuel to work properly. The BSFC rates they achieved with that race engine were phenomonal, and the only way that I can see that they did it was utilizing something like VTEC.

Who knows?

Regards,
riff raff

[Reca]

The BSFC rates they achieved with that race engine were phenomonal, and the only way that I can see that they did it was utilizing something like VTEC.

Well, Honda was way ahead of opponents on engine electronic management, on the control of intake air and on utilization of the fuel, lot of fuel was used for cooling purpose at the time and Honda was able to control it in a better way. That’s more than enough to explain the fuel consumption advantage.