Discussion:
Why turbos and not superchargers originally?
(too old to reply)
Yousuf Khan
2018-05-29 12:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm thinking back historically here, back to the original turbo cars of
the 80's. I know with the rules today, with everything specified
explicitly, there is very little room for innovation. However, back then
why did manufacturers settle on turbos rather than superchargers? Were
there rules against superchargers, which turbos got around, or
something? In a racing situation, the instant power of a supercharger
must be a lot better than the laggy power of a turbo.

Yousuf Khan
Michael Gooding
2018-05-29 15:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Isn't a supercharger 'on' all the time? Rather than kicking in at nnn rpm?

Mike Gooding
Mark Jackson
2018-05-29 16:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Gooding
Isn't a supercharger 'on' all the time? Rather than kicking in at nnn rpm?
A supercharger takes power from the crankshaft that otherwise could have
been delivered to the wheels. A turbocharger takes power from the
exhaust stream that otherwise would be dissipated to the atmosphere.

Also, the rules say "turbo."
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Belief in a market economy in which the consumer
is sovereign is one of our most pervasive forms
of fraud. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Alan Baker
2018-05-30 00:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Michael Gooding
Isn't a supercharger 'on' all the time? Rather than kicking in at nnn rpm?
A supercharger takes power from the crankshaft that otherwise could have
been delivered to the wheels.  A turbocharger takes power from the
exhaust stream that otherwise would be dissipated to the atmosphere.
Also, the rules say "turbo."
The rules didn't always say that, and in the end, it doesn't matter that
much.

Yes: a supercharge takes energy from the crankshaft, but what allows the
engine to produce is even more. Notice the complete dearth of
turbocharges in top-level drag racing.
geoff
2018-05-30 01:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Michael Gooding
Isn't a supercharger 'on' all the time? Rather than kicking in at nnn rpm?
A supercharger takes power from the crankshaft that otherwise could have
been delivered to the wheels.  A turbocharger takes power from the
exhaust stream that otherwise would be dissipated to the atmosphere.
Also, the rules say "turbo."
The rules didn't always say that, and in the end, it doesn't matter that
much.
Yes: a supercharge takes energy from the crankshaft, but what allows the
engine to produce is even more. Notice the complete dearth of
turbocharges in top-level drag racing.
Um, fuel efficiency and distances not exactly a factor there....

geoff
Not Bernie Ecclestone
2018-05-29 17:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yousuf Khan
I'm thinking back historically here, back to the original turbo cars of
the 80's. I know with the rules today, with everything specified
explicitly, there is very little room for innovation. However, back then
why did manufacturers settle on turbos rather than superchargers? Were
there rules against superchargers, which turbos got around, or
something? In a racing situation, the instant power of a supercharger
must be a lot better than the laggy power of a turbo.
No rules against, it was either a normally aspirated 3 litre or a 1.5 litre with
higher than atmospheric induction with considerable degree of freedom on what
you could do. Keith Duckworth of Cosworth fame was of the opinion that the
turbine on a turbocharger constituted a separate 'engine' and with post
combustion fuel injection into the exhaust he was probably correct

Ferrari tested a Pressure Wave Supercharger the Brown Boveri 'Comprex' in the
early 80's

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_126C#126CK_(1981)>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_wave_supercharger>

<https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/abb-f1-ferrari-1981-998379/>

--
bra
2018-05-29 18:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Not Bernie Ecclestone
Post by Yousuf Khan
I'm thinking back historically here, back to the original turbo cars of
the 80's. I know with the rules today, with everything specified
explicitly, there is very little room for innovation. However, back then
why did manufacturers settle on turbos rather than superchargers? Were
there rules against superchargers, which turbos got around, or
something? In a racing situation, the instant power of a supercharger
must be a lot better than the laggy power of a turbo.
No rules against, it was either a normally aspirated 3 litre or a 1.5 litre with
higher than atmospheric induction with considerable degree of freedom on what
you could do.
The first V-16 BRM had driven superchargers. Rolls-Royce,designed, manufactured and tested its two-stage centrifugal supercharger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Racing_Motors_V16
~misfit~
2018-05-30 00:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yousuf Khan
I'm thinking back historically here, back to the original turbo cars
of the 80's. I know with the rules today, with everything specified
explicitly, there is very little room for innovation. However, back
then why did manufacturers settle on turbos rather than
superchargers? Were there rules against superchargers, which turbos
got around, or something? In a racing situation, the instant power of
a supercharger must be a lot better than the laggy power of a turbo.
Yousuf Khan
Supercharged cars *are* easier to drive than turbocharged cars (or were)
yes. However while superchargers increase power they massively decrease fuel
economy (at the boosts F1 was running in the 80s).

A supercharged car running against a turbocharged car over a two hour
balls-to-the-wall race would need close to double the fuel of the
turbocharged car. That's either double the weight or double the pitstops for
a (realatively) small increase in drivability and similar power output.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Yousuf Khan
2018-05-30 08:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Supercharged cars *are* easier to drive than turbocharged cars (or were)
yes. However while superchargers increase power they massively decrease fuel
economy (at the boosts F1 was running in the 80s).
A supercharged car running against a turbocharged car over a two hour
balls-to-the-wall race would need close to double the fuel of the
turbocharged car. That's either double the weight or double the pitstops for
a (realatively) small increase in drivability and similar power output.
And these days, with computer-control it may not be that bad, but in
those days without computers, it was different.

Yousuf Khan
~misfit~
2018-05-30 12:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yousuf Khan
Post by ~misfit~
Supercharged cars *are* easier to drive than turbocharged cars (or
were) yes. However while superchargers increase power they massively
decrease fuel economy (at the boosts F1 was running in the 80s).
A supercharged car running against a turbocharged car over a two hour
balls-to-the-wall race would need close to double the fuel of the
turbocharged car. That's either double the weight or double the
pitstops for a (realatively) small increase in drivability and
similar power output.
And these days, with computer-control it may not be that bad, but in
those days without computers, it was different.
Yes for sure, hence my adding "(or were)" above.

While we remember the turbo era of the 1980s before that all foced induction
was supercharging. The famous (original) Silver Arrows were supercharged, as
were most of the competitive cars in the 1930s and 40s. Supercharged
straight eights were all the rage for a while there.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Loading...