16 ms·
Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos
- byoung2 12y agoThey could get around the lag issue with a supercharger or an electric turbo, or some combination of the two.
- thrownaway2424 12y agoOr multiple turbos of differing sizes.
- Evolved 12y agoWhat you're describing is a twin (or more) turbo setup with sequential turbos[1] as opposed to another solution which uses a single turbo that can act as multiple turbos depending on the angle of the exhaust wheel vanes (VNT/VGT or Variable Nozzle/Geometry Turbo)[2]. The problem is, none of these solutions solve the drivability issue of knowing exactly how your car will respond such as how a naturally-aspirated car will at a given RPM in a given gear at a given throttle position. Taking into account the comparable volatility of turbo pulses compared with the constant and precise behavior of an NA response to throttle input you can very well put yourself into the wall a lot easier with the relative unpredictability of the turbo response. Granted, with technology this problem can be solved as many vehicles already have the ability to change chassis dynamics on the fly and so nanosecond fluctuations in turbo response creating imbalance can be rectified in a nanosecond from a vast array of sensors, solenoids, actuators, etc. it still has the net effect of distancing the driver from the feel of the car even if ever to slightly which I'm sure is one of the reasons certain folks buy Ferraris or other exotics. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo#Sequential_turbos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo#Sequential_turbos [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger
- thrownaway2424 12y agoI guess you were being hyperbolic but the latency of anything changing in your engine's output is going to be in the tens of milliseconds rather than nanos. The motorsport in which I participate involves a lot of dirt and tree stumps and whatnot so I don't feel like knowing exactly how energetic the next cylinder's firing will be comes into play. Perhaps some people do. I just hope that people who hold such intangibles as distance or connectedness important in the act of driving can hold their tongues next time HN engages in a round of ridiculing people who judge their hifi systems by "presence" or some other intangible thing. After all, it's pretty clear that the fastest cars in the world are all turbocharged, so by purely objective measures this discussion is nonsense.
- Evolved 12y agoAs the amount of vehicles I own that are turbocharged (3) exceeds the amount of Ferraris I own (0) I can only assume your conjecture on the part of me describing what some Ferrari owners may feel are very tangible attributes in their cars is due to differences in passion or particular choice of machine. What you describe sounds like rally so to illustrate this I'd ask if you had to race your next race surrounded by cushions of anything and at least partly removed from the feel between you the car and the fire/logging road you race on then would your split second decision to Scandinavian flick or not be influenced differently than if you'd have been fully strapped into your racing seat and securely bolted to the floor of the car with no wiggle room and feeling every rut and rock in the road? I'd even go so far as to say the feel when driving different cars and feeling the effect your inputs have as opposed to having a computer do them for you is vastly different from a hipster attempting to justify why his $100+ Beats headphones are better than a good pair of $29.99 JVC or Panasonic headphones.
- evo_9 12y agoOr not care since evo's and STi's launch faster than all but a few ferrari's. if you aren't at a dead stop the lag doesn't happen in real driving situations; aka you would have to shift into 4th under 30mph for example in either of those turbo charged cars. The way my Evo seems to get around the dead stop lag - you floor the car and hammer the rev limiter and then basically bring the clutch out about a 1/4 inch then dump it. I hit 3.5 second 0-60 easily with this (standard) evo lauch technique. Lastly you lose a lot more hp in a naturally aspirated engine at altitude too which to me makes a turbo car a better option ( I live in the mile high city however so this is a personal thing )
- cherry_su 12y agoAbsolutely, except launch control software is the one dumping the clutch for you in the Ferrari, so the 1 second of spooling is irrelevant for obtaining the 0-60 time.
- Evolved 12y agoI think he's speaking about the traction issue a Ferrari experiences during launch vs the Evo which has AWD and does not suffer from such problems nearly as much (except very high HP AWD cars). Also, the 1-second of spooling may not fully occur during the hammering of the throttle until the clutch is dumped due to there being no load on the engine. You might get the turbo going some but it won't be generating the power it normally would when the car is actually moving. Since both cars in the comparison would be turbocharged then it would then come down to which car can get going quicker to keep the turbo going and that would usually go to the one that has the most traction. Source: I own 2 Evos.
- Evolved 12y agoRegarding the altitude comment, you're spot-on and one only needs to look to aviation to understand this phenomenon.
- rifung 12y agoWon't there be lag when you go back on the throttle after you turn while off the throttle?
- jacquesm 12y agoOr simply use cars for what they're meant for: transportation.
- Evolved 12y agoSuperchargers cost precious power to make power[1] . For a company with engines heralded for their efficiency such as Ferrari this would probably be a sacrilege. I'd be interested to wonder why Ferrari don't forgo turbochargers and stick with their original idea since they are exempt from mpg requirements [2] due to being a low-volume manufacturer [3]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger [2] http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r14011.pdf http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r14011.pdf [3] http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1094378_ferrari-may-boost-sales-to-10000-annually-under-marchionnes-watch http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1094378_ferrari-may-boost...
- lazylizard 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilag_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilag_system
- oxryly1 12y agoSome interesting bits, but that article seemed to be mostly breathless oversimplifying.
- m52go 12y agoThe phenomenon of emissions regulations pushing this trend toward turbocharged engines is ridiculous. Look at the small commuter cars from decades ago, and you'll see them putting out efficiency numbers comparable to some of today's best hybrids. The root problem driving this trend is ballooning vehicle weight due to misguided government regulations. My question: which would do more for passenger safety (as measured in number of deaths per year)? Safer car design, or safer road design? I think it's road design. Being idealistic for a minute, because this won't ever happen, but what if the government decided to focus on more efficient road design & traffic rules to increase safety instead? From what I've read about Vision Zero in Sweden and other traffic design experiments (subtle traffic sign changes to better focus driver attention on narrow roads, roundabouts instead of 4-way intersections, etc)...these kinds of design changes would make driving MUCH safer without needing each car to be a hulking 4000lb turbocharged beast.
- sciurus 12y agoCan you provide some citations for 1) vehicle wait is ballooning 2) and it's because of government regulations ?
- nemo 12y agoAverage passenger car weight has steadily increased in the last 25 years or so. From 1987's 2805 lb curb weight to today's 3239. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/NewPassengerCarFleet.htm http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/NewPassengerCarFleet.ht... Some of that is due to the addition of steel safety cages, airbags, ABS, and other safety equipment, some of which is mandated in new cars. A small increase is related to emissions equipment like catalytic converters (they only weigh like 8-10 lbs, though). Not nearly all the increases in weight come from safety and emissions requirements, though. Part of the increases are due to manufacturers adding more bells and whistles to even their standard models. In 1987 there were more cars with standard transmissions (autos weigh more), AC wasn't always standard, cars tend to have nicer seats that are heavier, and even things like power windows and power locks weren't always standard. Also cars have tended towards more powerful and heavier engines. Also Americans for whatever reasons like big cars, gas prices were cheap enough for a long time, and car makers were happy to keep bloating them up since people liked buying big fat cars. There's another factor - the government did play an unfortunate role in the bloating of vehicles due to CAFE regulation loopholes that give businesses tax breaks to buy SUVs and other bloated vehicles that classify as trucks, and the ways automakers have abused the standards to keep bloating up their lines: http://jalopnik.com/5948172/how-the-government-killed-fuel-efficient-cars-and-trucks http://jalopnik.com/5948172/how-the-government-killed-fuel-e...
- largote 12y agoBut turbo spooling sounds awesome!
- analog31 12y ago>>>>> Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used. Would a turbo help in the librarian's hybrid car?
- skybrian 12y agoIt seems like a lot of effort to solve a problem that doesn't need any solution. Nobody needs this level of acceleration.
- redthrowaway 12y agoNobody needs an iPhone, either.
- ctdonath 12y agoWhen you're competing for race winnings on the order of a million US$, heck yeah you need that level of acceleration. May be frivolous to you, but it's worth something to someone as they're willing to pay real money for it.
- ferrari8608 12y agoAdvances in sports and super cars often trickle down to the mainstream market eventually. Nobody needs a Mercedes Benz either, but the market as a whole does. http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation
- skybrian 12y agoIf they were racing electric cars or driverless cars then I could see that. What I can't see is any point in putting any more work into investigating turbos.
- redthrowaway 12y agoThis is why I prefer taxes to regulations. If governments simply said, "pollute as much as you want but we're charging you a progressive tax based on the CO2 output of your vehicles", then the vast majority of automakers would still push for cleaner engines, because otherwise they'd have to pass the taxes on to the consumer. For commuter cars that compete on price, that would be suicide. But exotics have never and will never compete on price. Ferrari and Lamborghini would be more than happy to pass that tax on to their customers, and the customers would pay the higher prices without blinking. The Earth gets cleaner, governments get richer, and consumers still get to buy what they want.
- hydrogen18 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax
- rtpg 12y agoI don't know if the Earth gets cleaner faster this way. In the US, college is too expensive, so people ask for gov't loans using taxpayer dollars. This ends up rising college prices, since virtually everyone is now guaranteed to be able to pay at least $5k per year instead of $0. I could see a similar situation here where auto manufacturers lobby for subsidies for people buying their first car or whatever, and so the extra taxes ended up getting covered by subsidies. Car companies end up getting more money without having to bother reducing emissions. Generally thinking, I think you will find little sympathy for the poor souls who want to buy a $500k car and drive it at 200mph at 3 mpg (don't know what real numbers look like for these things). Especially not in public areas, in our public space. In any case, pollution makes everyone's lives pretty awful (see recent pictures of cities in China), so that ends up being prioritised. Maybe with a tax, only 1% of cars will be over some limit, but with regulations, pretty much 0% will. In an alternate universe, some NRA-like figure is arguing about how if we outlaw polluting cars, only criminals will have polluting cars.
- stolio 12y agoIf changing the emission test to include putting the engine under load would allow Ferrari to stay naturally aspirated then the problem isn't regulation but poorly implemented regulation. I'm all for getting regulations right. > Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated. The holy grail for engineers of turbo engines....has been to manage the lag so that it's unobtrusive in normal driving. A bit of a nitpick but McLaren showed you can do exactly that if you include an electric generator (i.e. if you go hybrid.) In the P1 they even have massive turbos and a flat torque curve because the generator fills in the torque gaps. (I look at the P1 the same way I looked at Lamborghinis when I was in the third grade, just pure awe.) Since Ferrari has an F1 team and F1 has gone the hybrid/turbo route, not only do they know this technology exists but they're on the cutting edge of it. If they're really concerned about the turbo lag they know exactly what they can do about it.
- henningo 12y agoArticles like this just confirms my theory that car journalists are the biggest obstacle for the automotive industry to truly innovate. It is as if they dictate the requirements for the general public. What the author completely seem to ignore is how turbos are key to the entire downsizing trend that is drastically changing the cars. With lower mass, less inertia and less internal friction, going back to first principles is what is making a difference these days.
- wonsler 12y agoThis is an article for people that like to drive, and he is correct: you want a linear response in turns. He is not dictating requirements for the general public --- he is describing reality.
- rkangel 12y agoIt's about predictable torque curve and throttle response. And this is where the current generation of hypercars come inL the Farrari LaFerrari, the Porsche 918, the McLaren P1 and at a slightly different level the BMW i8. The electric motors can be used to 'fill in the gaps' in the torque curve, by providing extra power in the right places. You can use a turbo for good power to weight ratio, but the electric motor makes up for all the deficiences. And the efficiencies you get with the hybrid system means that you don't even have to bother with the turbo necessarily (Porsche and Ferrari don't have one) Every review, but particularly for the Ferrari, talk about the massive and instant power delivery you get when you floor it so clearly it works. You can also perform an additional trick that they use in F1 - use the electric power to spin up the turbo (and harvest energy that way too). That isn't in use in road cars yet that I'm aware, but it will be I expect. Basically my point is that it isn't about the turbo, it's about the electric motor. It might be on its own like the Tesla Model S, or it might be in a Hybrid system like the cars above, but the torque you get from an electric motor is just too good to avoid.
- jongala 12y agoYeah, exactly — once you have an electric motor/generator and an energy store, the whole game changes because you can approach the power sync problem of lag in new ways. Also, the issue of turbo size and over/under producing boost and the need for wastegates can be better managed if there is a way to capture and store exhaust energy without routing it directly to the compressor. Some of the more sophisticated work here is also being done by Porsche in their LeMans program, which has (as I understand it) a uniquely complex turbo/hybrid setup. I think it's really exciting. Considering this type of usage — mostly transient stuff — it's tempting to think of a system for sports cars with a supercap energy store that's lighter weight than a battery store. Toyota use supercap stores in their LeMans car, I'll be interested to see if that trickles down anywhere.
- seanp2k2 12y agoIdk, is there something wrong with liking the simplicity and predictability of something with less computers and a big NA motor, like a Viper or a motorcycle? Enjoying driving is about much more than just speed and power-to-weight ratios, and the article makes a good point about their effective impact on air quality already being negligible. I'd rather see a bigger shift in industry standards such that e.g. power generation becomes more efficient vs the current trend of giving everyone who buys a Porsche 918[1], Tesla, or Prius a tax break for saving the planet. 1. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxphevb.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxphevb.shtml because someone buying a $845,000 car which gets 20mpg city / 24 highway and carries 2 people definitely deserves a $3,667 tax break for reducing emissions
- embro 12y agoIf I had the money to buy a Ferrari I would want it 100% electric.
- Cookingboy 12y agoThen don't buy a Ferrari, that's like saying "if I had the money to buy a jet I want it to be able travel on water". There ARE 100% electric super cars out there, but what's a Ferrari without the roar of their V8 and V12?
- embro 12y agoSound is one criteria. If I had the money for a super car, I would shop for Look and performance.
- junto 12y agoI second this. I had the pleasure of driving a Ferrari 348 TB once in London rush hour traffic. Needless to say, the experience of driving it was curtailed by the pottering along in a series of traffic jams, rude and obstructive behavior towards me from other driver simply because of the car, and to top it all off the engine overheated and had to be repaired afterwards. But it looked great and sounded amazing.
- tsomctl 12y agoWhy doesn't Ferrari put a more fuel efficient engine in it, and then wih a nudge nudge, wink wink, have the owner replace it with a more powerful, but less fuel efficient, engine? The type of person that will buy a Ferrari will be able to afford to replace the engine or have aftermarket tuning done. Ferrari is allowed to tell you how to turn it into a gas guzzler, they just can't sell it to you as such. They could even release the source code for the engine computer. It's the owners problem if they blow up their engine, and the engine computer should have no control over steering and brakes.
- FleshGordon 12y agoYou don't buy a Ferrari to replace the engine. You buy it because you don't need to tune it, it's already been done for you.
- gambiting 12y agoIf you replace the engine you need to have the vehicle certified for road usage(in EU) - which will change the road tax, insurance premiums and everything. Not worth doing in pretty much nothing.
- vpeters25 12y ago> Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated. I understand Mercedes "solved" the lag problem with their F1 power unit from last year: they split the turbo into 2 and put an electric engine in between both sides to keep the intake side going while the engine is at low rpms. They got 80 more hp than anybody else dominating the season. Turbos are an energy efficiency compromise: you only use them (and waste gas) when you really need the extra power. Edit: grammar
- seanp2k2 12y agoTwincharging[1] (belt-driven supercharger + exhaust-driven turbo(s)) is also a way to reduce lag, as are variable-vane turbos (less aggressive pitch (less load) to spool up quickly before adjusting to a more aggressive pitch to increase boost). Another more gangster option is the old rally trick of letting some air/fuel mixture into the hot turbo to cause it to ignite and spin the turbo, aka ALS[2]. This is the popping you can hear in older rally cars when they're decelerating / going around turns at lower RPMs. 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger VW TSI engines use this, and I thought Mercedes did too on an SUV, but I can't seem to find that anywhere. 2. http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/bangbang.html http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/bangbang.html
- lloeki 12y agoALS (not to be confused with backfiring) destroys your exhaust quickly though, including the catalytic converter, so that's a no-go for non-race cars. Typically a nice hack.
- walshemj 12y agoOh yes back when rally cars where nuts I saw a group B car on a transition stage driving slowly though a town on the Welsh borders. OMG that crackling sound was just sex on 4 wheels.
- rnovak 12y agoAm I miss-understanding something, I thought the 14.7:1 Stoich ratio (really closer to 12:1 under load for N/A Engines and 11.0:1 for well tuned FI Engines) meant for every 14.7 Grams of Oxygen, it requires (Molar weight of Air) / ((Molar Weight of Gasoline) * 14.7) . Granted it's been a while since I've taken Chem, but that was the impression I was under.
- joshu 12y agoTurbos are attached to the exhaust. They muffle the engine sound. This is important for ferrari people, for some reason.
- adaline 12y agoThis article strikes me more of an ode to Ferrari then factually correct info on why turbos are bad. As many have mentioned technology can be used to iron out the pitfalls of the turbo boost, perhaps Ferrari engineers feel the pressure from Maclaren's new turbo fleet and need to justify their failure ;)
- chad_c 12y agoNo mention of water injection. A company with deep pockets can fine tune water injection, reduce heat, reduce fuel consumption, etc., on turbocharged engines. Right now it's only popular in aftermarket, high-performance applications.
- sounds 12y agoOne interesting option is hydrogen generation and injection -- hydrogen gas is hard to store but it reduces engine temps because it produces water.
- sdk16420 12y agoMazda doesn't use turbos, yet manage to be competitive in the European market. Their engines, like the 2.0 SkyActiv are well liked by motoring journalists.
- marincounty 12y agoI'm all for controlling emmissions, but do it right and fairly. In Califrnia we have pretty strict emmission standards--fine, but do it fairly. After looking at max emmissions for various cars and manufactures; there dosen't seem to be a lot of "science" going into these numbers(My emmission books are from the ninties). That said, let me pass on a story(it won't affect most of you guys, but it might help out that one guy who car is flunked on their bi-annual emmissions test). When you get your car smogged in CA, all smog shops are required to have a written copy of the Of the Emmission's manual they used to evaluate your automobile. Most smog stations take the cheapest route and spend a little over a $100 for a current Motor Emmissions manual. That publication is filled with errors. So yes, if your automobile fails the smog test(ususlly the visual) you are stuck--arguing with a smog tech. Yes, there are other emmissns manuals. Mitchell emission manuals(OnDemand5) is a great, highly accurate alternative, but cheap smog shop owners(corporations) don't want to subscribe, or sport for a current copy. The Motor Emmission manual contained errors on the two cars I own. What are the odds of that? If you own an older Volvo, or Toyota truck and were failed on the Visual, double check the info with a Michell Manual. And no, 1988 Toyota(naturally aspired) trucks are Not required to have to have a MIL light. I honestly don't know if the Editors of Motor Emission literature understand the difference between a carburator, vs FI? Anyways, I know there are thousands of consumers affected by these errors yearly. Oh yea, when I tried to point out the errors to the corporation that publishes the Motor Emmission manuals they only got back to me after three emails, and then argued with me. They finally admitted they made a mistake, but I haven't verified they corrected this particular error. If a enterprising lawyer is reading this it might make a nice Class Action Lawsuit? I looked into liability in errors in technical publications, and they look like they have blanket liabilty--hopefully I'm wrong?
- _0ffh 12y agoThis article is flawed. 1. Assertion: Need for excess fuel due to cooling problems and consequently increased CO2 emissions. Rebuttal: Additionally injected fuel beyond the stoichiometric ratio will most certainly _not_ increase CO2 emissions. This is because it will not even burn, due to lack of oxygen. It may, however, increase CO emissions due to partially burnt fuel. Verdict: Lack of technical expertise. 2. Assertion: Need for excess fuel due to cooling problems and consequently reduced efficiency. Rebuttal: There are other ways to supply sufficient cooling for turbocharged engines. Only in extreme cases (gasoline supercars/hypercars), the last straw is to inject excess fuel, which will drive up fuel consumption (but not CO2 emissions). For diesel engines there is no pronounced cooling problem to begin with - here the excess air mass keeps the temperatures relatively low. Unfortunately you can't do the same in gasoline engines, as you would risk premature combustion. Verdict: In these extreme cases you _want_ effectiveness over efficiency, so where's the beef? 3. Assertion: Boost control is no more than "electronic trickery" and turbo lag will always get you! Rebuttal: No matter what you choose to call it: Technology that works, works. Turbo lag is complicated, but if you don't need to pinch pennies you can (for all practical consideratins) eliminate it. There is a variety of technologies who will do that for you, using two turbochargers. (Caveat lector: Not all biturbo systems use techniques of that kind!) Specifically, a sequential asymetric biturbo or a register turbocharging system can do this for you. Verdict: Turbo lag is a real thing, but never underestimate the power of clever engineering! I won't even go into "turbo impeller muffling the screaming glory of that prancing horse"... m (_ _) m Full disclosure: For the last dozen years, I've been working for a major automotive company, helping with the electronic trickery ;-)