A supercharger is very similar, but conceptually more simple. The turbine creating boost is instead connected mechanically to the engine's crankshaft, being driven directly by the engine.
And to nitpick, all turbochargers are superchargers. Their original term was a turbosupercharger. It was later renamed to turbocharger. :)
The so called 'electric superchargers' which you can buy on ebay have been mythbusted many times [0]
Superchargers used in automotive applications are, typically but not always, Roots-type blowers.[1]
But the OP wasn't technically wrong, so I bring it uo
An exhaust driven bladed fan type compressor turbo supercharger is shortened to turbocharger, and
a direct engine driven positive displacement compressor super charger is shortened to supercharger.
http://www.thisisf1.com/2016/05/16/explained-2016-f1-steerin...
So engineers and Alonso had to agree beforehand on motor maps and different steering wheel parameters. It's not clear if it's a problem in the software or an issue in the parametrization of the car for that qualy lap.
If you want to have more natural braking in some corners and recover less energy and then maybe deploy the energy at more optimal places on the track then this sort of thing makes a little sense, especially if you can make it work. I would think it highly prone to being confused though. It would be interesting to see some data on the differences between this type of algorithm when it works and the Prius algorithm.
That's been a silly distinction to bring up ever since the introduction of automated gearboxes and the end of clutch management.
I think they added the boost tech so that cars pass each other more frequently.
Is there a reason for that? I always assumed (as someone who doesn't know much about racing) that the inside of F1 cars would resemble a jet-fighter cockpit. They're not required to be stock cars, so why not optimize on HCI efficiency as well as on everything else the sport is about?
Some form of controls could be denied by technical or sporting regulations. I didn't read them in the last years. They are at http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110 Regulations are interesting and not too hard to follow.
They've also got a heap of controls over things like the Diff, DRS (where the rear wing opens up to reduce drag on straights when they're lining up an overtake), and most crucially, engine mode - which tweaks fuel injection rate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1ux791/an_old_f1_...
Then of course, it might be banned as a braking aid similar to ABS. Using any kind of feedback loop for braking effectively makes it a stability system which I assume is not allowed?
Taking gasoline at approximately 0.75kg/L, that's 133.3L for 300km or around 44.4L/100km. That's 5.3MPG in US units. Not very fuel-efficient...
In my opinion, the fuel efficiency suffers because it's a sport at the end of the day and burning more fuel at a higher rate (limited to 100 kg/hour) gives you more power.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/turbulent-times-for-for...
If it weren't for the inability to transfer all of the power to motion (due to traction loss), they could accelerate from 0 to 100 kph (62 mph) in around 1 second.
With the down force provided with increased speed, they actually accelerate faster from 100 to 200 kph (62 to 122 mph) than from 0 to 100 [1]:
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.4 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 4.4 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.4 seconds
I took my old (APR ECUd, rear sway bars, otherwise stock) turbo charged Polo GTI on the Winston racetrack once (V8 trucks practice day) to work on my driving skills, and it was surprising - but not at all unreasonable - to see the remaining fuel in KMs estimate perform a complete nosedive.
The fuel efficiency numbers of the F1s are truly awesome.
Conversely, my family wagon would probably not be very efficient if I did 0-150-0mph a few dozen times between home and work.
The driving patterns are a bit different
Some examples of low-drag downforce are if they can force vortices along the sides of the floor from elements on the front wing, which gives them similar benefits to the ground-effect skirts that Lotus and Williams used to great effect at the tail end of the 70s.
What's amazing is when you see an F1 car in humid conditions, because you can make out the vortices from the rear wing.
[0]: https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-content/uploads/XPB_789346...
[1] https://youtu.be/rhmGaCjpoBY?t=4m20s (check the speeds and the nice 3-way pass behind the leaders)
[2] http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-belgian-gr... at section "5) The crucial power de-rate"
Supercharger is an overloaded word, it refers both to the principle of forced induction as well as a particular mechanical method of achieving that. Oddly this isn't just a problems with English, German has the same overloading of 'kompressor'.
Turbocharging was originally called turbosupercharging when developed by GE.
This continues to surprise me. Is that really what is attractive to the audience?
[1] http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints/item/143400-johansson-m...
I just came back from looking up the IndyCar tracks for this reason, to see what non-ovals there are. :-) I prefer road courses, myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IndyCar_Series_racetra...
This is much clearer in other racing formulae, where the cars being raced may be modified versions of commercially-available road cars. Audi, Subaru and Mitsubishi built their reputation for performance almost entirely off the back of the World Rally Championship.
Sure, and I thought that you would have to do something that was attractive to the audience for the marketing to work.
A lot of the fan base is really engaged in the technology race while others are engaged in the personalities, that is what makes the sport so popular as it has a lot of entertainment to offer outside of what actually happens on the track.
Some people love the crashes, others love the personalities.
Me? I love the racing, the personalities, but most of all I love all the technical developments on the cars. These are fragile prototype cars with state-of-the-art engines (approaching 50% efficiency, which is insane) - new car launch time in F1 just before winter testing is one of my favourites!
Why would you have to limit gasoline when the system is going to evolve to wipe that out anyway?
One is simply that the engine manufacturers want efficiency to be a relevant factor, because it aids in their R&D and marketing efforts. With a fuel limit in place, F1 becomes a showcase for both performance and efficiency.
Another vital reason is to limit speed and cost. Back in the 1980s, F1 was in the midst of a turbocharger-driven arms race. Manufacturers were adding more and more boost, which had a severe impact on both costs and safety. The high levels of boost severely stressed the engines, so teams were replacing the entire engine after a single race. Many teams were using "qualifying special" engines that were built with a lifespan of just five laps. The extra power was creating dangerously high speeds and the effects of turbo lag made the power delivery of these engines very erratic and difficult to control.
Many other racing formulas use a restrictor plate - a metal flange with a hole of a specified diameter that restricts the air intake of the engine, creating a hard limit on maximum power.
Very short: they made the plate warp when in place and return to standard when the intake hose was removed for inspection.
Interesting hack.
Once upon a time, F1 used to be a "anything goes" series where the best in the world competed to build the fastest racing cars in the world. This stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.
Since then, the racing series has piled on rules and restrictions meant to limit what the cars can do. Since the gasoline engine is hard capped, and they allowed adding an electric engine on top of that, you now need to use one to compete.
That's true of almost all auto racing today. Powerplants can deliver more power than anyone can use. Now it's all about keeping the wheels on the ground.
The second is that F1 has been carbon neutral for at least two decades with the FIA planting trees to offset the extraordinary amount of pollution that flying the F1 circus around the world generates. Even though reducing fuel does nothing to make F1 greener when you take into account the carbon generated by transportation it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.
In bet now it's way more energy demanding than before just because there are way more people involved.
More journalists/media and many more support staff to work on hybrid tech.
To me it just underscores the disparity between the feel-good green energy and the actual carbon footprint people generate. For example, it's a lot more "green" to not own a car than to own a Tesla.
I wish they kept racing a purely fun driver-focused endeavor and got rid of most of the electronics and hybrid tech.
And for those who love the tech maybe have a separate competition of self-driving electric vehicles.
Also, petrolheads aren't the most environmentally conscious so F1 is being a good citizen of the world by promoting green tech. Even if it's very much do as I say not as I do.
The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power so it's critical that the car knows when to recover energy (either when braking or when coasting) and when to go full throttle or deploy partial power, and which percentage. That's where Honda has failed.