
Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos - jcater
http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/why-ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbos-1678575660
======
rkangel
It'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
Yeah, 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
Idk, 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_

~~~
jongala
So two very different thoughts here, and I basically agree with both: yes,
there is still a place for simple, mostly analog, NA powered sports cars, and
yes, it is a distortion of the system for a 918 to get some kind of green
subsidy.

I was just speaking towards new paths in getting the most out of ICE-centered
power systems, that an alternative power store and MGU can uncover better
turbocharging options vs. a purely mechanically coupled turbine/compressor.
These technologies are being developed at the less price-sensitive high end of
the market, just as Tesla is doing with an all-electric drivetrain. They
started at 100K+ roadsters, developed to an 80K luxury sedan, and are
developing down market from there. I think it's totally appropriate to
encourage a shift in industry standards, as you say, with incentives in this
segment of the market (let alone where the Prius sits). It's a bit of an
absurdity with the Porsche, but take heart that there are only 918 being made…

As far as what kind of sports cars we should be encouraging, even mid-market
cars are so fast now you really can't enjoy them on the road. That's why cars
that emphasize a fun driving experience at still-sane speeds are the most
interesting to me now, like the FR-S, the Miata, the Elise, etc. But that's a
separate conversation.

------
redthrowaway
This 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.

~~~
rtpg
I 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.

~~~
redthrowaway
I think the Earth gets cleaner at largely the same rate. The drive to compete
on prices forces 99% of the cars sold to be optimized towards lowered
emissions (accounting for the increased price of those optimizations).

I don't find your subsidy argument persuasive. There's never been (to my
knowledge) a government subsidy for buying cars (outside of cash for clunkers,
which was stimulus disguised as subsidy), and I don't see a carbon tax
affecting that.

As for college being expensive, like many things that's an American
phenomenon. The rest of the western world seems to get by just fine with
affordable education and healthcare. Even here in Canada, where education is
far more expensive than in Europe, our tuition is pretty reasonable
(~$2500/semester). I graduated with a BSc in CS and $38k in student loans, and
I took my sweet time about it.

------
vpeters25
> 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
Twincharging[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
ALS (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.

------
stolio
If 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
Articles 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
This 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.

------
oxryly1
Some interesting bits, but that article seemed to be mostly breathless
oversimplifying.

------
adaline
This 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 ;)

------
marincounty
I'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?

------
analog31
>>>>> 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?

------
_0ffh
This 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 ;-)

------
chad_c
No 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
One interesting option is hydrogen generation and injection -- hydrogen gas is
hard to store but it reduces engine temps because it produces water.

------
rnovak
Am 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
Turbos are attached to the exhaust. They muffle the engine sound. This is
important for ferrari people, for some reason.

------
sdk16420
Mazda 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.

------
byoung2
They could get around the lag issue with a supercharger or an electric turbo,
or some combination of the two.

~~~
evo_9
Or 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
Absolutely, 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
I 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.

------
largote
But turbo spooling sounds awesome!

------
embro
If I had the money to buy a Ferrari I would want it 100% electric.

~~~
Cookingboy
Then 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?

~~~
junto
I 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
Why 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
You 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.

------
skybrian
It seems like a lot of effort to solve a problem that doesn't need any
solution. Nobody needs this level of acceleration.

~~~
ferrari8608
Advances 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
If 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.

------
m52go
The 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
Can you provide some citations for

1) vehicle wait is ballooning

2) and it's because of government regulations

?

~~~
m52go
See my comment above to nl. I edited it to add numbers regarding modern
vehicle weight ratios, and how they've gone up over time in part because of
safety regulations.

~~~
1stop
But generally even with the weight cars are WAY more fuel efficient. There are
some fords (non-hybrids) approaching 3 litres/100km. Even mini-vans that get
7-8 litres/100km. When 15-20 years ago a 3 door hatch back would be 6-7
litres/100km... So I don't really see your point. Yeah cars are getting
heavier, and engines are getting smaller and more efficient.

