Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos

Interesting article...
Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos

lag can't be eliminated
gksb8ljulwb2fwjsz24h.jpg


Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos

... Immediate, predictable response is a requirement in any driver's car. Naturally aspirated engines react without delay to throttle inputs, but a turbo engine is vastly more complicated. It has two torque curves—one when it's off-boost and one when the turbo is at full puff. The transition between the first curve and the second is what we call lag—and both how long it takes and how abruptly it occurs change continually.

Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated... When you're approaching the handling limit of a well-balanced car, you need precise control of engine output. You may need a quick jolt of torque to induce oversteer or to gradually increase power to keep the car at its limit in a corner. These adjustments need to happen the instant you request them and in direct correlation to pedal input.

A naturally aspirated engine's output is determined by the position of the pedal and the engine speed, period. Turbos change that into a complicated matrix with far too many variables for a driver to keep track of. At best, turbo lag is a handicap. At worst, it turns neutral, throttle-adjustable cars into insolent, uncontrollable, four-wheeled bastards.

... Modern Ferraris do what you ask, when you ask, how you ask. They are pretty much perfect. Although their forthcoming turbocharged replacements will almost certainly be faster, I fear they will be undrivable without assistance from an onboard supercomputer.
 
Last edited:
Interesting on the timing of the release of this article just 3 days before the releases news of the new Ford GT with its power plant. It would almost make me think Ferrari and Ford....... hummm.......I may need some help on this one.:lipsrsealed:
 
F1 cars have no turbo lag, they have a electric motor spinning the turbo so boost is there plus it charges the battery for the electric drive motor along with the electric battery charging on the brakes. 160 hp extra for 30 seconds a lap.

The new ECU's out there eliminate the lag for drag racing with turbos.

I can build boost by reving my engine up when I turn on boost mode in the ECU I have on my rotary. I use a Haltech but they all work the same.

You can read about this on F1 website.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Even with a motor operated turbo, wouldn't the lag issue as described by Ferrari still exist, albeit perhaps much reduced. An electric motor must still accelerate the turbine (which has some amount of mass), and unless the motor controls can predict exactly when and how the pilot wants engine torque, there still would be an imperfect unity between engine output character and throttle position/movement.
 
"Turbos change that into a complicated matrix with far too many variables for a driver to keep track of."

Someone please relay this to Stommelen & Fitzpatrick (935 crew from IMSA)...It seems to be the issue the Fcar engineers have is a variable which doesn't let them make a car that can drive itself with little to no pilot input.
 
On F1 cars, if you go to the website, Mercades, they explain this.

I know on my car, 3 rotor, I have a mode that will retard the timing, while you rev it up to spool up the turbo for no lag at a drag racing.

I think with the ECU's, electronics on engines, controlling everything, turbo lag isnt what it used to be.

I can control boost, mapping, timing, from inside, scrolling thru the dash screens, 28 of them to be exact, 7 functions, 4 screens just by pushing buttons.
 
When Ferrari's 2014 F1 season is reflected upon, their attitude toward the complicated issues around boost control software is better understood.
That quote above could have come from Luca Di Montezemolo?
 
Turbo lag sucks. I hate it. In a street car it's tolerable because you're not driving on the limit all the time but still.....when you want to get into it there's always that delay then boom, even in modern turbos it's still there. The run-of-the-mill street application don't have any secondary means to keep the turbo spooled up so you're stuck with waiting for boost pressure from the exhaust......la de dah......hum de dum......wait for it, wait for it......boom! Meanwhile the guy next to you in the 10 year old corvette just left you in his dust.

This is the very reason why I'm putting a SBF in my clunky old '88 Lotus Esprit turbo. I like the car, it's looks, chassis, etc., just can't stand the turbo lag. The 3.5tt's aren't a whole lot better either, I've driven a couple of them and while the lag isn't quite as apparent it's still obviously a turbo car.

Nothing like big displacement normally aspirated V8 power. Heck, I have a 7 litre V8 in my rolls royce corniche and it's more fun to drive than the Lotus simply because there's no turbo lag. There's lag because it's heavier than my suburban however.....
 
You guys seem to be on top of this subject. I have looked at turbos for the coyote as well as superchargers. Will the supercharger give that instant smooth curve that the turbo won't?
 
Superchargers is instant, but at the cost of some horsepower

Turbos are free horsepower. Personally I like superchargers, always have had them on all my cars, all BB, no replacement for cubic inches.

Here are a couple of my privious hot rods, both 521 Fords, lencos, 1 and 2 blower combination, 1000 hp 1500 hp.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0218.jpg
    DSCF0218.jpg
    128.2 KB · Views: 269
  • IMG_0296.JPG
    IMG_0296.JPG
    227.5 KB · Views: 264
Yes a blower and supercharger are interchangeable in terms.

Roots and Screw are not equivalent in efficiency though. Dean, go to dealership and drive a ZR1 or GT500. It's like driving a BB with rpm and mpg. I have both in my garage and though the turbo's can be killer on top end and at track. The modern SC's are just so good. I have a, I'll call 1st gen modern supercharger, on a modified Lightning and a Swedish SC on a Benz. There is no lag and you don't get the unexpected wheel spin as bad as a high hp turbo car that spools. I hate driving with TC on while playing and TT's can catch you off guard at odd moments on street tires (TW 200s even).

I know, we need to make time to talk and bounce ideas. Though the GT500 engine is in the basement, I still toy with turbos. HP limits are no longer the question or issue (1700hp Kenne Bell 4.3l screws and billet ceramic bearing dual cool turbos) ...its driving characteristics. I do believe a big hp sc engine might be more streetable than a big hp turbo car even with electronic nannies which I dont care that much for. NO disrespect meant or aimed at our small cc rotary colleague :) I love high rpm rev'n machines too, just different and Dean and I aren't talking SL-C at this second.
 
BTW, and though not 100% necessary ( as if ever LOL) with today's blowers.....that is BAD A$$ blower setup, Gary.

J2000 all the way baby! And if your too young to remember the pinnacle of crazy forced induction in the J2000, good for you ;)
 
I'm a big fan of big cube NA engines. My SLC has an itb 468ci Ls7. My C6 Z06 (sold this fall) has a 500ci Ls7 (Fast intake). Both of these motors produce ~500 ft lbs of torque at the wheels barely off idle.

Both motors have a table top-like torque curve from 1000 to 7000 rpm. The itb ls7 peaks at 624rwtq (684rwhp), and the FAST intake 500ci Ls7 peaked at 575rwtq (615rwhp) on the same chassis dyno. Super fun engines. Way more power than most people need on the street or a road course. Still fun though.

That said, my daily drivers are both Porsche turbos. A Cayenne Turbo S and a 997.2 911 Turbo (pdk). The turbo lag is almost imperceptible in either car and the boost/torque curve is entirely controllable/predicable during spirited driving. The Cayenne is a v8tt, and the 911 a flat 6 TT w/VTG turbos.

The combination of today's hardware and software strategies have taken turbos to a completely different level from my old Supra days with 150 rwtq from idle to 4500 rpm and then 600rwtq from 5000 to 6500 rpm.

Those days were fun but the old large turbos on a 3 liter inline 6 made for a narrow power band and a boring car outside of doing stupid things on the street. It also created a dangerous ramp up for drivers that weren't expecting the huge swing in power.

Today's cars and technologies are so much better. Reading Ferrari's previous position on turbos screams of marketing propaganda to justify their engineering decisions compared to the decisions of some of their competitors nipping at their heels.

I bet their turbocharged Ferrari will be something amazing and may even raise the bar in their segment.

I wonder what their stance on turbo charging will be then?
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Ferraris have always hated turbos in F1 they were abysmal when Berger drove them and they are inconsistent with internal pressures inside the engine. There is significant technical complication in fuel air mixture the way ferrari has tried to do it and failed. the F40, The 288 GTO turbo = hot unhappy engine compartments that have a penchant for burning.
On a similar note I miss the ability for teams to free think, continue engineering new designs and technology instead of trying to be like Nascar. F1 is was always the pinnacle of technology and now the LeMans LMP vehicle is more diverse and forward thinking. Its time that F1 drops the charade of fairness in competition and evolve. We will still have has beens and never will be's at the back trying. They may come up and win once in a while with a new evolution but the will never have a chance the way it is now.
 
If you use sequential turbo's, small for low rpm and large for the rest will eliminate turbo lag.

You can also run a super charger and turbo combination. This will also eliminate turbo lag.
 
Ferraris have always hated turbos in F1 they were abysmal when Berger drove them and they are inconsistent with internal pressures inside the engine. There is significant technical complication in fuel air mixture the way ferrari has tried to do it and failed. the F40, The 288 GTO turbo = hot unhappy engine compartments that have a penchant for burning.
On a similar note I miss the ability for teams to free think, continue engineering new designs and technology instead of trying to be like Nascar. F1 is was always the pinnacle of technology and now the LeMans LMP vehicle is more diverse and forward thinking. Its time that F1 drops the charade of fairness in competition and evolve. We will still have has beens and never will be's at the back trying. They may come up and win once in a while with a new evolution but the will never have a chance the way it is now.

It's funny because they've often done these things in the name of controlling costs and giving the little guys more even footing. In reality, if you put a finite box around what you can and can't do, the money required may temporarily decrease, but ultimately it usually goes up more because those with the $$$ will spend it like water trying to find smaller and smaller advantages. Keep the rules wide open and someone can do something innovative on a budget that trumps the big guys.

This happened in my main sport - cycling. They instituted a weight limit of 6.8kg for road bikes in part to keep costs down (and for safety, but that's also a fallacy). The result is years later, we have race bikes that run $10-15K! Companies make a bike that is under the limit and then add weight when/where they want so it just complies.
 

Jack Houpe

GT40s Supporter
Turbos have come a long way, they have variable vane turbos that act like a supercharger, they also have self contained turbos which eliminate the need for oiling system. There are limitations but truly remarkable.

www.aerocharger.com

Here is a picture of my twin turbo Ferrari engine. :) Lots of plumbing!
 

Attachments

  • 208 done.jpg
    208 done.jpg
    178 KB · Views: 295
Back
Top