Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos | Hacker News Reader

Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos

kinja.roadandtrack.com

104 pointsjcater93 comments

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.

There's one significant problem with these hybrid powertrains, and that is weight. Porsche admitted the electric addition to the 918 V8 engine weighs about 300kg, all considered. The 918 is a very heavy car for what it is, at 1700kg, compared to 1380kg for the Carrera GT (it's ancestor, in a way).

The Tesla Model S is also a very heavy car, at 2100kg. However that weight is somewhat offset by its placement, right near the road using a flat floorplan housing all drivetrain components.

While the weight can be cancelled out in a straight line because these hybrid drivetrains can provide monumental straight line performance, the weight is still there for turning and braking.

Turbos go around the weight issue - in fact, they can make for much lighter powertrains with a smaller displacement for a superior performance. The main problem with turbos, in Ferrari's perspective, mostly relates to the altered emotional connection with the car. No more 9k RPM revving motors with a godly sound, but something tamer (like the McLaren MP4-12C). If you ever got to drive a current generation Ferrari motor, you'd understand instantly why they are so adamant on preserving its character.

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.

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 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

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.

Supercaps are in Mazda 3's, so the parts are available. The system is call i-eloop. I think they're just used for powering accessories so far.

You can also fill in the gaps with clever twin turbos these days. BMW are particularly good at it. Small one to spool up quickly and fill in the low range, larger one to take you through the mid.

Nissan is pretty good at it, too. The twin turbo GTR destroys all of Ferrari's best offerings and costs 2.5-10x less while doing so. It's interesting that the author implies that only naturally aspirated engines give you the precise control you need in cornering when a 3.8L V6 with two enormous turbos strapped to it handily beats almost every other road-legal, non-gokart, NA-engine'd car except the Aventador... for only $100,000 brand new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Pow...

A tuned GTR easily beats the Aventador, though, for a fraction of the price.

https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

Similar things have been done for decades. The Porsche 959 (1986-1989), Toyota Supra MKIV (1993.5-1998 USA), and FD RX-7 all had a sequential turbo setup, but they were all using two turbos of the same size. All The exhaust gas is diverted through a single turbo at low RPM to spool it quickly, then after a certain RPM is reached gas begins being diverted through both turbos equally.

The problem is the control systems and extra plumbing get pretty complicated. The setup in the Supra is lovingly referred to as "the rat's nest"

Volvo is working on an electric turbo apparently http://www.autonews.com/article/20141007/OEM04/141009809/vol...

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.

The current system (at least in Washington State) is one of if your car pollutes at a rate < x, you're legal. If it pollutes x+epsilon, you are illegal.

The rate of pollution has not much to do with the amount of pollution emitted, much like how fast you drive has little to do with how many miles you drive in a year.

The current system makes little practical or fair sense. A better system would be to annually measure the pollution rate of the car, multiply by the number of miles driven that year, and multiply by the tax rate.

This way, car buyers would not be solely concerned with their car passing the pollution test, but would be actively concerned with minimizing its emissions.

We all know the optimal solution is a tax on carbon fuel as it is imported and domestically produced. A simple way to tax the actual problem directly. It's not like the concept of taxing Exxon for all gas for domestic use is hard to understand, but it's politically hard to implement.

This is a regressive tax, but the effects can be fixed with progressive policies elsewhere. Like, I don't know, free health care.

The US has some of the lowest fuel taxes in the world (outside countries that subsidize fuel, like Venezuela), and falling oil prices would be the ideal time to increase them.

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.

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.

This system already works in the UK. You have to pay larger tax for larger emissions,and some manufacturers(Nissan, Citroen, Land Rover) have completely removed larger engines from their offers, because clients were not interested in buying them and taking a hit on their annual tax. At least that's what UK Land Rover branch told me - their % of petrol Range Rovers is close to zero, while in other EU countries which don't have tax tied to emissions sells mostly petrol Range Rovers(which have larger engines with larger emissions) because there is effectively no penalty for choosing them over the slower diesels.

In the UK it is already much more expensive to have a gas guzzling car both through tax on fuel on yearly tax on the car (which is based on emissions). I think it does lead to people buying more efficient cars. But it seems unlikely that it will lead to the adoption of zero emission vehicles any time soon.

Far too much emphasis is put on CO2; something that has a very intangible effect on people every days lives. Pollution is still seen as an abstract problem that people can fuel endless bikeshed arguments.

Yet everyone knows that exhaust is toxic and poisonous. If you lock yourself it in a garage with the engine running on a 1 Litre Aygo will kill you just as much as a 4 litre turbo charged Ferrari.

Old fashioned fossil fuel engines cause serious health problems and need to be eliminated. They are legacy technology that should be as unfashionable as owning an old feature phone. Taxation does not change peoples perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax

might be a good time to set that in place for trucks and SUVs

definitely SUVs

trucks/vans you are still going to be hurting the tradesmen that actually need those vehicles for their job

So because I'm poor, I don't (for cost reasons) pollute the environment but someone who is rich can pollute as much as they want.

Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd, and I'm not even sure it's particularly tied to a "system".

Being rich means you get to fly business class or first class, which means you get to pollute more. It means you get to upgrade your toxic electronics yearly instead of having to sacrifice and make them last 2 years. You can get to eat rarer and presumably more expensive food. You get to live in a bigger house, which destroyed more land, and takes more energy. You get a bigger wardrobe, and a greater number of watches. You can keep your house at 20C during summer instead of 30C. You get to drink imported beer instead of Budweiser.

Or, inverse: why does someone rich like you get to pollute with their car, when someone poor like me has to take the bus?

This is specifically what the tax tries to address. And even if the super-rich don't care, you end up with a lot of money (and it would be a lot), that can easily result in net gains; assuming your government isn't stupid (you know, like stop putting money into oil sands projects and establish yourself as a leader in practically any other technology).

> Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd.

Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person.

Now, taxes are fine in many cases, but not always. For example, you probably wouldn't want to live in a country where you can pay for a (taxed) killing service. Hopefully, we agree that this would be "odd".

The problem here is precisely to decide whether it is odd or not to let people emit as much as CO2 as they want (provided that they pay for the tax). Or if we should put a hard limit on it (i.e. a regulation).

I personally think it is indeed a bit odd.

>"Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person."

A sad world we live in when people view taxes as a means to "control" the amount of consumption by the rich.

Taxes such as the ones on CO2 emissions are made to influence people's behaviour. That's why I think strict regulations are sometime better than taxes because they don't really influence people, or at least not in a sneaky way like taxes do.

No, that's the inherent state of things before a tax: if you buy 10x more of something (because you can afford it), you'll be responsible for 10x the environmental externalities, but won't be feeling 10x worse about it. A progressive tax tries to make the 10x purchase sting the rich person who made it more than the 1x purchase stings the poor person who made it.

Yup, this has always been the case. Also, if you have more money, you can and probably do travel more, which is also worse for the environment. You'll probably have a bigger house which uses more energy. You'll probably have more stuff which took energy to make. You'll likely eat out more, which involves transportation of you to a place to eat, other people there to prepare your food, ingredients to the place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc.

And if you're wealthy, you'll probably want to not just have all that die with you, so you'll likely do one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.

I wonder, you seem to have some sort of magical wand that conjures money and wealth out of nowhere, to support your argument. Bear with me:

Those wealthy people that you so complain about spending their money, earned their money through some sort of market process. (Aside from obvious criminal behavior). Those market processes are the accumulated spending of (probably poor) individuals. i.e. The wealth was not generated and given to the rich in a vacuum.

And here is your paragraph, rephrased to refer to those market masses instead of the targeted rich:

All those individuals had money, they had to move around. They had a house/shack/apartment, that used energy (aside from hut-dwellers). They have stuff which takes energy to make, and use also. They also have to eat, which involves transportation to the place to eat, people to prepare it, ingredients to place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if they're living (which they probably are), they'll probably want to have a few kids, which is one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.

> 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

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 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

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.

Oh 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ;)

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?

>>>>> 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?

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 ;-)

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.

One interesting option is hydrogen generation and injection -- hydrogen gas is hard to store but it reduces engine temps because it produces water.

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.

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

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.

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

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 )

Regarding the altitude comment, you're spot-on and one only needs to look to aviation to understand this phenomenon.

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.

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.

Won't there be lag when you go back on the throttle after you turn while off the throttle?

No. The turbochargers rotational velocity doesn't instantly drop to zero. Once the intake butterflies are back open and exhaust gas volume and velocity picks up the turbocharger is making boost again. You may be able to measure this delay, but that isn't turbocharger "lag". What people call "lag" is really boost threshold. It's the point in an engine's RPM curve at which the turbocharger can supply more air to the engine that it would have naturally. Natural in this case means atmospheric pressure. So 1 psi of boost is 1 psi above atmosphere. Likewise 1 bar of boost is twice atmospheric pressure.

I thought turbo charger was the delay in throttle response. That's what wikipedia seems to think too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger#Turbocharger_lag

but I guess in the end I see what you are saying and it's merely a matter of terminology

Is what you're saying that the lag is actually the period before the turbo spins up and starts producing boost? In somewhat different wording, the lag is the engine running as if it were NA until the turbo can spin up to a speed that it will compress the incoming air? That's what I have always thought turbo lag is.

Superchargers 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

[2] http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r14011.pdf

[3] http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1094378_ferrari-may-boost...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilag_system

Or multiple turbos of differing sizes.

What 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

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger

I 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.

As 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.

Or simply use cars for what they're meant for: transportation.

Yes, and only use computers for computing stuff. No fooling around.

Ferraris are not just 'fooling around' it's just a status symbol for people with more money than brains.

We should ban Vertu phones. And people with more money than brains.

But turbo spooling sounds awesome!

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

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?

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.

Sound is one criteria. If I had the money for a super car, I would shop for Look and performance.

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.

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.

If 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.

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

Nobody needs an iPhone, either.

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

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.

When 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.

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.

I'm alive today because some anonymous bureaucrate decided to make sure cars through pedestrians up in the air rather than under the car.

Each of those safety measures is useful in a very specific circumstance.

Pedestrian safety is a small portion of all the other safety measures that have increased vehicle weight.

The point I'm trying to make is not that these measures aren't useful, but that had these resources been spent on more clever road design and traffic rules, the overall safety increases would have been higher.

You don't need seatbelts on a subway train (heck, you can even stand up!) because the likelihood of an accident is almost nil. It's my opinion that that's the ideal governments should have been after with road safety for passenger cars.

--------

EDIT: I guess I made some pretty big claims without any numbers to back them up. Here's something [0]. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) found that weight ratios for modern cars have been getting worse, in part because of safety regulations. The top commenter on the original IEEE article cites additional beams inside doors and more metal in the roof supports to meet rollover standards [1].

For some perspective, the average vehicle-to-passenger weight for the Model T was 7.7. A Boeing 787's ratio is 6.3. For the average modern passenger car, it's 25.7 (!!). Both figures assume the only occupant is a single 154-lb person.

[0] http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/02/breaking-down-vehicle-wei...

[1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much

Those figures show cars like a Honda Civic has a vehicle-to-passenger weight ratio of 18, and a Smart car is 12.

Both of these cars pass safety tests. The high average ratio has more to do with US preferences in cars (for large cars built as cheaply as possible) than safety standards on their own.

I think it's reasonable to point out that the Model T was much, much slower than modern cars, and unsafe even at the speeds it was driven.

Side intrusion protection and rollover protection are both fairly reasonable standards IMHO.

Air bags are the biggest safety-related weight contribution. Maybe reinforcements for rollovers, but in most non-convertibles this isn't that big a difference.

Airbags make a huge difference to safety.

Much of the weight increase has come from luxury features.

I agree that road design needs addressing too, but I think you are creating a false dichotomy by making it seem you do one or the other.

Sure, and for that reason, it's also important to consider priorities. Governments build infrastructure and car companies build cars.

If both entities stuck to what they did best, both would get done, and one would think they'd get done optimally.

I'm not 100% certain you can point to government regulation as the sole or even the primary driver of car mass increases. Much of that is market driven. That said, I loved my twin-turbo BMW, but much of that was the inline-six.

Yes, each model iteration gets bigger and eventually there is enough space at the bottom of the range for a new small model.

My dad's 1991 Honda CRX got 49mpg.

That's exactly one of the cars I had in mind when writing my comment.

It was BETTER than the CRZ that we now have 2 decades later!

Indeed. It is amazing how the cars that sell and make money are not the fuel efficient ones...

I only know the gas mileage of that car because my step dad that owned it would write down the current mileage and the amount of gallons fueled and then once there were a hundred entries like that on a piece of paper, he would make my calculate the mileage for 'extra practice' homework -__-

Can you provide some citations for

1) vehicle wait is ballooning

2) and it's because of government regulations

Average 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.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-e...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com