How Much Can CNN Get Wrong About F1 Engines, Physics In One Article?

I think CNN must be hiring Amish kids on Rumspringa for its motorsports
writers. That's really the only way you could explain the rich, lavish
ignorance of how cars work as demonstrated in this article about turbo
engines returning to F1.

The basic facts are there — F1 regulations are calling for a return to
turbocharged engines, which will be returning to F1 after 26 years, and
that first Renault RS01 back in '77 certainly did have its share of
teething issues, and would often dramatically blow its engine, like many
of the other early turbocharged cars.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18wt.../ku-xlarge.gif

Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to
explain how the turbo engines are different:

While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
making it more energy efficient.

Oh boy. Is it possible for one little sentence to get so much wrong, so
efficiently? It's impressive, in its way. And, sure, it's CNN, not a
dedicated automotive site, but in an article about F1 cars and racing
tech, you'd think there'd be at least some attempt to get this right.
It'd be like writing an article about an election that said "While a
standard election is decided by court decisions from individual citizen
legislatures, a runoff election leverages polling data from the most
recent census." Sure, those are real words, but they make zero sense.P

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18wt.../ku-xlarge.jpg

Let's break it down: "a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to
the crankshaft," is a great start if the goal is to establish that
reality and physics have no place in this article. "Powered by?" what's
driving that belt that drives the crank? Probably raw horsepower,
contained in a pressurized vessel, extracted from the finest Arabian
horses, liquified, and kept at 50 PSI.

Of course, turbo engines are much more efficient, since they "run on
their own exhaust steam." That would make them basically like, I don't
know, perpetual motion locomotives? That is very efficient.

This person clearly has no idea about how a car actually works. Sure,
when one of those early turbos failed, coolant splashed around and hit
hot engine bits and made all kinds of billowing steam clouds, but that is
most certainly not "exhaust steam." There's no stoker crammed in the back
of an F1 cockpit frantically shoveling coal into the boiler so the driver
can perform a dramatic overtake on a turn.123P
8I just threw up I'm laughing so hard!
Patron of PetrolExpand
8
"I don't even want to tell you what these guys thought that meant."
..



cardcheatExpand
8F1 would be a hell of a lot more entertaining if there were, though.
Old-Busted-HotnessExpand
For the record "standard" engines — which must mean naturally aspirated
here — work by mixing air and fuel, sucking it into a cylinder,
compressing it with a piston, and then burning it, while turbocharged
engines do the same thing, but use the escaping exhaust gases to drive a
turbine to increase the pressure and density of the fuel air-mixture in
the cylinder, which gives more power when then ignited.P
I'm really not sure who this article was written for, either. The writer
talks about turbo engines like they're something exotic readers would
rarely have encountered, saying,

But once in full flight, they maintain speed well, and today
you'll often find turbo engines used in trains, trucks and
construction equipment.

8Actually, nowadays it is near impossible to find a non-turbocharged (or,
non "steam-turbinated" according to the article) train, truck or other
heavy duty vehicle.
MkV_GTI, besides suspension bushings, it also likes to eat tie
rodsExpand
Really? My local diesel locomotive or bulldozer may be utilizing one of
these remarkable exhaust-steam turbinators? Fascinating! I wonder if
perhaps, one day, one of those fascinating devices may make its way to my
personal motor-coach?45P
8Now I'm snorting tears and have the reflux; I'm a mess. This is the best
article ever written!
Patron of PetrolExpand
8"Turbinator". That's either a bit racist or the next Terminator stars a
Sikh
SpeedmonkeyExpand


SExpand
Also revealing that this article is targeted to unfrozen cavemen and/or
freshly landed aliens interested in Earth Landship Motor Competitions is
thisP

No longer will F1 circuits roar with the sound of standard
2.4-liter V8 engines — referring to their eight cylinders.
Instead, they'll be fitted with 1.6-liter V6 turbo-charged
units, in line with the new F1 rules.P

Oh! THAT's what the 'V8' stands for! It's not the vegetable drink! Whew,
that's a relief, since I can't imagine anyone chugging 2.4 liters of that
stuff.67P
8
DJZJExpand
8Challenge: ask a random guy on the street what the "v" means in "V8".
backRoadsExpand

Seriously, CNN, this is ridiculous. Next time, feel free to give us, or,
for that matter, almost anyone else a call and we'll help you out with
the tricky parts.8P

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
<snipped>

I can supply an even greater example of newser ignorance. I worked at the
Kennedy Space Center for about 4 years, so I know its layout.
When the newsers were covering a lunar or space shuttle launch, they
would usually refer to the launch site as "Cape Canaveral". This is
wrong. The specific launch site is Merritt Island. The Cape was used only
for launching satellites.

Anyone with any knowledge of KSC would know this, especially Walter
Cronkite, so-called spokesman for America's space program. A space
shuttle could no more be launched from the cape than Walter Cronkite
could give birth to a healthy baby.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous >
wrote:


>
> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
> making it more energy efficient.


That's pretty much beyond belief. At least NBC or whoever it was put
Buffalo in the right state. And country.

"Ubiquitous" > wrote in message
...
>
> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
> making it more energy efficient.

Now there's an idea for 2015 - turbojet cars !

geoff

On 8/16/2013 11:07 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Let's break it down: "a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to
> the crankshaft," is a great start if the goal is to establish that
> reality and physics have no place in this article. "Powered by?" what's
> driving that belt that drives the crank? Probably raw horsepower,
> contained in a pressurized vessel, extracted from the finest Arabian
> horses, liquified, and kept at 50 PSI.

0:58 to 1:07 in this video shows how power gets into engines:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKEuzxC4eGc&feature=youtu.be>.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:

> Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to
> explain how the turbo engines are different:
>
> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
> making it more energy efficient.
>
My guess is that the writer assigned to write the story knew nothing about
engines.

He interviewed somebody who tried to explain the difference between
conventional "supercharged" engines and "turbocharged" engines. (Belt
driven compressor vs. exhaust driven compressor.)

The writer was totally confused by all of this, it might as well have been
quantum mechanics, but he wrote the article anyway.

Kuskokwim wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to
>> explain how the turbo engines are different:
>>
>> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
>> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
>> making it more energy efficient.
>>
> My guess is that the writer assigned to write the story knew nothing about
> engines.
>
> He interviewed somebody who tried to explain the difference between
> conventional "supercharged" engines and "turbocharged" engines. (Belt
> driven compressor vs. exhaust driven compressor.)
>
> The writer was totally confused by all of this, it might as well have been
> quantum mechanics, but he wrote the article anyway.

sadly, that writer will make a great customer at a dishonest repair shop
someday.

GW

On 8/17/2013 8:42 AM, Kuskokwim wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to
>> explain how the turbo engines are different:
>>
>> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
>> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
>> making it more energy efficient.
>>
> My guess is that the writer assigned to write the story knew nothing about
> engines.
>
> He interviewed somebody who tried to explain the difference between
> conventional "supercharged" engines and "turbocharged" engines. (Belt
> driven compressor vs. exhaust driven compressor.)
>
What is now called turbocharging used to be called turbo-supercharging
(e.g. WW2 era aircraft). Not to mention turbo-compounding, which
applied force from an exhaust gas driven turbine directly to the crankshaft.

> The writer was totally confused by all of this, it might as well have been
> quantum mechanics, but he wrote the article anyway.
>
Where was the editor?

--
T0m $herm@n

T0m $herman wrote:

> On 8/17/2013 8:42 AM, Kuskokwim wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >
> > > Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer
> > > attempts to explain how the turbo engines are different:
> > >
> > > While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
> > > crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
> > > making it more energy efficient.
> > >
> > My guess is that the writer assigned to write the story knew
> > nothing about engines.
> >
> > He interviewed somebody who tried to explain the difference between
> > conventional "supercharged" engines and "turbocharged" engines.
> > (Belt driven compressor vs. exhaust driven compressor.)
> >
> What is now called turbocharging used to be called
> turbo-supercharging (e.g. WW2 era aircraft). Not to mention
> turbo-compounding, which applied force from an exhaust gas driven
> turbine directly to the crankshaft.
>
> > The writer was totally confused by all of this, it might as well
> > have been quantum mechanics, but he wrote the article anyway.
> >
> Where was the editor?

Doing her nails...

On 8/17/13 9:33 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 8/17/2013 8:42 AM, Kuskokwim wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:07:59 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to
>>> explain how the turbo engines are different:
>>>
>>> While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the
>>> crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam,
>>> making it more energy efficient.
>>>
>> My guess is that the writer assigned to write the story knew nothing
>> about
>> engines.
>>
>> He interviewed somebody who tried to explain the difference between
>> conventional "supercharged" engines and "turbocharged" engines. (Belt
>> driven compressor vs. exhaust driven compressor.)
>>
> What is now called turbocharging used to be called turbo-supercharging
> (e.g. WW2 era aircraft). Not to mention turbo-compounding, which
> applied force from an exhaust gas driven turbine directly to the
> crankshaft.
>
>> The writer was totally confused by all of this, it might as well have
>> been
>> quantum mechanics, but he wrote the article anyway.
>>
> Where was the editor?


At a NASCAR race.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.