2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[mzso]

Fuel cells are quite a lot more efficient. Around twice as much. And as you said some energy recovery is possible, increasing the efficiency further.

let's try this one more time .....
hydrogen fueling of traditional ICE engines gives poor efficiency because these ICEs have poor efficiency at low% power
so yes hydrogen fuel cells are 'twice as efficient' for road use

but in hydrogen-fueled F1 its 'heat dilution'-type ICE would be 50% efficient (or 55% efficient with MGU-H)
(hydrogen could even be run adiabatically - ie so lean that no heat dump via coolant is needed)

Any references for these claims?
AFAIK F1 only reached 50% because of heat recovery. I somehow have doubts tha hydrogen can do much better.

Even so fuel cells can be more efficient than that. Plus there's no reason not recover energy from otherwise waste heat, increasing the efficiency even further.

But a good question we need to ask is: what's the point in using hydrogen in the first place?
And it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium. An economic nightmare. Won't be of much use in the real world.

And if we burn it, it won't even move us away from ICE tech. Which is limited in performance characteristics, edficiency, is mechanically complex, and inherently pollutes, even with hydrogen.

[CHT]

Fuel cells are quite a lot more efficient. Around twice as much. And as you said some energy recovery is possible, increasing the efficiency further.

let's try this one more time .....
hydrogen fueling of traditional ICE engines gives poor efficiency because these ICEs have poor efficiency at low% power
so yes hydrogen fuel cells are 'twice as efficient' for road use

but in hydrogen-fueled F1 its 'heat dilution'-type ICE would be 50% efficient (or 55% efficient with MGU-H)
(hydrogen could even be run adiabatically - ie so lean that no heat dump via coolant is needed)

Any references for these claims?
AFAIK F1 only reached 50% because of heat recovery. I somehow have doubts tha hydrogen can do much better.

Even so fuel cells can be more efficient than that. Plus there's no reason not recover energy from otherwise waste heat, increasing the efficiency even further.

But a good question we need to ask is: what's the point in using hydrogen in the first place?
And it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium. An economic nightmare. Won't be of much use in the real world.

And if we burn it, it won't even move us away from ICE tech. Which is limited in performance characteristics, edficiency, is mechanically complex, and inherently pollutes, even with hydrogen.

Hydrogen is important for the survival of the traditional high-performance automotive industry, without ICE, the barrier of entry into this segment of the auto industry will become irrelevant.

With hydrogen, the automotive companies hope to retain the roaring sound of V8 and V10 and differentiate themselves from EVs. Just like digital smart watches vs mechanical watches.

With ICE it's harder for smaller car companies to compete with big auto giants in car performance due to the high cost and complication in ICE technology. With EV, it's now a game of battery capacity, charging speeds, and powerful motors.

As a motorsport fans, i sure hope one day, hydrogen will be able to bring back V8 and V10 engines in F1 again.

[Tommy Cookers]

... hydrogen ... it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium....

untrue

there's lots of natural hydrogen under ground - just as there's lots of 'natural gas' (methane) under ground
yes hydrogen typically is deeper
until now hydrogen has been an embarrassment to those drilling for NG (so they've kept it quiet)

[chaoticflounder]

... hydrogen ... it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium....

untrue

there's lots of natural hydrogen under ground - just as there's lots of 'natural gas' (methane) under ground
yes hydrogen typically is deeper
until now hydrogen has been an embarrassment to those drilling for NG (so they've kept it quiet)

To further re-iterate Tommy's point, when you burn fossil fuels ... you're really burning hydrogen.

Per unit mass, it is actually one of the most efficient (look at launch vehicle fuel pairings). Per unit volume, yes pure hydrogen is not very good.

Fossil fuels are just long hydro-carbons roughly in the ratio CxH2x. The ignition thermal event breaks this bond and the hydrogen bonds to oxygen to produce H2O and Carbon bonds to Oxygen to produce CO2 (mostly). Some amount of NOx is also produced.

Methane is CH4 btw.

I'm not too up to date on my renewable fuels synthesis, but I believe a large challenge (cost / energy wise) is having the spare hydrogen to combine with carbon to form a synthetic "fossil" fuel. If excess hydrogen is on hand, that pathway to a renewable fuel would be more viable.

[mzso]

Hydrogen is important for the survival of the traditional high-performance automotive industry, without ICE, the barrier of entry into this segment of the auto industry will become irrelevant.

With hydrogen, the automotive companies hope to retain the roaring sound of V8 and V10 and differentiate themselves from EVs. Just like digital smart watches vs mechanical watches.

With ICE it's harder for smaller car companies to compete with big auto giants in car performance due to the high cost and complication in ICE technology. With EV, it's now a game of battery capacity, charging speeds, and powerful motors.

As a motorsport fans, i sure hope one day, hydrogen will be able to bring back V8 and V10 engines in F1 again.

So in conclusion, there's no point or reason at all to use hydrogen.

[mzso]

... hydrogen ... it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium....

untrue

there's lots of natural hydrogen under ground - just as there's lots of 'natural gas' (methane) under ground
yes hydrogen typically is deeper
until now hydrogen has been an embarrassment to those drilling for NG (so they've kept it quiet)

Free hydrogen? No way! Methane and water yes. Most hydrogen comes from methane, the rest from electrolysis.

[mzso]

... hydrogen ... it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium....

untrue

there's lots of natural hydrogen under ground - just as there's lots of 'natural gas' (methane) under ground
yes hydrogen typically is deeper
until now hydrogen has been an embarrassment to those drilling for NG (so they've kept it quiet)

To further re-iterate Tommy's point, when you burn fossil fuels ... you're really burning hydrogen.

Per unit mass, it is actually one of the most efficient (look at launch vehicle fuel pairings). Per unit volume, yes pure hydrogen is not very good.

Fossil fuels are just long hydro-carbons roughly in the ratio CxH2x. The ignition thermal event breaks this bond and the hydrogen bonds to oxygen to produce H2O and Carbon bonds to Oxygen to produce CO2 (mostly). Some amount of NOx is also produced.

Methane is CH4 btw.

I'm not too up to date on my renewable fuels synthesis, but I believe a large challenge (cost / energy wise) is having the spare hydrogen to combine with carbon to form a synthetic "fossil" fuel. If excess hydrogen is on hand, that pathway to a renewable fuel would be more viable.

Not sure if you're reiterating anything though. You listed some hydrogen, hydro-carbon trivia.

[CHT]

Hydrogen is important for the survival of the traditional high-performance automotive industry, without ICE, the barrier of entry into this segment of the auto industry will become irrelevant.

With hydrogen, the automotive companies hope to retain the roaring sound of V8 and V10 and differentiate themselves from EVs. Just like digital smart watches vs mechanical watches.

With ICE it's harder for smaller car companies to compete with big auto giants in car performance due to the high cost and complication in ICE technology. With EV, it's now a game of battery capacity, charging speeds, and powerful motors.

As a motorsport fans, i sure hope one day, hydrogen will be able to bring back V8 and V10 engines in F1 again.

So in conclusion, there's no point or reason at all to use hydrogen.

As many people have already pointed out, F1 will never be green regardless if it EV or ICE due to the amount of carbon footprint it produces just for logistics and tourism it brings to every race. Fans paying money to watch race will still prefer ICE and engine noise. FIA has already mentioned F1 will never go for fully electric and I guess it is the reason why FIA and F1 started the hydrogen fuel program to keep ICE alive. So it's not true it's pointless. The reason is clearly to keep the F1 show and entertainment alive. With fans attending races, it will be no point hosting F1 because its a costly logistical nightmare for host country

[Tommy Cookers]

Free hydrogen? No way!

https://geoscientist.online/sections/un ... -frontier/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/ ... it-france/
say otherwise

France has 46 million tonnes ... and counting ....
what some call white hydrogen and some call/called gold hydrogen

[Rodak]

... hydrogen ... it's not even a real fuel. It's a really crappy energy storage medium....

untrue

there's lots of natural hydrogen under ground - just as there's lots of 'natural gas' (methane) under ground
yes hydrogen typically is deeper
until now hydrogen has been an embarrassment to those drilling for NG (so they've kept it quiet)

Free hydrogen? No way! Methane and water yes. Most hydrogen comes from methane, the rest from electrolysis.

Yep, methane, from wells, is broken down to produce hydrogen. And how is this done? By an energy intensive steam cracking process that uses more energy to make the hydrogen than is available from the hydrogen produced. Until some passive solar method (wind or sun) is developed for electrolysis of water it just doesn't make sense to produce hydrogen as a fuel.

[mzso]

As many people have already pointed out, F1 will never be green regardless if it EV or ICE due to the amount of carbon footprint it produces just for logistics and tourism it brings to every race.

Sure, and as always it's meaningless. F1 is a technology showcase. What matters is what sort of tech is used.

Fans paying money to watch race will still prefer ICE and engine noise.

That is just pure conjecture. EVs are constantly getting more popular.

FIA has already mentioned F1 will never go for fully electric

You mean Domenicali said. Who's just representing current propaganda. And probably the interests of the majority of corporations behind F1 at the time.

[mzso]

Free hydrogen? No way!

https://geoscientist.online/sections/un ... -frontier/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/ ... it-france/
say otherwise

France has 46 million tonnes ... and counting ....
what some call white hydrogen and some call/called gold hydrogen

Interesting. Though I suspect if it was actually economical to utilize someone would have already done so to make money.

[CHT]

As many people have already pointed out, F1 will never be green regardless if it EV or ICE due to the amount of carbon footprint it produces just for logistics and tourism it brings to every race.

Sure, and as always it's meaningless. F1 is a technology showcase. What matters is what sort of tech is used.

Fans paying money to watch race will still prefer ICE and engine noise.

That is just pure conjecture. EVs are constantly getting more popular.

FIA has already mentioned F1 will never go for fully electric

You mean Domenicali said. Who's just representing current propaganda. And probably the interests of the majority of corporations behind F1 at the time.

There is no conjecture here because Formula E is losing its shine and novelty as big automotive companies like BMW, Merc Audi etc have left the series, while F1 running ICE is growing in popularity in terms of revenue, sponsorship, TV viewship and race attendance.

Ex FIA chief Jean Todt has also spoken about the prospect of F1 going full electric. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59556016

EV is getting popular for consumers but not necessarily motor racing due to the limitation of current battery technology, which is heavy and limited capacity, not to mentioned the all important sound effect that goes with the race. If EV is the future for motor racing wont you agree that Formula E should grow on its own, with or without F1? If not why not?

F1 is a multi-billion dollar business, employing tens of thousands of full-time staff. And that is perhaps why F1 and FIA are hoping hydrogen ICE engines could be the future of F1. As FIA president, of course, Domenicilli has to take care of the interests of the actors and performers in F1. what is F1 without automotive giants like Merc, Ferrari, Renault Honda etc.

[organic]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reve ... /10557347/

Please succeed in making nimbler cars

"We aim to have a significantly lower weight limit, and we are looking to reduce the weight limit by 40 to 50 kilos in 2026," said Tombazis.

"The way we want to do that is related to what we've termed the 'nimble car' concept, because we basically feel that in recent years the cars have become a bit too bulky and too heavy."

The smaller dimensions will automatically help with the weight, but another factor will be crucial as well: a reduction of downforce.

It will mean less load on parts, and that will mean teams will not have to make things so beefy.

"This lower downforce means that a lot of the loading on components, such as suspension, will reduce and that will enable the teams to reduce the weight consequentially," said Tombazis.

Tombazis added: "We are tentatively aiming for wheels that are 16-inch wheel rims, with smaller wheel diameter and smaller width both front and rear. All of these things we believe are pushing towards a significantly lower weight."

The plan is for less downforce and drag, and current simulations do not point to lap times being dramatically worse than they are now, although ultimately Tombazis says that outright speed is not its biggest worry.

"It is really not a huge factor," he said. "It's going to be very close to now.
"I think we're going to be within a couple of seconds or something like that. But even if it was five seconds slower, we're not going to be sweating too much."

"There will be something equivalent to the current DRS, which will basically enable the following car that is within a certain limit to potentially get in a position to attack," he said.

"What form that mechanism will take: whether it will be an additional change of an aerodynamic component on the straight, or an additional change of the aerodynamic component in the corner, or whether it will be part of the energy of the engine....which of the three, we're still doing our best simulations to arrive to the best possible solution.

"What we don't want to have is cars basically diving past each other on the straight. We want cars arriving close to each other at the braking point and there being a fight, and drivers having to use their skill."

[mzso]

As many people have already pointed out, F1 will never be green regardless if it EV or ICE due to the amount of carbon footprint it produces just for logistics and tourism it brings to every race.

Sure, and as always it's meaningless. F1 is a technology showcase. What matters is what sort of tech is used.

Fans paying money to watch race will still prefer ICE and engine noise.

That is just pure conjecture. EVs are constantly getting more popular.

FIA has already mentioned F1 will never go for fully electric

You mean Domenicali said. Who's just representing current propaganda. And probably the interests of the majority of corporations behind F1 at the time.

There is no conjecture here because Formula E is losing its shine and novelty as big automotive companies like BMW, Merc Audi etc have left the series, while F1 running ICE is growing in popularity in terms of revenue, sponsorship, TV viewship and race attendance.

Ex FIA chief Jean Todt has also spoken about the prospect of F1 going full electric. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59556016

You're going around in circles. FE is still irrelevant. F1 has the big attention/money/appeal because of history and tradition. So there's only conjecture.
When a (ex)leader recites some current propaganda of a corrupt organization, it's still meaningless. Todt doesn't even have technological understanding.

EV is getting popular for consumers but not necessarily motor racing due to the limitation of current battery technology, which is heavy and limited capacity, not to mentioned the all important sound effect that goes with the race. If EV is the future for motor racing wont you agree that Formula E should grow on its own, with or without F1? If not why not?

No. I'm getting tired of re-iterating, but F1 has all the money, advertisers attention, vested interests, and the well known brand. It like gets the majority of money of all auto-racing in total. Obviously nothing else will grow to compete with it. And there's no important sound effect. Some small number of loud people were whining about the noise since 2014, yet everyone kept watching.

F1 is a multi-billion dollar business, employing tens of thousands of full-time staff. And that is perhaps why F1 and FIA are hoping hydrogen ICE engines could be the future of F1.

I fail to see any connection between the two...

As FIA president, of course, Domenicilli has to take care of the interests of the actors and performers in F1. what is F1 without automotive giants like Merc, Ferrari, Renault Honda etc.

The FIA president is Ben Sulayem. Domenically is the leader of a(division of a) a money grubbing corporation.

F1 without automitve giants (based on history) is a well contested championship, with brilliant engineering solutions popping up all the time.