Concept power units from 2030

[mzso]

So it could be compact and low vibration.

a compact X4 wouldn't be close to 90 deg and so would vibrate eg more than any car (3 or more cylinder) engine

If the opposing pistons are symmetrical, why would it vibrate?

[ispano6]

Forget that. Two stroke with turbo instead..

How about hydrogen rotary? Might be a good R&D challenge that Aramco could get on board with, considering their focus on blue ammonia/hydrogen. Maybe have to look farther ahead to 2040...

[Tommy Cookers]

How about hydrogen rotary? Might be a good R&D challenge that Aramco could get on board with, considering their focus on blue ammonia/hydrogen. Maybe have to look farther ahead to 2040...

the rotary might seem to have excessive combustion chamber area but .....
gaseous fuels have a wider explosive range and so can be run much leaner but ....
you'd need a 2 stage compressor

[wuzak]

While on the the topic of smaller/lighter engines. I wonder why no-one ever mad an X-4, or X-8 engine. (For racing anyway)

https://images2.imgbox.com/29/8b/6WVOL7cJ_o.gif

CoG too high, inconvenient exhaust and inlet placement.

Gearbox will be too high too.

In the current regulations, the crankshaft centreline is 90mm above the reference plane, and the CoG must be a minimum of 200mm above the reference plane.

[ispano6]

How about hydrogen rotary? Might be a good R&D challenge that Aramco could get on board with, considering their focus on blue ammonia/hydrogen. Maybe have to look farther ahead to 2040...

the rotary might seem to have excessive combustion chamber area but .....
gaseous fuels have a wider explosive range and so can be run much leaner but ....
you'd need a 2 stage compressor

It does hit the requirements in terms of sustainability and real-world application use. The rotary engine is increasingly being studied by many R&D groups with the focus on hydrogen-ammonia fuels. It's had a resurgence in scientific R&D literature and there are proponents of new applications of novel rotary engine concepts such as the rotary vane design which already is commonplace in various applications. It would be fascinating to see advanced rotary engines be a new racing power unit. No doubt there will be naysayers regardless of the merits of the power/weight ratio, NVH and most of all, efficiency. I believe it is now just a matter of time that the likes of Mazda or Rolls-Royce develop an ultra-efficient and clean hydrogen-electric rotary using true high-tech innovations for the application of cars, planes, and boats. Interesting times ahead.

[mzso]

Forget that. Two stroke with turbo instead..

How about hydrogen rotary? Might be a good R&D challenge that Aramco could get on board with, considering their focus on blue ammonia/hydrogen. Maybe have to look farther ahead to 2040...

Hydrogen is a not a huge factor for engine concept, I think. But sadly no-one seems to be interested in rotary engines.

The most interesting would be to just set the flow limit, ban some exotic or troublesome materials and leave everything else open. We already have a cost cap in place for engine development. Oh and more engines should be allowed, at least temporarily.

[mzso]

Forget that. Two stroke with turbo instead..

Is a high-performance turbocharged two-stroke engine even viable conceptually?

[mzso]

While on the the topic of smaller/lighter engines. I wonder why no-one ever mad an X-4, or X-8 engine. (For racing anyway)

https://images2.imgbox.com/29/8b/6WVOL7cJ_o.gif

CoG too high, inconvenient exhaust and inlet placement.

Gearbox will be too high too.

In the current regulations, the crankshaft centreline is 90mm above the reference plane, and the CoG must be a minimum of 200mm above the reference plane.

Hm. I wouldn't think the COG would be too high especially in a more squashed X layout. Half the cylinder heads are at the bottom anyway.
The gearbox might be an issue in this regard, but it doesn't necessarily need to be on level with the crankshaft, if it's too much of an issue.
Would inlets and exhausts impose much of a power/aerodynamic/weight penalty?

[ispano6]

Forget that. Two stroke with turbo instead..

How about hydrogen rotary? Might be a good R&D challenge that Aramco could get on board with, considering their focus on blue ammonia/hydrogen. Maybe have to look farther ahead to 2040...

Hydrogen is a not a huge factor for engine concept, I think. But sadly no-one seems to be interested in rotary engines.

The most interesting would be to just set the flow limit, ban some exotic or troublesome materials and leave everything else open. We already have a cost cap in place for engine development. Oh and more engines should be allowed, at least temporarily.

A lot of scientists acknowledge hydrogen to be the future with BEVs as stopgap for the medium term. Unfortunately we have a lot of non-scientists making decisions for the rest of the world. Maybe Super Formula and Japan will lead the way. I can see IMSA/LMP also allowing it too. There needs to be another body that rivals FIA as well, preferably an Asian and American coalition.

[mzso]

A lot of scientists acknowledge hydrogen to be the future with BEVs as stopgap for the medium term. Unfortunately we have a lot of non-scientists making decisions for the rest of the world. Maybe Super Formula and Japan will lead the way. I can see IMSA/LMP also allowing it too. There needs to be another body that rivals FIA as well, preferably an Asian and American coalition.

This is pure unadulterated fantasy. And I don't think any serious scientist would claim it.
If you produce hydrogen the worst thing you can do is burn it. It pollutes (due to high temperature combustion) and wastes a good chunk of the energy. Fuel-cell is the way to go with hydrogen.

Not that hydrogen makes any sense whatsoever. And it's not an ideological issue, but a physical and technological one.
It's not an energy source, it's an energy storage medium, a very poor one at that. You need to produce it, which is inefficient. Then compress and or cool it, which is also wasteful. You need to store it, which is highly problematic an rather dangerous. Then you need use it. Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells are not particulary efficient, burning is even worse. And storing the huge 700 atmosphere (!) gas cylinders in a car require significant sacrifices.

[Tommy Cookers]

stimulated by the last 2 posts I can say that ....
it has just been announced in the UK that (quite near to me) progress will continue to....

generate hydrogen from surplus windfarm electricity ....
store said hydrogen in a handy undersea cavern formerly used for natural gas storage and ....
burn said hydrogen in a gas turbine turning an electrical generator .....
so comprising an energy storage pseudo-battery to support (at 35 MW) electricity supply when the wind has fallen

similarly near they are to convert an oil refinery/port by equipping it for importation/storage of Saudi-made ammonia

[wuzak]

While on the the topic of smaller/lighter engines. I wonder why no-one ever mad an X-4, or X-8 engine. (For racing anyway)

https://images2.imgbox.com/29/8b/6WVOL7cJ_o.gif

CoG too high, inconvenient exhaust and inlet placement.

Gearbox will be too high too.

In the current regulations, the crankshaft centreline is 90mm above the reference plane, and the CoG must be a minimum of 200mm above the reference plane.

Hm. I wouldn't think the COG would be too high especially in a more squashed X layout. Half the cylinder heads are at the bottom anyway.
The gearbox might be an issue in this regard, but it doesn't necessarily need to be on level with the crankshaft, if it's too much of an issue.
Would inlets and exhausts impose much of a power/aerodynamic/weight penalty?

The crankshaft is the heaviest single component of the engine, and it will be higher.

The sump of a Vee or inline engine can be placed into the step in the floor.

For a flat engine, the crankshaft has to be raised to allow space for the exhaust or intake below the engine.

The X has the same issue, but compounded by the angle of the banks raising the cranklshaft even higher.

For an X engine the lower cylinder heads would not be much lower than the V6's cylinder heads, if at all.

If the gearbox is lower than the engine the additional gears have to be added, making it heavier.

You can see how big the airboxes and exhausts are for the current engines. I don't think so much an issue for aerodynamics, but for the CoG. Except, of course, if the rules allowed for big venturi tunnels.

[toraabe]

Forget that. Two stroke with turbo instead..

Is a high-performance turbocharged two-stroke engine even viable conceptually?

No problem. With 4 overhead outlet valves and the inlet through cylinder ports no problem. Detroit diesels were made like that.