2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[wuzak]

Materials are restricted:

C15.6 Materials, processes and construction – General (Components inside the PU Perimeter)
Advisory Committee: PUAC
Governance: PU Manufacturers’ Governance Agreement / WMSC
C15.6.1 Unless explicitly permitted for a specific application, the following materials may not be used on the Power Unit:
a. Magnesium based alloys.
b. Metal Matrix Composites (MMC’s) containing more than 2.0% volume/volume of other ceramic, metallic, carbon or intermetallic phase which is not soluble in the liquid phase at 100°C above the melting point of the metallic matrix.
c. Intermetallic materials.
d. Alloys containing more than 5% by weight of Platinum, Ruthenium, Iridium or Rhenium.
e. Copper based alloys containing more than 2.2% Beryllium.
f. Any other alloy class containing more than 0.25% Beryllium.
g. Tungsten base alloys.
h. Ceramics and ceramic matrix composites.
i. Aluminium based alloys containing more than 1.0% weight Lithium (Li).
j. Materials which at least one element during production is a nanomaterial.
k. Thermal Insulation containing unbound nanomaterials.
l. Material with a density exceeding 18,400 kg/m3.
m. Aluminium based alloys containing more than 1.0% weight Silver (Ag).
n. Polymer composite material not listed in C15.2.3 except Metallic reinforced polymer.
C15.6.2 For coatings, the restrictions in Article C15.6.1 do not apply to coatings provided the total coating thickness must not exceed 25% of the section thickness of the underlying base material in all axes.
In all cases, other than under Article C15.6.3(b), the relevant coating must not exceed 0.8mm.
Where the coating is based on Gold, Platinum, Ruthenium, Iridium or Rhenium, the coating thickness must not exceed 0.035mm.
Graphene is not permitted in any coating.
C15.6.3 The restrictions in Article C15.6.1(h) do not apply to the following applications:
a. Any component whose primary purpose is for electrical or Thermal Insulation.
b. Any coating whose primary purpose is for Thermal Insulation of the outside of the exhaust system.
C15.6.4 For Aluminium-based alloy, in addition to the restrictions in article C15.6.1(b), TiB2 is only permitted up to a maximum of 0.3% v/v. Additionally AMS 4471A, AMS 4482 and AMS 7033 are authorized.
C15.6.5 The creation of a textured surface using an energy beam (e.g., electron or laser beam) or photo-chemical etching may not be used on the Power Unit, except for part marking purposes.
C15.6.6 For all rubbers and seals except piston rings (Article C5.4.10) and dynamic seals used in the air spring sub-assemblies listed in item 4, the restrictions in Article C15.6.1 and C15.6.5 do not apply (e.g., rubber boots, O-rings, gaskets, any fluid seals, bump rubbers).
C15.6.7 An approach aiming to respect the REACH and ROHS standards shall be actively pursued by the manufacturers.

C15.7 Materials and construction – Components (Components inside the PU Perimeter)
Advisory Committee: PUAC
Governance: PU Manufacturers’ Governance Agreement / WMSC
C15.7.1 Pistons must be produced from one of the following iron-based alloys: AMS 6487, 15cdv6, 42CrMo4, X38CrMoV5-3.
C15.7.2 Piston pins must be manufactured from an iron-based alloy and must be machined from a single piece of material.
C15.7.3 Connecting rods must be manufactured from iron or titanium-based alloys and must be machined from a single piece of material with no welded or joined assemblies (other than a bolted big end cap or an interfered small end bush).
C15.7.4 Crankshafts must be manufactured from an iron-based alloy.
No welding is permitted between the front and rear main bearing journals.


Did not know that the pistons had to be made from an iron based material!

[wuzak]

Doesn't even need (0.52mm +++).

CR(cold) = ((1600/6) + x ))/x = 16 ; => x=17.778 cc
CR(hot) = ((1600/6) + y ))/y = 18 ; => y=15.686 cc
Irrespective of the shape of the 'head' of the compression chamber, this signifies a thin slice (vol x-y = 2.092cc) getting removed from somewhere near one of the ends of a cucumber. With a bore dia of 80mm (defined in the spec) means this cucumber slice is 0.416mm thick.

Can't they design a piston head with exotic materials that expands by 0.416mm when operating at optimal engine temp v/s when it's cold ? My guess is that such a thing already exists (for all its worth, the CR for the 2014 to 2025 era might be exceeding 18)

For an increase in compression ratio, doesn't the pston and/or rod have to expand more than the block/heads?

Won't block/head expansion tend to reduce compression ratio?

[Badger]

I was doing some calculations on con rod thermal expansion using aluminium alloys. The con rod is around 120 mm long per the rules, and aluminium has a TE linear coefficient of 23 x 10 (to the −6) x K−1. So if we assume that the engine is running 100 degrees C above ambient (120 C), we would get a thermal expansion of 12 (cm) x 0,00023 x 100 (C) = 0,0276 cm. 0,276 mm.

To go from 16:1 to 18:1 compression in a 266,667 cc cylinder you need to reduce the minimum volume by around 2 cc. The piston head area is around 50 cm2, so 2/50 = 0,04 cm. 0,4mm.

So if you were to use aluminium alloy for the con rods you'd get 2/3 of the way to 18:1 compression just through linear thermal expansion in the con rod, not even accounting for expansion in the piston or the block.

But given the con rods must be iron or titanium alloy it makes it harder. Iron has around half the linear thermal expansion of aluminium and titanium even less.

C15.7.3 Connecting rods must be manufactured from iron or titanium-based alloys and must be machined from a single piece of material with no welded or joined assemblies (other than a bolted big end cap or an interfered small end bush).

[wuzak]

Won't the requirement for steel pistons also reduce heat transfer to the rods?

[Tommy Cookers]

the pistons will be very hot - that's why they are steel
the block (ie its coolant) is unusually cool - being plain water (and at atmospheric pressure only ??)
ie the rod is hotter than the block

the whole rod length is making an expansion contribution 'raising the piston'
some of the block crank centre height to deck height is making an expansion contribution 'dropping the piston'
and some is making a contribution to raising the piston
there would be an overall favourable expansion .....
certainly with an iron block and high-strength (maraging) 'steel' or Vascomax rods c 9 ppm/deg F and C.15.7.3 compliant
and probably also with a low-expansion Al alloy block

(don't know why Al alloy rods having c 13 ppm/deg F aren't allowed) and ok anything Ti is NBG expansionwise
so we don't have to consider the behaviour of the block and through-studs with clever preload effects (if any)

[vorticism]

I’m inclined to think the compression ratio rumor revolves around the allowed cylinder head “inserts” & “dismountable components exposed to the combustion chamber.” Inserts as in press-fit components within a monolithic part. Dismountable components as in separate parts fastened to monolithic parts. All prescribed and typical ICE parts.

Allowed cylinder head inserts (C5.1.7) are limited to the expected: valve seats, valve guides, and spark plug sleeves. They must comprise ≤3% of the cylinder head volume.

ICE components in general may be no more than 10% inserts by volume (C5.1. and this seems to include the other half of the CC--the piston. A piston has bushings for the wrist pin and if they do not consume 10% of the piston volume presumably an expanding insert could be placed on the piston face as the face geometry is unregulated.

Dismountable components within the combustion chamber (C5.1.9) are limited to: spark plug, fuel injector, poppet valves, a sleeve for the spark plug, and “a single component to replace an in-cylinder pressure sensor.” The lattermost stands out to me. I read that as a plug or blanking device. “In-cylinder pressure sensor” on its own is not in the list. That might just be an oversight in the writing. When are pressure sensors in place and in what share of the cylinders? I had assumed in the prev regs that they were always in place in each cylinder. Maybe they were not and were only used for homologation, and a knock sensor elsewhere in the block was used. Regardless, a plug is permitted and only its outside diameter is spec’d as max 7mm. A free geometry plug might supply the TE displacement needed, imo.

The volume of the CC at TDC and 16:1 will be around 17cc. A displacement of 2cc would be needed to provide the 15cc of an 18:1 CC. A cube of side 12mm. A pebble inside of an ⌀80mm wafer.

Ultimately, spectators are now at least talking about the incredible 18:1 compression ratio that was achieved previously. Diesel level--at 12k RPM, or... three times diesel engine speeds.

Note there is no cheating being implied. The FIA CR test is done at room temperature and that’s all they asked for.

[vorticism]

A free geometry plug might supply the TE displacement needed, imo.

For example, TE within a tightly-wound self-contacting monolithic helicoil constrained diametrically would express lengthwise along both the central axis and the helix vector. I think you could get a few mm of displacement at the end of the coil this way so long as binding/stiction allows for it.

Another option could be a cone section acting within a diametrically constrained countersink. Diametrical TE expansion of the cone section would express as axial displacement riding along the countersink as a ramp. Stack several of these instances together to get the required amount of displacement, and make sure to point the ramps the right way.

[diffuser]

How do they get all that to run without ping? Wouldn't the increased compression ratio just decrease the amount of boost you could add from the turbo ?

[Tommy Cookers]

boost is lower, because fuel heat rate is lower
still use knock sensing

[wuzak]

MAP is now limited to 4.8 bar.

Previously it was unlimited, combined with the 18:1 CR.

The 18:1 compression ratio was not part of the original V6 turbo hybrid regulations, being added a few seasons in.

[diffuser]

So the answer I'm reading here is that they need to up the compression, or at least get back to the 2025 ratio, cause we have less fuel to compress. So this Compression restrictions sounds counter productive. Why are FIA restricting the compression ratio? I presume it has something to do with costs ...although they're allowing PU manufactures to use titanium rods... There is also a COST CAP for PU manufactures ....So I non capisco.

[BassVirolla]

Even without doing any numbers, a difference in stroke achieves an increase in displacement, and from the top of my head, after having assembled some engines, 7mm is HUGE. No way this is the number.
But talking about making a real engine, would make much more sense to calculate an increase in rod ratio or piston crown height to increase CR without increasing displacement.
Nevertheless, my numbers tell me:
(400cc + Combustion Chamber cc)/Comb. Ch. cc = CR
This gives me a combustion chamber of 26cc for CR = 16 and 23,5cc for CR = 18.
With the piston surface area, assuming a cylindrical combustion chamber, 4,7mm in height for CR = 18 and 5,2mm in height for CR = 16
0,5mm of difference with a long rod in some aluminum alloys is not too far fetched (even while thinking in an aluminum rod is quite a stretch).
Disclaimer: I can be wrong. Numbers quickly put in my kitchen whiteboard.

this seems about right
(but the swept volume is 266cc not 400cc)

Al alloy has 13 ppm/deg F expansion (maraging steel and titanium both about 8 ppm Al/titanium about 10 ppm)
ie 200 deg F on a rod 200mm overall gives 0.52 mm thermal expansion

NO MYSTERY !!

EDIT
we must also consider the dimensional changes with temperature of the engine 'block'
this is presumably a low-expansion Al alloy in compression by a lot of high-tensile through-studs
the coolant temperature is rather low (lower than in road cars)

Doesn't even need (0.52mm +++).

CR(cold) = ((1600/6) + x ))/x = 16 ; => x=17.778 cc
CR(hot) = ((1600/6) + y ))/y = 18 ; => y=15.686 cc
Irrespective of the shape of the 'head' of the compression chamber, this signifies a thin slice (vol x-y = 2.092cc) getting removed from somewhere near one of the ends of a cucumber. With a bore dia of 80mm (defined in the spec) means this cucumber slice is 0.416mm thick.

Can't they design a piston head with exotic materials that expands by 0.416mm when operating at optimal engine temp v/s when it's cold ? My guess is that such a thing already exists (for all its worth, the CR for the 2014 to 2025 era might be exceeding 18)

Your numbers seem to match mine, if I would accounted for six cylinders rather than four.

[vorticism]

Are head gaskets unregulated? Or used at all. I'm not finding much in Issue 14. There's mention of allowing use of the cylinder liner to form the seal to the head.

[BassVirolla]

How do they get all that to run without ping? Wouldn't the increased compression ratio just decrease the amount of boost you could add from the turbo ?

The best for efficiency is the cleaner burn you can achieve with the least amount of boost.

Boost is compressed air which requires energy to be compressed.

Also, more air to be compressed in the cylinder requires more energy. And the higher the CR, more energy wasted in compressing.

Miller and Atkinson cycles are based in minimizing compression and increasin expansion. The energy conversion (thermal to mechanical) occurs during the expansion, not during compression.

In Otto cycle, high CR is a necessary evil for high expansion ratios, as CR = ER

[venkyhere]

So this Compression restrictions sounds counter productive. Why are FIA restricting the compression ratio? I presume it has something to do with costs

My guess is that it has something to do with the fuel. Tough to cook up fuel in a lab that has the same energy density / calorific value as fossil fuels which had earth's gravity acting on them for millions of years. Which in turn could mean more turbo compression along with running much richer, with less guarantee against auto-ignition/knock.