Concept power units from 2030

[Bio]

Ferrari hasn't won in 18 years and the series has never been in better financial shape. Ferrari is not as key as it once was, times change.

It's always you eh? The point here is that F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1, hence the biggest bonus handed to the reds. The second point made is that at some point, regardless of the bonus, they'll have enough of being fooled by a bunch of british crooks and will look somewhere else and as soon as Ferrari pulls the plug it'll all start to crumble like an old sand castle, especially if they set up a new series with actual manufacturers, like Porsche for example, not the fake ones we actually see in F1. Let's wait till the americans realize what's going on (and get bored as they usually do, since they are in just for the novelty and DtS drama) and you'll see the money disappear faster than a F1 itself. That'll be the last nail in the coffin.

Go post in one of the F1 politics threads.

Since I didn't start the argument, I post wherever I want. You better read it, think about it and count to 10 before typing.

[mzso]

There are no profitable manufacturers in F1 apart from Ferrari, that's what I mean. Mercedes

These days everyone earns a profit in F1. And where are the headquarters of a team and where the manufacturer's at large means exactly nothing.

The point here is that F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1, hence the biggest bonus handed to the reds. The second point made is that at some point, regardless of the bonus, they'll have enough of being fooled by a bunch of british crooks and will look somewhere else and as soon as Ferrari pulls the plug it'll all start to crumble like an old sand castle,

Just the myth of Ferrari. They're just in F1 to be beaten, by whoever is the best at the time.

Somehow they spun being perpetual losers in F1 into some sort of prestige. If they leave F1 they won't have even that.
Their brand would suffer. Meanwhile F1 would go on racing as always.

[Bio]

There are no profitable manufacturers in F1 apart from Ferrari, that's what I mean. Mercedes

These days everyone earns a profit in F1. And where are the headquarters of a team and where the manufacturer's at large means exactly nothing.

The point here is that F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1, hence the biggest bonus handed to the reds. The second point made is that at some point, regardless of the bonus, they'll have enough of being fooled by a bunch of british crooks and will look somewhere else and as soon as Ferrari pulls the plug it'll all start to crumble like an old sand castle,

Just the myth of Ferrari. They're just in F1 to be beaten, by whoever is the best at the time.

Somehow they spun being perpetual losers in F1 into some sort of prestige. If they leave F1 they won't have even that.
Their brand would suffer. Meanwhile F1 would go on racing as always.

Yep, keep telling it yourself, it might be come true...not.

Btw by profitable I'm not referring to the F1 team itself but the company behind it, it was pretty clear if you spend time reading the previous post and as I said, since F1 is thriving thanks to american money, when they'll get bored (and they will at some point) it'll be over.

[mzso]

This is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing. Not the pinnacle of environmental gimmicks.

A more efficient and lighter engine is just better for the same power, not a "gimmick".
Using cruder technology that performs worse is in no way a "pinnacle".

The 2026 power units are literally less efficient than the power units that were used 12 years ago in 2014. So again, this environmental road to nowhere that F1 is on, is full of contradictions.

A turbocharged engine is still a lot more efficient and smaller and lighter. Which is what you originally labeled a "gimmick".

[Stu]

Dragging it back to the topic of concept engines…

https://www.cosworth.com/news/cat-gen-filling-the-void/

This, but scaled up 3-4 times? (obviously 35KW is not sufficient), with front & rear KERS (single MGU at the rear twin MGU at the front (axial hub drive?).
This would still allow for an ‘emergency’ FBW rear braking system, there would be noise, there is the potential to add an MGU-H to the PU (enhancing energy extraction from the fuel burn). Lots of electrical development options with front axle torque vectoring. It should be possible to pull a significant amount of mass out of the car, particularly if top speeds were lower (crash testing devices would need to dissipate less energy). Making for smaller, lighter, more nimble race cars.
The fuel tolerance is a nice feature (future proof).
The software development aspect for control systems and drive is directly transferable to road car development (whether BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, Alt ICE or whatever motive system eventually is settled on post 2035).

[mzso]

Dragging it back to the topic of concept engines…

https://www.cosworth.com/news/cat-gen-filling-the-void/

This, but scaled up 3-4 times? (obviously 35KW is not sufficient), with front & rear KERS (single MGU at the rear twin MGU at the front (axial hub drive?).
This would still allow for an ‘emergency’ FBW rear braking system, there would be noise, there is the potential to add an MGU-H to the PU (enhancing energy extraction from the fuel burn). Lots of electrical development options with front axle torque vectoring. It should be possible to pull a significant amount of mass out of the car, particularly if top speeds were lower (crash testing devices would need to dissipate less energy). Making for smaller, lighter, more nimble race cars.
The fuel tolerance is a nice feature (future proof).
The software development aspect for control systems and drive is directly transferable to road car development (whether BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, Alt ICE or whatever motive system eventually is settled on post 2035).

Well, people dismissed micro-turbines, when I brought it up a while ago, for being inefficient and the mass of a large, heavy generator, an even even heavier motors and some necessary batteries adding up.
As I recall someone calculated around 300-400 hp continuous power to supply the motors at the same power as nowadays, at least on power hungry circuits.
I don't see efficiency stated, there's probably no revolution there.

Using a fuel cell seems more viable to me. It wouldn't need 1,5+ times the electric M/G capacity and mass.
Of course that wouldn't provide noise, but I suspect the usual group of people would be just as loud complaining about the the loss of "proper" piston engine sound when moving to microturbines.

[wuzak]

The 2026 power unit will be more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even with a less powerful ICE, it cannot be less efficient when using 30% less fuel during a race when producing the same power output.

They only have the same power output as 2025 for part of a lap.

The car might be more efficient because they drag has been reduced substantially.

I wonder what performance the 2025 PU could achieve in the 2026 chassis.

[Stu]

Dragging it back to the topic of concept engines…

https://www.cosworth.com/news/cat-gen-filling-the-void/

This, but scaled up 3-4 times? (obviously 35KW is not sufficient), with front & rear KERS (single MGU at the rear twin MGU at the front (axial hub drive?).
This would still allow for an ‘emergency’ FBW rear braking system, there would be noise, there is the potential to add an MGU-H to the PU (enhancing energy extraction from the fuel burn). Lots of electrical development options with front axle torque vectoring. It should be possible to pull a significant amount of mass out of the car, particularly if top speeds were lower (crash testing devices would need to dissipate less energy). Making for smaller, lighter, more nimble race cars.
The fuel tolerance is a nice feature (future proof).
The software development aspect for control systems and drive is directly transferable to road car development (whether BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, Alt ICE or whatever motive system eventually is settled on post 2035).

Well, people dismissed micro-turbines, when I brought it up a while ago, for being inefficient and the mass of a large, heavy generator, an even even heavier motors and some necessary batteries adding up.
As I recall someone calculated around 300-400 hp continuous power to supply the motors at the same power as nowadays, at least on power hungry circuits.
I don't see efficiency stated, there's probably no revolution there.

Using a fuel cell seems more viable to me. It wouldn't need 1,5+ times the electric M/G capacity and mass.
Of course that wouldn't provide noise, but I suspect the usual group of people would be just as loud complaining about the the loss of "proper" piston engine sound when moving to microturbines.

[saviour stivala]

The 2026 power unit will be more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even with a less powerful ICE, it cannot be less efficient when using 30% less fuel during a race when producing the same power output.

They only have the same power output as 2025 for part of a lap.

The car might be more efficient because they drag has been reduced substantially.

I wonder what performance the 2025 PU could achieve in the 2026 chassis.

Power unit wise the 2026 power unit will be much more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even so the biggest efficiency contributor to the 2025 power unit (MGU-H), will not be used on the 2026 power unit.

[Tommy Cookers]

interesting that a hydrogen fuel cell needs clean hydrogen

btw
the BP 1200 MW hydrogen maker project on Teesside has just been dumped
as has the conversion elsewhere of an oil port to an ammonia port
(the carbon-capture gas combined cycle 742 MW generator seems alive but needs oxygen from under the fence

seabed leases (for the madness of floating windfarms) eg Shell (N Scotland) have been abandoned and ....
'today' 15th Jan Mona and Morgan Irish Sea (floating) windfarms have been abandoned by German public body etc
with £1+ billion impairment charge
'today' 16th Jan EDF abandons demonstration floating Blyth 2 58 MW - keeping only fixed 42 MW
these abandonments (of leases etc signed years ago) amount to a net fall in the UK offshore wind position
('today' 13th Jan there's only c. 28 GW 'running or in construction')

but on 14th Jan (Allocation Round 7) 6 offshore leases totaling c. 8 GW have been announced ....
at 2024-based strike (wholesale) price c. £91/MWh (this exceeding the recent wholesale price)
with an extra new subsidy c.£20 billion over 20 years (presumably this time from taxpayer not electricity bill payer ??)

and more to come soon - onshore wind, solar etc etc

[mzso]

(the carbon-capture gas combined cycle 742 MW generator seems alive but (literally) needs oxygen from under the fence)

What does "under the fence" mean?

[Tommy Cookers]

synergy with an intended adjacent hydrogen plant (that of course also producing oxygen) - like the one just dumped
there may be other oxygen producers on the industrial site eg ammonia plants

we might have little faith in eg claims of the UK hydrogen programme (or any other claims)
though we annually pay billions to curtail (stop) the generation of 'renewable' electricity

[Stu]

...

It seems like you just quoted my post without adding anything.

Bugger!

[Stu]

Dragging it back to the topic of concept engines…

https://www.cosworth.com/news/cat-gen-filling-the-void/

This, but scaled up 3-4 times? (obviously 35KW is not sufficient), with front & rear KERS (single MGU at the rear twin MGU at the front (axial hub drive?).
…

The software development aspect for control systems and drive is directly transferable to road car development (whether BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, Alt ICE or whatever motive system eventually is settled on post 2035).

Well, people dismissed micro-turbines, when I brought it up a while ago, for being inefficient and the mass of a large, heavy generator, an even even heavier motors and some necessary batteries adding up.
As I recall someone calculated around 300-400 hp continuous power to supply the motors at the same power as nowadays, at least on power hungry circuits.
I don't see efficiency stated, there's probably no revolution there.

Using a fuel cell seems more viable to me. It wouldn't need 1,5+ times the electric M/G capacity and mass.
Of course that wouldn't provide noise, but I suspect the usual group of people would be just as loud complaining about the the loss of "proper" piston engine sound when moving to microturbines.

I’ll try again & hope that my internet doesn’t disappear again…

I’ve not done the math, but a GT type ‘generator’ with a constant output of 140-150kW along with 700kW of recovery under braking should give a healthy power supply. The GT wouldn’t need to be 4 times the size (or weight) of the Cosworth unit.
I think that what is missed when these comparisons are done is that the power curve of an ICE with 7-800bhp is very different to that of an electric drivetrain.
I wonder when the sudden focus on having the super-high (stupid high imo) top speeds for F1 started. Historically they rarely exceeded 200mph (it was achievement at Monza!), 180-195mph was more normal.
Being the fastest race series was never important (LeMans & Indy were always faster), being the quickest was always more important.
Lower top speeds mean that the cars can be lighter (& therefore more agile), due to lower energy dissipation requirements of crash structures.
500kW plus lighter, nimbler cars would make for a very exciting race series with lots of technical interest.

[TeamKoolGreen]

The 2026 power unit will be more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even with a less powerful ICE, it cannot be less efficient when using 30% less fuel during a race when producing the same power output.

The 2026 power unit is less thermally efficient than the 2014-25 power unit.

-some sources suggest the MGU-H alone contributes around 5% to the total efficiency, while allowing the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to operate at even higher efficiencies, pushing the entire system past the 50% mark.

But of course nobody wants to say this and it is all covered up with net zero mumbo jumbo. More electricity means less carbon and all of that but that doesn't change the fact that it is less thermally efficient.