2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

If teams were allowed to use any values for bore, stroke, and displacement that they wanted (given the current allowed energy/hour), what might they choose?

btw regarding the supposed 'holiness' of electricity .....

'nuclear power' produces substantial global warming - increasing Earth's heat then dumping most of that increase
these are in law nuclear space heaters (not heat engines) because they are only 35% efficient as engines
their actual GW is 15-20% as bad (relatively) as the GW from 'greenhouse gas' engine power

How many times will you reiterate this utter nonsense?
It contributes to global warming as much as pissing in the sea raises sea levels.

BTW (not that it's relevant to stuff above) 35% is not at all firm value. Some designs can go above 50%. Particularly ones that run very hot.

[dialtone]

All the fuel power plants in the world use air to water cooling, they have a water circuit that turns it into steam, powers the turbines and then is cooled back to water or released in the atmosphere.

Water vapor does not really change climate, as it precipitates and has a lifespan in the atmosphere of mere weeks. Methane, CO2 and other gases change instead how much heat retention happens from the sun radiation and they do not precipitate in weeks, which is ultimately what causes the change in climate.

Furthermore water vapor is emitted in natural ways in much bigger volumes than any power plant, even just the oceans evaporating under the sun. Ironically, the other greenhouse gases have more impact on water vapor than power plants, a raise in temperature increases the overall natural production of water vapor.

It’s not a power cable that is heating up the world, this is an absurdly ridiculous claim, joke level.

[Tommy Cookers]

'nuclear power' produces substantial global warming - increasing Earth's heat then dumping most of that increase
these are in law nuclear space heaters (not heat engines) because they are only 35% efficient as engines
their actual GW is 15-20% as bad (relatively) as the GW from 'greenhouse gas' engine power
yes wind farms don't increase Earth's heat - they redistribute natural heat flow so produce substantial warming regionally
(so it's ok because it's not GW ?)
because wind is made by equatorial heat and wind power dumps as heat more energy than it captures
the paper from ScienceDirect predicts 0.24 deg C warming on USA conversion to windfarm electricity
so maybe 1 deg C warming (rather offsetting the ghg savings) from the lavish changes ongoing in the UK
and of course any man-made heat (eg the 10% electricity losses in transmission) is GW in reality (if not in law)

The waste heat (measured in power) generated by all the world's electric power plants is 0.0056% of the power Earth absorbs from the sun. So power plant efficiency does not really matter as far as generating global heat.

well I was writing about the man-made climate-change capacities' of eg ICEVs & EVs (re the F1 rules)
eg Sabine Hossefinder said a houseful of heat from burning natural gas gave 20 housefuls in global-warming by greenhousing
so any non ghg-emissive energy source can be judged by comparison
eg a houseful of nuclear-powered electricity costs in total 3 housefuls of global warming hence is 15% as bad as gas
nuclear fuel (like fossil fuel) when used is adding to Earth's energy
and wind power seems worse than this '15% bad' - though its warming is local and strictly not global warming
the UK has 40 GW of wind power capacity under way

[gruntguru]

Good post except the last bit. How does wind-power create warming (apart from emissions during manufacture, construction, decommissioning etc)?

[dialtone]

Good post except the last bit. How does wind-power create warming (apart from emissions during manufacture, construction, decommissioning etc)?

He thinks that because the cable transporting power or the solenoids inside the windmill heat up they cause climate change.

This OT but it’s basically a joke.

[chipengineer]

'nuclear power' produces substantial global warming - increasing Earth's heat then dumping most of that increase
these are in law nuclear space heaters (not heat engines) because they are only 35% efficient as engines
their actual GW is 15-20% as bad (relatively) as the GW from 'greenhouse gas' engine power
yes wind farms don't increase Earth's heat - they redistribute natural heat flow so produce substantial warming regionally
(so it's ok because it's not GW ?)
because wind is made by equatorial heat and wind power dumps as heat more energy than it captures
the paper from ScienceDirect predicts 0.24 deg C warming on USA conversion to windfarm electricity
so maybe 1 deg C warming (rather offsetting the ghg savings) from the lavish changes ongoing in the UK
and of course any man-made heat (eg the 10% electricity losses in transmission) is GW in reality (if not in law)

The waste heat (measured in power) generated by all the world's electric power plants is 0.0056% of the power Earth absorbs from the sun. So power plant efficiency does not really matter as far as generating global heat.

well I was writing about the man-made climate-change capacities' of eg ICEVs & EVs (re the F1 rules)
eg Sabine Hossefinder said a houseful of heat from burning natural gas gave 20 housefuls in global-warming by greenhousing
so any non ghg-emissive energy source can be judged by comparison
eg a houseful of nuclear-powered electricity costs in total 3 housefuls of global warming hence is 15% as bad as gas
nuclear fuel (like fossil fuel) when used is adding to Earth's energy
and wind power seems worse than this '15% bad' - though its warming is local and strictly not global warming
the UK has 40 GW of wind power capacity under way

Sorry about the multiple posts previously; only a single one was intended.

I think Sabine is off by orders of magnitude with that 20x number.

[vorticism]

It's worth considering the discrepancies provided by using varying definitions of displacement and capacity, and how this relates to the press, the FIA, rumours, and the still-unknown GCR testing procedures.

- what conditions are the 1.6L capacity measured?
- Must this 1.6L limit be maintained at all times during normal operating conditions?
- How is this policed?

...

How can the 1.6L be so well controlled...

The FIA define cubic capacity as the swept volume of the pistons i.e. the volume encapsulated by the bore and the two most distant positions of the piston face. We don't, afaik, know how the FIA measures this, or when they inspect it. It is potentially easy to measure, as all you need to do is measure any fixed point upon the piston crown through its full travel. The size of the combustion chamber volume is not regulated directly but the spec GCR limits its minimum volume to around 18cc. Which means the total closed capacities of the engines are around 1.7l minimum.

To say it in a more confusing way: the "cubic capacity" is dictated by the spec bore diameter & cylinder count, while the cubic capacity is defined by the geometric compression ratio.

I would consider swept volume as displacement in the true sense of that term, not necessarily as capacity--regular terms in the ICE world often have multiple connotations and can be considered colloquialisms. There may even be translation artifacts between languages.

The question of how the ~1.7 liter and 108cc closed capacities i.e. the large and small parts of the GC ratio are potentially measured is the more prescient question in regards to the recent rumors.