Concept power units from 2030

[FW17]

There is no world where driving off with the fuel rig still attached is acceptable.

A dumb lolipop man

[FW17]

Refueling pitstops (1994–2009) ~11,500 stops

Timeline of Major Refueling Fires (1994–2009)

1994 German GP (Jos Verstappen): The most catastrophic fire of the era occurred at Hockenheim. Benetton mechanics removed a safety mesh filter from the Intertechnique fuel rig to increase fuel flow. Fuel sprayed over the hot engine, instantly creating a giant fireball. Verstappen suffered burns to his face.

1995 Belgian GP (Eddie Irvine): Fuel spilled from the nozzle onto Irvine's Jordan-Peugeot car bodywork during a standard stop, triggering an immediate flash fire that engulfed the rear cockpit before being extinguished.

2003 Austrian GP (Michael Schumacher): A damaged internal rubber seal on the Ferrari fuel rig caused fuel to drip directly onto the scorching engine cover. The crew sprayed extinguishing foam over the flames and Schumacher, who calmly waited, stayed in the race, and won.

2008 Singapore GP (Felipe Massa): An automated electronic pit light system mistakenly turned green before the fuel nozzle was detached. Massa drove away, ripping the fuel hose completely out of the rig. Highly flammable fuel leaked along the entire length of the pit lane, though it miraculously did not ignite.

2009 Brazilian GP (Heikki Kovalainen & Kimi Räikkönen): In the final year of refueling, Kovalainen prematurely tore away from his McLaren pit box with the fuel line still locked into his car. As he dragged the hose down the pit lane, fuel sprayed backwards directly onto Räikkönen’s Ferrari, sparking a terrifying flash explosion over Räikkönen's vehicle

[Chuckjr]

You would think by now they could develop an insertion mechanism that slides the refueling hose into the car easier. Looking back at refueling, that seemed to be the main culprit in slow stops--getting the refueling nozzle into the car smoothly to get the fuel flowing. If they can get that worked out, it would be a big improvement in consistency and speed, imo.

[FW17]

F1’s first pressurised refuelling system by cobbling together a large diameter hose and a pair of aluminium beer kegs which were pressurised to 30PSI and could pump 30 gallons (136 litres) of fuel into the car in approximately 3 seconds. It was introduced in 1982 and banned for 1984









F1 next in-race refueling in 1994, utilizing advanced Intertechnique gravity-fed and pressure-assisted fuel rigs sourced from aircraft refueling system. Designed to pump 12 liters of fuel per second and weighed about 250 to 350 kilograms

[michl420]

Today with the light system in the pit it should be very easy to make one contact to measure if the fuel hose is off.

[WillGuna]

If the FIA decides to bring back refueling for the new PU regs, could we see it before as way to fix the lack of ICE power, maybe for 2028? Smaller fuel tanks and removing the fuel flow limit?

[mzso]

I think Audi is the only one pushing for a turbo.

I don't think Honda wants NA either.

[mzso]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-p ... -revealed/

Gotta admit he is saying numbers in that interview that sound really good.

Return to NA V8's, 700Kg weight (still too heavy, but moving in the right direction), small gas tank, return of refueling, only 10-15% or so for battery PU percentage of power (which would be PERFECT). Those are all huge plusses. Homeboy sounds like he is putting together a package of studies to present a case to the FIA to go NA V8’s asap. Maybe even 2029? Dare to dream for 2028??

Would love to see refueling return. Refueling would really add to the strategy mix, and that would be fantastic. A return to the Schumacher 4 stop strategy on the fly would be epic in races.

Would like to see midfield be able to have their own engines. If Cosworth heads that up, it would be a good project, imo. Those guys helped RB this year and the RB ICE has been claimed to be #1.

I have no idea how they would police some teams going turbo and some teams NA. Seems there could be ample room there to cheat that extra 2-4% that makes the difference between first place and not making the podium…but maybe that’s intentional to make some room for back room deals.

Going to an NA V8 is against saving weight. He's saying nonsense that turbo adds weight. But large NA engines with their fuel consumption adds a lot of weight as well as adding two more cylinders.
And that it "takes away noise". Interestingly Indycar also with V6 hybrids has a lot more appealing sound.

Refuelling is dreadful. It results in people in contention never meeting on the circuit when they're on a different strategy. Or when they do it's flyby passes, like with DRS, just worse.

[mzso]

Today with the light system in the pit it should be very easy to make one contact to measure if the fuel hose is off.

Or disable the car giving drive, etc.

[gearboxtrouble]

Not sure you'd need refueling even if it is possible safely. Drop the 9MJ battery for a tiny 0.5MJ solid state store for the quali/overtake energy, switch to a much lighter MGUK for just 50hp of electric boost and you'd still end up with a lighter car. Add on narrower tires and smaller wheels because of the much lower torque and keep the active aero to minimize drag and you could lose a chunk of size and weight from the current cars. A simple NA/single turbo V8 that makes ~800hp would not that much more fuel - maybe 90kg at most. Lower weight, less drag and less tire will lead to better fuel consumption that if you just stuck that engine in a 26 car. Another way to lose even more weight would be to fully commit to pushing sustainable fuel tech - increase the energy density allowed by 10-15% and lower the fuel weight even more.

[MatsNorway]

If the FIA decides to bring back refueling for the new PU regs, could we see it before as way to fix the lack of ICE power, maybe for 2028? Smaller fuel tanks and removing the fuel flow limit?

I think a flat fuel flow is the best "efficiency" insentive invented yet. And it works for any engine config you want. And its very hard to suddenly get a lot of ponies in your engine. a flat fuel flow and a NA with engine capacity of 4L and a low weight would alone make it very interesting. The flat fuel flow for safe/decent race pace, the 4L for somewhat high reving engine and the low weight denies any too complex designs etc. Such as Fancy V-tec VVTI etc. If you say fuel flow good for 800hp at 40% efficiency they would have to rev any engine a decent bit to get there.

Combine that with a low car weight and you have a interesting ruleset where some might run V6 4L and others a 4L V8 ? others a 2L V12 that would scream like crazy, be narrower and good for aero, perhaps light but would lack the efficiency. Some might choose even a Straight 6 for a really narrow rear end and less vibrations than the V6 (Looking at you honda)

[MatsNorway]

The reason Current F1 engines sounds so dreadful is because they are fuel starved all the way up to 10.5KRPM.

A flat fuel flow would bring the Revs down but they would sound better. Same for a Hot V config with shorter runners and all that.

If you want to bring the revs back up you can just take out some of the boost.

[mzso]

Not sure you'd need refueling even if it is possible safely. Drop the 9MJ battery for a tiny 0.5MJ solid state store for the quali/overtake energy, switch to a much lighter MGUK for just 50hp of electric boost and you'd still end up with a lighter car. Add on narrower tires and smaller wheels because of the much lower torque and keep the active aero to minimize drag and you could lose a chunk of size and weight from the current cars. A simple NA/single turbo V8 that makes ~800hp would not that much more fuel - maybe 90kg at most. Lower weight, less drag and less tire will lead to better fuel consumption that if you just stuck that engine in a 26 car. Another way to lose even more weight would be to fully commit to pushing sustainable fuel tech - increase the energy density allowed by 10-15% and lower the fuel weight even more.

For turbo maybe true. For NA surely a lot more. I see numbers in the 160kg /220 liter range for NA V8-s.

If the FIA decides to bring back refueling for the new PU regs, could we see it before as way to fix the lack of ICE power, maybe for 2028? Smaller fuel tanks and removing the fuel flow limit?

I think a flat fuel flow is the best "efficiency" insentive invented yet. And it works for any engine config you want. And its very hard to suddenly get a lot of ponies in your engine. a flat fuel flow and a NA with engine capacity of 4L and a low weight would alone make it very interesting. The flat fuel flow for safe/decent race pace, the 4L for somewhat high reving engine and the low weight denies any too complex designs etc. Such as Fancy V-tec VVTI etc. If you say fuel flow good for 800hp at 40% efficiency they would have to rev any engine a decent bit to get there.

Combine that with a low car weight and you have a interesting ruleset where some might run V6 4L and others a 4L V8 ? others a 2L V12 that would scream like crazy, be narrower and good for aero, perhaps light but would lack the efficiency. Some might choose even a Straight 6 for a really narrow rear end and less vibrations than the V6 (Looking at you honda)

How would a giant 4l V8 be low weight?

If you mean a limit of 4l and only a flow limit as the regs as the second paragraph suggest. Those designs wouldn't be competitive. Particularly a high revving v12.
Everyone would gravitate to low cylinder number turbos of small displacement. 1.5liter 4-6 cylinder V or inline.
If you mean NA only, then still max a V6, because of the fuel flow limit.

[MatsNorway]

If you mean NA only

Yes NA only like i said. Whole concept and post was centered around NA. That is why i did not reply to the rest.

the cylinder count would vary by FIA target HP. 800hp is not easy with a limit of 4L + fuel flow restrictions forcing efficiency. Even with work toward efficiency they would be reving in five digits (wild armchair guess: peak power at 12-14Krpm) with rev limit a few thousands over peak power. That is not a given as a V6. For reference as nascar is 5.86L and runs at most 670hp at 9000krpm. 670hp is with a small restrictor. a smaller 4L would run above 9000.

Having said high reving V6/V8. The benefit of more cylinders is reduced pumping loses. A V10/V12 would run lower RPM and have less pumping losses. So its a balance of pumping loses, weight and friction. The challenge with a low cylinder count engine is the balance, as honda has shown this year. With direct injection the potential is there to get serious vibrations so a V8 or i6 could unlock a easier to balance engine. I guess a Boxer 6 is better then than a V6?

And even today weight is not everything, we still see water to air intercoolers. If you cut down the chassis weight limit more, which they should do, they will drop the packaging friendly water to air intercoolers. Same applies for a new NA engine. You would sacrifice some packaging and fancy shaped radiators for more brute force.

And as what i stipulated indicates you could go lighter and smaller at a penalty of efficiency, but i suspect most would go 4L as soon as chassis hits the hopefully hard to reach weight limit.

The reason i like a more open ruleset and think it could work is because we have a budget cap on the top off all this. And reasonable material limits for engine parts.

[Tommy Cookers]

the fueling rate/rpm has since 2014 been all about forcing a constant torque ICE
(to match the 'constant torque' MG use)

if you want to force a flat 6 ICE you should raise the minimum PU weight and bulk (and car weight/bulk)
flat engines being inherently inferior (to V engines) in this and other respects
eg a flat 6 always has 6 crank throws and 7 main bearings