Concept power units from 2030

[mzso]

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.

I don't think it's workable in any way.

With high reving NA-s fuel efficieny goes out the window. More cylinder counts result in less efficiency. V12-s died out because they were less fuel efficient and bigger/heavier. There was no regulation against them in the 90s.

Either you would get a big drop in power and smaller 6 cylinder engines or you'd need to ~double fuel flow making fuel efficiency meaningless..

And by the way weight is crucial in F1. You could even see it today with Red Bull competitiveness in the beginning of the season VS now.

Intercoolers have no relevance to NA engines.

[FW17]

I don't think it's workable in any way.

As part of an agreement reached to look after the interests of both current and new manufacturers in the build-up to 2026, a Power Unit Advisory Committee was set up, which dictated how rules could be changed.

For major tweaks to be made, it required backing from the FIA, FOM and four of the five manufacturers at the time – which was quite a high bar.

I do not think the FOM or Manufacturers are going to give up the current status when it comes to 2030 engines either.

FIA is nothing more than

[De Wet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8krwKdJiJY


We are stuck with this Sh*t for 5 years...

[Badger]

That video kind of demonstrates the incoherence of 2026 cars in how they make time. They are absolute dragsters on the first half of the straight (after traction) and then bleed time everywhere else. This "energy-efficient" way to drive is, IMO, inherently anti-entertainment. The first half of any straight is where nothing happens in racing, yet that is where these cars show most of their performance. The cameras and grandstands are all positioned for the corners and braking zones where the action lies, but in those areas of the track, these cars lack performance or simply cannot be driven to their limit due to energy constraints. For me, this contributes to the generally underwhelming sense of these cars: even if the lap time looks good, F1 just doesn't pop on the screen the way it used to.

[mzso]

An obvious workaround would be to drastically limit clipping, and force them to regen during breaking and turning as much as they can. It would probably require increased fuel flow allowance if they don't want a lot of fuel saving.
And might introduce other drive-ability/racing issues.

[SealTheRealDeal]

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 would be more than fine with bringing back refueling within this engine reg set as preparation for the next regs. Pit strategy is already more interesting than the on-track action. More pit strategy and fewer yo-yo passes would be a good trade off.

I also like axing the fuel flow (or drastically altering it) since the energy density adjusted flow rate acts as a BOP/EOT to equalize the fuels, and that sort of thing has no place in F1 imo.

[MatsNorway]

I never said any engine combination was really good. You speak as if you know it all.

But your reading comprehension is sub par. Refrain from commenting on my stuff.

Fuel flow limited NA engines should have been what F1 choose after the 2.4L V8s. And its probably the coolest direction to go after the silly V6 turboes.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I never said any engine combination was really good. You speak as if you know it all.

But your reading comprehension is sub par. Refrain from commenting on my stuff.

Fuel flow limited NA engines should have been what F1 choose after the 2.4L V8s. And its probably the coolest direction to go after the silly V6 turboes.

Thankfully they aren't going with your silly/foolish suggestion for 2030. Turbo has beaten EVERYTHING since the early 80s and are here to stay. Unfortunately, they are thinking of drastically reducing mguk power to 100kw.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/firs ... /10858153/

[mzso]

I never said any engine combination was really good. You speak as if you know it all.

But your reading comprehension is sub par. Refrain from commenting on my stuff.

Fuel flow limited NA engines should have been what F1 choose after the 2.4L V8s. And its probably the coolest direction to go after the silly V6 turboes.

Thankfully they aren't going with your silly/foolish suggestion for 2030. Turbo has beaten EVERYTHING since the early 80s and are here to stay. Unfortunately, they are thinking of drastically reducing mguk power to 100kw.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/firs ... /10858153/

Seems part standstill, part regression. And I don't think it satisfies anyone.

V8 is obviously for sound, but if it's still coming through one pipe, I don't think noise people will particularly be happy. I guess the pitch will shift slightly, but the character will be similar to what we have now.
I wonder if there's a tool to simulate the sound.

What does bloating the engine to 3 liter accomplishes when a 1,5 liter turbo can achieve 1000Hp on it's own. Without even an MGU. Does it accomplish anything whatsoever?

Another area where the lessons of recent years appear to have been taken on board concern the weight of the overall power unit. The target set for the new power unit is highly ambitious: to produce a complete unit weighing at least 50kg lighter than the current power units.

So they want to make it lighter, but at the same time increase it's size both via displacement and cylinder number.
Seems like the very recent history of earlier this year is already repeating itself, when they went for more electric power but at the same time removed the MGU-H.

Why not go for an electric compressor and separate turbine generators? Should improve sound and well as recovery. With only minimal batteries that can be easily charged with H and K generation.

[gearboxtrouble]

I think it is a smart proposal and should end up with something like an 85/15 split and a much lighter, simpler, cheaper engine overall. A 3.0 single turbo V8 running at lambda 1 should be efficient enough to minimize the fuel weight gain and the lower boost pressures should allow for weight savings in the engine block and pistons. This is a good reason to go with more displacement. A 100KW MGUK is small enough to allow a tiny battery and still not lead to the level of starvation that leads to clipping induced position changes that cause the yo yo garbage we have today. I'm sure it will sound better without being obnoxiously loud like the NA engines were. I'd assume 138hp from the MGUK and the 750-800hp from the ICE for a total system output of 900hp. This should be enough to keep the materially lighter cars as fast and as safe while the average power wouldn't be far off the 2014-2025 engines either so drivers can push at will. I hope this is what passes and the FIA should be willing to say goodbye to any manufacturer who wants to add weight and/or complexity to this.

[FW17]

If this is what they are planning, it should be a hard pass.

They should keep 1.6l V6 current engines, 2 turbos, and fuel flow to 110kg/hr E80

[ENGINE TUNER]

I think it is a smart proposal and should end up with something like an 85/15 split and a much lighter, simpler, cheaper engine overall. A 3.0 single turbo V8 running at lambda 1 should be efficient enough to minimize the fuel weight gain and the lower boost pressures should allow for weight savings in the engine block and pistons. This is a good reason to go with more displacement. A 100KW MGUK is small enough to allow a tiny battery and still not lead to the level of starvation that leads to clipping induced position changes that cause the yo yo garbage we have today. I'm sure it will sound better without being obnoxiously loud like the NA engines were. I'd assume 138hp from the MGUK and the 750-800hp from the ICE for a total system output of 900hp. This should be enough to keep the materially lighter cars as fast and as safe while the average power wouldn't be far off the 2014-2025 engines either so drivers can push at will. I hope this is what passes and the FIA should be willing to say goodbye to any manufacturer who wants to add weight and/or complexity to this.

I believe they are aiming for a total of 1200hp peak, which would require a much higher fuel usage. I disagree that the engine block would weigh less even running at lower pressures. The current engine blocks have a minimum mass that the manufacturers could easily lower, but they have decided not to compete in that area.

[ENGINE TUNER]

What does bloating the engine to 3 liter accomplishes when a 1,5 liter turbo can achieve 1000Hp on it's own. Without even an MGU. Does it accomplish anything whatsoever?

Another area where the lessons of recent years appear to have been taken on board concern the weight of the overall power unit. The target set for the new power unit is highly ambitious: to produce a complete unit weighing at least 50kg lighter than the current power units.

So the want to make it lighter, but at the same time increase it's size bot via displacement and cylinder number.
Seems like the very recent history of earlier this year is already repeating itself, when they went for more electric power but at the same time removed the MGU-H.

Why not go for an electric compressor and separate turbine generators? Should improve sound and well as recovery. With only minimal batteries that can be easily charged with H and K generation.

It is totally contradictory(just like the current engine regs), bigger 3L engine block will weigh more, require more fuel, bigger fuel tank, bigger/heavier/draggier radiators. The current mguk is 16kg with 35kg ES/CE unit, so totally eliminating that still wouldn't get them to their target. They are just running their mouths saying nothing as usual.

[Tommy Cookers]

... I disagree that the engine block would weigh less even running at lower pressures. The current engine blocks have a minimum mass that the manufacturers could easily lower, but they have decided not to compete in that area.

yet another way in which the rules have been chosen to guarantee the turbocharged engine route ie ....
CR limit ....
charge cooling limit ....

[mzso]

What does bloating the engine to 3 liter accomplishes when a 1,5 liter turbo can achieve 1000Hp on it's own. Without even an MGU. Does it accomplish anything whatsoever?

Another area where the lessons of recent years appear to have been taken on board concern the weight of the overall power unit. The target set for the new power unit is highly ambitious: to produce a complete unit weighing at least 50kg lighter than the current power units.

So the want to make it lighter, but at the same time increase it's size bot via displacement and cylinder number.
Seems like the very recent history of earlier this year is already repeating itself, when they went for more electric power but at the same time removed the MGU-H.

Why not go for an electric compressor and separate turbine generators? Should improve sound and well as recovery. With only minimal batteries that can be easily charged with H and K generation.

It is totally contradictory(just like the current engine regs), bigger 3L engine block will weigh more, require more fuel, bigger fuel tank, bigger/heavier/draggier radiators. The current mguk is 16kg with 35kg ES/CE unit, so totally eliminating that still wouldn't get them to their target. They are just running their mouths saying nothing as usual.

Maybe they'll be allowing beryllium and titanium, and more exotic stuff in all of the engine...