I would expect that the cars would be very similar with only the cockpit moving rearward on plan form to allow an extra 600mm or so to put the motor/diff between the front axle line and the drivers' feet.
And why are you convinced of this motor configuration, if I may ask?(Turbocharger, MGU-H, turbojet,…)
Efficiency. Current cars are 52ish% efficient (amazing actually!), and they deserve the utmost respect.
I just kinda believe the gas turbine -> mguh -> mguk to just be the pinnacle of combustion locomotive efficiency, and this idea of mine is based upon that belief.
As always, I can be convinced otherwise with some good math and explaining if I'm incorrect, however. So please feel free to make the attempt.
Why do you think that this would be more efficient?
Pulse jets, if that is what you are talking about, are notoriously inefficient.
Sound wise, I doubt that a pulse jet running at constant settings would be pleasant.
Meh. Turbo-Electric generator driving electric motors is the future. Especially with CNG or synth fuel.
I don't for a moment believe that it would be heavier than the current setup, as the MGUH and MGUK parts are already on these cars. Adding another of each with a small ultra-capacitor buffer pack and deleting the ICE/transmission and the battery pack would quickly drop 200kg... I wouldn't expect ANY electrical regen in this system. All 100k RPM turbo-jet sound and 800whp with vector drive. Why wouldn't you want that!?!?
ICE + MGUK + Battey for 2026 is to be 185kg.
Gearbox is about 25kg.
The 2026 MGUK is 359kW/470hp. And weighs 16kg.
You need 2 of them for your 800hp.
And then you need a 800hp MGUK to generate the power for the 2 x 400hp drive motors. That's going to weigh more.
And of course you need the "twin pulse-jet (or the Rocket exhaust) MGUH turbocharger", which won't be weightless.
The turbo for 2026 has a minimum weight of 12kg, and that is similar size to the current turbos, if not smaller. And they maybe recover 69-90kW. You want one that recovers roughly 8 times that.
CNG? Need a heavy pressure vessel for that.
You will save some weight from cooling the ICE and battery, but need more cooling for motors.
SO, 2026 is 185kg+25kg for a total of 210kg?
So, 2 MGUK@16kg, 2 Turbos @12kg, 2 MGUH@18kg(approx) and 2 VectorDifferentials@15kg (approx) and an ultracap bank@15kg(approx) = 137kg. Even if the Jet exhaust combustion chamber is 8kg, and the carbon pressure fuel tanks for CNG are 10kg, you are still at 165kg all-in. Then you also get the benefit of much smaller cooling needs/components.
It seems to me to be more power and 100kg in weight savings. As well as adding the driver skill-control of the manual vector differentials. Thats 940hp + the thrust of the jet exhaust as well!
So you've halved your estimated weight saving?
How big a pulse jet do you need?
You'll need the turbine to remove as much exhaust energy as possible to get the required recovery. That doesn't leave much exhaust thrust.
For reference, the Argus As 014 produced 3.5kN of thrust at 750kph/470mph. It weighed 170kg and was nearly 3.5m long.
The thrust of an F1 car at 300kph from 1,000hp PU output is 8.9kN.
Meh. Turbo-Electric generator driving electric motors is the future. Especially with CNG or synth fuel.
I don't for a moment believe that it would be heavier than the current setup, as the MGUH and MGUK parts are already on these cars. Adding another of each with a small ultra-capacitor buffer pack and deleting the ICE/transmission and the battery pack would quickly drop 200kg... I wouldn't expect ANY electrical regen in this system. All 100k RPM turbo-jet sound and 800whp with vector drive. Why wouldn't you want that!?!?
How do you convince yourself of such things?
Maybe it wouldn't be heavier than current cars but not likely to be near as light as plain piston powered cars. Not having regen is just a pointless waste. And a gasturbine is an ICE with weight.
Plus super capacitor, have worse energy density than batteries. I don't think what you imagined is possible.
You literally are removing 95KG by deleting the entire ICE component.
Not having regen allows for zero battery weight with a 25ish % claw back by the addition of a small ultracapicitor bank for smoothing out the electrical flow to the motors.
No you're replacing it with a different ICE and (approximately) quadruple the electric part compared to the 2026 regs, it was pointed out.
Whatever size "small" supercapactior would be it would be heavier than batteries. It still needs to be significant, if you consider long braking zones. And the powers/energies in question.
I think the current ICE concept taken forward would result in the lest weight. Just reduce the size/cylinder numbers, add ample boost and adequate fuel. It's already tuned for efficiency so the fuel weight wouldn't be a lot. Allow for better materials than the most common stuff. And things could get pretty light.
Maybe it wouldn't be heavier than current cars but not likely to be near as light as plain piston powered cars. Not having regen is just a pointless waste. And a gasturbine is an ICE with weight.
Plus super capacitor, have worse energy density than batteries. I don't think what you imagined is possible.
You literally are removing 95KG by deleting the entire ICE component.
Not having regen allows for zero battery weight with a 25ish % claw back by the addition of a small ultracapicitor bank for smoothing out the electrical flow to the motors.
No you're replacing it with a different ICE and (approximately) quadruple the electric part compared to the 2026 regs, it was pointed out.
Whatever size "small" supercapactior would be it would be heavier than batteries. It still needs to be significant, if you consider long braking zones. And the powers/energies in question.
I think the current ICE concept taken forward would result in the lest weight. Just reduce the size/cylinder numbers, add ample boost and adequate fuel. It's already tuned for efficiency so the fuel weight wouldn't be a lot. Allow for better materials than the most common stuff. And things could get pretty light.
And why are you convinced of this motor configuration, if I may ask?(Turbocharger, MGU-H, turbojet,…)
Efficiency. Current cars are 52ish% efficient (amazing actually!), and they deserve the utmost respect.
I just kinda believe the gas turbine -> mguh -> mguk to just be the pinnacle of combustion locomotive efficiency, and this idea of mine is based upon that belief.
As always, I can be convinced otherwise with some good math and explaining if I'm incorrect, however. So please feel free to make the attempt.
Why do you think that this would be more efficient?
Pulse jets, if that is what you are talking about, are notoriously inefficient.
Sound wise, I doubt that a pulse jet running at constant settings would be pleasant.
Also, converting the (supersonic) jet stream into electricity is a tad questionable efficiency wise.
Maybe it wouldn't be heavier than current cars but not likely to be near as light as plain piston powered cars. Not having regen is just a pointless waste. And a gasturbine is an ICE with weight.
Plus super capacitor, have worse energy density than batteries. I don't think what you imagined is possible.
You literally are removing 95KG by deleting the entire ICE component.
Not having regen allows for zero battery weight with a 25ish % claw back by the addition of a small ultracapicitor bank for smoothing out the electrical flow to the motors.
No you're replacing it with a different ICE and (approximately) quadruple the electric part compared to the 2026 regs, it was pointed out.
Whatever size "small" supercapactior would be it would be heavier than batteries. It still needs to be significant, if you consider long braking zones. And the powers/energies in question.
I think the current ICE concept taken forward would result in the lest weight. Just reduce the size/cylinder numbers, add ample boost and adequate fuel. It's already tuned for efficiency so the fuel weight wouldn't be a lot. Allow for better materials than the most common stuff. And things could get pretty light.
You literally are removing 95KG by deleting the entire ICE component.
Not having regen allows for zero battery weight with a 25ish % claw back by the addition of a small ultracapicitor bank for smoothing out the electrical flow to the motors.
No you're replacing it with a different ICE and (approximately) quadruple the electric part compared to the 2026 regs, it was pointed out.
Whatever size "small" supercapactior would be it would be heavier than batteries. It still needs to be significant, if you consider long braking zones. And the powers/energies in question.
I think the current ICE concept taken forward would result in the lest weight. Just reduce the size/cylinder numbers, add ample boost and adequate fuel. It's already tuned for efficiency so the fuel weight wouldn't be a lot. Allow for better materials than the most common stuff. And things could get pretty light.
And why are you convinced of this motor configuration, if I may ask?(Turbocharger, MGU-H, turbojet,…)
Efficiency. Current cars are 52ish% efficient (amazing actually!), and they deserve the utmost respect.
I just kinda believe the gas turbine -> mguh -> mguk to just be the pinnacle of combustion locomotive efficiency, and this idea of mine is based upon that belief.
As always, I can be convinced otherwise with some good math and explaining if I'm incorrect, however. So please feel free to make the attempt.
Why do you think that this would be more efficient?
Pulse jets, if that is what you are talking about, are notoriously inefficient.
Sound wise, I doubt that a pulse jet running at constant settings would be pleasant.
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
Efficiency. Current cars are 52ish% efficient (amazing actually!), and they deserve the utmost respect.
I just kinda believe the gas turbine -> mguh -> mguk to just be the pinnacle of combustion locomotive efficiency, and this idea of mine is based upon that belief.
As always, I can be convinced otherwise with some good math and explaining if I'm incorrect, however. So please feel free to make the attempt.
Why do you think that this would be more efficient?
Pulse jets, if that is what you are talking about, are notoriously inefficient.
Sound wise, I doubt that a pulse jet running at constant settings would be pleasant.
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
You’re going to blow that right through the diffuser’s expansion?
I feel like this thread has really jumped the shark and is dabbling in sci-fi with technology that doesn’t exist, isn’t practicable for what these cars are, and honestly just sounds like technology word salad with no thought on why or how any of it could, in actuality, integrate with one another.
Why do you think that this would be more efficient?
Pulse jets, if that is what you are talking about, are notoriously inefficient.
Sound wise, I doubt that a pulse jet running at constant settings would be pleasant.
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
You’re going to blow that right through the diffuser’s expansion?
I feel like this thread has really jumped the shark and is dabbling in sci-fi with technology that doesn’t exist, isn’t practicable for what these cars are, and honestly just sounds like technology word salad with no thought on why or how any of it could, in actuality, integrate with one another.
I'm sure someone once said the same about turbo engines, active suspension, and hybrid tech in F1..
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
You’re going to blow that right through the diffuser’s expansion?
I feel like this thread has really jumped the shark and is dabbling in sci-fi with technology that doesn’t exist, isn’t practicable for what these cars are, and honestly just sounds like technology word salad with no thought on why or how any of it could, in actuality, integrate with one another.
I'm sure someone once said the same about turbo engines, active suspension, and hybrid tech in F1..
That’s a cop out argument. Mashing together technologies because it sounds smart isn’t “it”. This is like those cutaways from when I was a kid showing how a X-Wing “works” (it doesn’t, it’s sci-fi).
Active suspension came from ambulance leveling systems developed in the 1970s, it was later adopted by Williams and made to work in a racing applications. Active suspensions in production cars (Land Rover, Mercedes, some GM products) have been around since the 1980s pre dating F1’s use...
Someone in the Mercedes thread mentioned the rules not allowing interlinked shocks front to rear, hilarious because the original Mini with its hydrolastic suspension even had that.
Hybrid tech is 100 years old now. All commercial ships, train locomotives, cranes, heavy equipment has been diesel / electric hybrid for 70 years now, with efficiencies greater than F1, and this all started before that with steam / electric hybrids. This is where the real technology developments are. You take the costs involved in trains, ships, heavy equipment and the $$ savings in improving efficiency, and it’s the F1 grid several orders of magnitude larger. The heavy equipment industry is a $190B (US) market. The commercial ship vessel industry is a $200B industry.
Turbochargers go back a 100 years. The heavy diesel world is where people are chasing gains. F1 even bans variable geometry turbos, a technology that’s been around since the 1970s.
Carbon brakes and all the use of carbon composites in F1 came from the aerospace industry.
Active aero (and later sucker cars) have been around since the 1960s with the Chaparrals. F1 European centric media really tries to hide the fact the Americans came up with that stuff first.
Miller Cycle engines go back to the 1950s and the inventor used it in his home built Indy Car, and has been used in production cars. An American invention by one guy in his garage.
TJI has been around since the 1970s
The whole lean burn, HCCI combustion technology comes from the diesel world originally, and again, another 50yo technology.
Pulse jet invented in 1906. So, how does a pulse jet work for a drafting car? How does it influence the flow field for aero? Again, the technology has to fit the use and make sense in what F1 is. It’s not a single car time trial series and there are other factors than need to be considered.
I could keep going. F1 has a ton of refinement of technologies, but very few things have been “invented” in F1. It’s all been adopted from other series or disciplines, and made to fit an open wheel sprint racing application.
That said, mashing of technologies needs to make sense within the package of an entertaining open wheel, sprint race package, where cost control is also important.
Thanks for that breath of fresh air and technical sanity; this thread really has jumped the shark.
Even aero…
Newey got his practical ground effects experience in the US in IMSA and Indy Car. He was a borderline intern when it got outlawed in F1 the first time.
According to Frank Dernie, they learned about the outwash front wings from Indy Car.
The talking heads don’t know any of this or they’re under a gag order to never mention competing series, especially ones outside FIA’s umbrella. These are for profit companies after all. It also doesn’t fit the advertising narrative F1 wants that it’s the “pinnacle”. In some ways it is for road racing, in other ways it’s not.
I personally expect them to remain turbo V6s in 2030, on fully synthetic fuel. It’s not that far away.
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
I'm confused.
Is it to be a pulse jet with power recovery turbine, or a turbocharger based gas turbine?
I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...
I'm confused.
Is it to be a pulse jet with power recovery turbine, or a turbocharger based gas turbine?
My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.
For all of those calling this fantasy, I understand, but no one has convinced me as of yet that the 97ish% H->K efficiency coupled with the reasonable efficiency of a compact gas turbine is impossible. The sizing that I expect may be way off. The size of turbos needed for 900HP worth of e-gen may just be too big. I'm open to being wrong in my assumptions, but I promise you that internet scorn will never have the effect that folks would wish it does.
