Concept power units from 2030

[JordanMugen]

go for it. Ford a noisey v8 ? Crack on but all the engines must meet a certain capacity and power output

Why do they have to be piston engines and why do they have to be connected to the wheels?

Why not a turbine like the Lotus 56B, but operating strictly as a constant speed generator and not connected to the wheels (unlike the Lotus 56B)?



If you are going to use the engine as a generator, why not do it properly?

[My preference would be for a mandatory 3.2L NA V12 though, with a simple KERS; or even 2.55L V12 or 2.0L V12 -- yes twelve cylinders are silly compared to eight, but why not? If MotoGP has 850cc in their new 2027 4 cylinder rules, that gives 2550cc for a twelve cylinder F1 engine using the same cylinder specifications.]

[How did Chapman get the capacity of the turbine classed for its three F1 Grand Prix starts apart from the Indy 500?]

[Just_a_fan]

Rerun history by getting Cosworth to produce an F1 engine, specifically a version of the V12 currently powering the GMA T50S. 3.9L V12 putting out 772PS at 11500rpm with a sound that evokes days of yore. Sure, it's a bit of a heavy lump in the T50S but no doubt a true racing version could have weight removed, especially if the 48V starter/generator is removed. Run it on 100% "green" fuel. Use simplified aero, perhaps with the current adjustable system, to help close running whilst still giving decent laptimes. What's not to like?

This sounds better than the F1 2.4V8s did a few years ago:

[ScottB]

An open engine formula inevitably leads to BoP. Nobody is going to want to redesign an engine, so they're committed for the cycle, and if you let everyone go hog wild, someone is going to nail it, and the rest are going to either feel forced to redesign at great expense, or yeah, BoP to constrain things. See how well that's received in WEC.

The sensible approach then is to define the engine, as we've done, and see how we the ADUO process closes things up. Not sure anyone wants F1 to be decided by the engine alone, and the more freedom the engine regs have, the more that becomes likely, I'd suspect.

The manufacturers are likely to want hybrids. That's what they're trying to sell on the road, so they'll want that link. The 50/50 split was too far and not required from a marketing perspective. A V6 turbo hybrid with more power from the ICE ticks all the boxes, and still let's the sport play a green card when it's turning up at all it's new street tracks etc, and ties in with the sort of flagship performance cars the likes of Ferrari, Merc, Audi, Mclaren etc etc will be trying to sell.

A screaming V8 / V10 is an anachronism at this point. Roadcars don't use them, much of the modern fanbase has never encountered them. The emotional attachment is there for those of us that do remember them of course, but they're out dated, retro and feels like a risk for F1 to decline into a retro series, potentially losing manufacturer support etc etc.

You can argue for and against that, of course, but Liberty is a business with a mandate to make maximum money for it's shareholders, which to me leans towards manufacturer backed, hybrid engines, not risking a 1 or 2 make engine series with a smaller fan base / loss of money generating city tracks and so on.

[bananapeel23]

Based on what MBS' discussions and announcements have indicated it'll be V8s (likely a return to the 2.4L format) and a simplified hybrid. Those V8s were a lot lighter than the turbo V6s we had/have, though they were rather short on low-end torque, which is why the measly 80hp of the KERS unit was actually quite impactful. If I understand correctly, the previous generation of MGUK and energy storage was actually pretty similar in mass to the KERS system, so something like that could pair with the 95kg V8 for a car that is still a lot more nimble than anything we've had since 2013 while providing a lot more power. Additionally I'm sure there's some neat tricks that can be used to make the V8s more potent, IIRC they didn't have variable intakes or pre-chamber ignition.

What they lose in weight they will gain back in fuel load.

Sure, they will be light in quali, but they would be carrying some 200kg of fuel at race start.

The turbo isn’t going away, it simply increases efficiency too much. Any regs going forward will be some kind of turbo or supercharged engine, pretty much no matter what.

[Pingguest]

What about a (relatively) open regulation regarding the power units and the introduction of a maximum power-to-weight-ratio? This will allow more diversity in terms of both design and performance, doesn’t make the race an economy run and provide some flexibility - a team can also compensate an overweight with a bit more power.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... The turbo isn’t going away, it simply increases efficiency too much.....

how would that be ?
is there a clear example of this ?
does Toyota know ?

if optimised the higher CR/ER of the NA engine will give a better in-cylinder efficiency
recent and ongoing developments in reducing heat loss to coolant and friction disproportionately benefit the NA engine
we could even have non-lossy reduction of induction pressure to the sub-atmospheric

the greatest tankages ever (in race recips) were in the 159 Alfa Romeo and the Novi

[bananapeel23]

.... The turbo isn’t going away, it simply increases efficiency too much.....

how would that be ?
is there a clear example of this ?
does Toyota know ?

if optimised the higher CR/ER of the NA engine will give a better in-cylinder efficiency
recent and ongoing developments in reducing heat loss to coolant and friction disproportionately benefit the NA engine
we could even have non-lossy reduction of induction pressure to the sub-atmospheric

the greatest tankages ever (in race recips) were in the 159 Alfa Romeo and the Novi

You still need to get that pressure into the engine somehow. At sea level, high speeds are enough to bring it into an efficient window. At low speed you will lose out of efficiency due to a lack of airflow. The engine is also forced to be optimized for a wider band of pressure ranges.

Still, the primary argument against NA is that the most popular arguments for it (low weight and high power to weight), are areas where turbocharged engines are just better.

The ideal four-stroke engine for F1, when considering power:weight over the whole operating range and ~1000 horsepower is likely to be a ~2L V6 with an MGU-H, a tiny battery only for the MGU-H and a small, ~50 kW MGU-K meant only for deploying MGU-H power.

Such an engine would have all the benefits of the 2014 engines, with massive weight savings due to the tiny battery and tiny MGU-K.

[Tommy Cookers]

BRM V16 had 830 hp (the only time it had boost regulated by the 'non-lossy' vortex throttling) in 1970 Kyalami demo
this making the mechanically driven 2-stage centrifugal supercharging suitable for road circuits

in principle it could have had exhaust (free power) recovery turbines (coupled mechanically to the crankshaft)
recovery turbines are quite compatible with tuned exhaust lengths and with NA engines

exhaust recovery with no MGU-H no battery no CE no MGU-K

[SealTheRealDeal]

Based on what MBS' discussions and announcements have indicated it'll be V8s (likely a return to the 2.4L format) and a simplified hybrid. Those V8s were a lot lighter than the turbo V6s we had/have, though they were rather short on low-end torque, which is why the measly 80hp of the KERS unit was actually quite impactful. If I understand correctly, the previous generation of MGUK and energy storage was actually pretty similar in mass to the KERS system, so something like that could pair with the 95kg V8 for a car that is still a lot more nimble than anything we've had since 2013 while providing a lot more power. Additionally I'm sure there's some neat tricks that can be used to make the V8s more potent, IIRC they didn't have variable intakes or pre-chamber ignition.

What they lose in weight they will gain back in fuel load.

Sure, they will be light in quali, but they would be carrying some 200kg of fuel at race start.

The turbo isn’t going away, it simply increases efficiency too much. Any regs going forward will be some kind of turbo or supercharged engine, pretty much no matter what.

In 2013 they loaded about 150kg of fuel for the full race distance...

Anyways, the beauty of trading engine weight for fuel weight is that the latter disappears over the course of a race distance, unlike the former.

In any case the FIA's leadership is pushing for an NA formula for 2030, so yes the turbo is going away in all likelihood.

[vorticism]

Was about to post the same. There are too many variable to make a blanket statements, but conceivably an NA version of a 2022 car would have been slightly heavier owing to a larger, non-refueled fuel tank, even while helped by loss of the MGU & ES masses, the the key distinction would be that this would be the starting weight. At the end of the race this hypothetical NA car would be lighter than the turbo-hybrid car. An NA engine car could be lighter depending on how the engine was specified. In terms of peak weight, refueling could be a way to manage it, regardless of powertrain, and the FIA are nominally interesting in reducing vehicle weight--this year's cars are somewhat lighter.

Still, the primary argument against NA is that the most popular arguments for it (low weight and high power to weight), are areas where turbocharged engines are just better.

The ideal four-stroke engine for F1, when considering power:weight over the whole operating range and ~1000 horsepower is likely to be a ~2L V6 with an MGU-H, a tiny battery only for the MGU-H and a small, ~50 kW MGU-K meant only for deploying MGU-H power.

Such an engine would have all the benefits of the 2014 engines, with massive weight savings due to the tiny battery and tiny MGU-K.

Power to weight and efficiency are not always one-in-the-same for a turbocharged engine. When the focus is on efficiency, the power to weight benefit is minimized or lost completely. When focusing on power alone, like drag racing or 80s endurance prototypes, turbocharged engines can have better power to weight ratios than ICE, but fuel efficiency can suffer.

"The ideal four-stroke engine...is likely to be" ...the concept you just proposed? You don't say. What are the odds?

[bananapeel23]

Was about to post the same. There are too many variable to make a blanket statements, but conceivably an NA version of a 2022 car would have been slightly heavier owing to a larger, non-refueled fuel tank, even while helped by loss of the MGU & ES masses, the the key distinction would be that this would be the starting weight. At the end of the race this hypothetical NA car would be lighter than the turbo-hybrid car. An NA engine car could be lighter depending on how the engine was specified. In terms of peak weight, refueling could be a way to manage it, regardless of powertrain, and the FIA are nominally interesting in reducing vehicle weight--this year's cars are somewhat lighter.

Still, the primary argument against NA is that the most popular arguments for it (low weight and high power to weight), are areas where turbocharged engines are just better.

Such an engine would have all the benefits of the 2014 engines, with massive weight savings due to the tiny battery and tiny MGU-K.

Power to weight and efficiency are not always one-in-the-same for a turbocharged engine. When the focus is on efficiency, the power to weight benefit is minimized or lost completely. When focusing on power alone, like drag racing or 80s endurance prototypes, turbocharged engines can have better power to weight ratios than ICE, but fuel efficiency can suffer.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that if you start with 150-200kg of race fuel, which is what you would need if you wanted a NA engine with 900-1000hp, you would need cars built to crash on a full tank. They would start out with a heavier PU/fuel/cooling package than the current cars, and would thus need crash structures designed to handle their starting weight, which would drive the weight of the rest of the car up a lot. F1 cars won’t go below 700kg unless they compromise on safety. Even if it was possible, NA is not the path to get there unless you also reintroduce refueling.

Efficiency is king in all respects. Turbocharged V6 engines with an MGU-H are fairly light and are hyper efficient, which allows low fuel loads, and thus a lighter chassis.

2030 should stay with a low displacement turbocharged engine and 85-100kg/hr fuel flow, depending on whether they keep actove aero. They should then reintroduce the MGU-H while cutting the MGU-K back a ton. The battery should be tiny, like 1MJ.

If noise is a concern, they can always throw away some efficiency for noise by raising the revs required for max fuel flow from 10500 to 15000 or so, which would bring screaming engines back.

[vorticism]

A screaming V8 / V10 is an anachronism at this point. Roadcars don't use them, much of the modern fanbase has never encountered them.

They were an anachronism in the 1990s. If I recall correctly, the only V10 road vehicles in that decade were a Dodge Viper and a Ford F-250. "Most of the modern fanbase" in the 1990s & early 2000s hadn't encountered them either. This is what gave them mystique, aside from the ethereal sound. One reason why it's important to be intrepid instead of compromising. (Although it was somewhat on accident.)

The emotional attachment is there for those of us that do remember them of course, but they're out dated, retro and feels like a risk for F1 to decline into a retro series, potentially losing manufacturer support etc etc.

They're not outdated nor retro. They were not the result of emotional attachment, they were the result of engineering decisions. Cylinder count was free during the first seasons of that era, and 8, 10, and 12 cylinder engines were pursued. 10 was found to be the best compromise of piston size and running losses. Note all of those are inherently balanced cylinder arrangements, sometimes with some wilfull compromising of vee angles but not always. Your erudite, learned V6 on the other hand has inherent imbalance.

Engine balance and firing pattern are of real importance to engine performance and to engineers. It's not that one day some myopic engineer woke up some day and decided to express his largess and bragadociousness in the form of engine dimensions. Straight-8 engines were valued in the early days for their smooth power delivery. Many, many V-12s exist in aero engine history. 14- & 18-cylinder radial engines survived well into the turbojet age.

If I consider aesthetics in isolation though, the 3l Ferrari V12 must be peak F1; what a surreal sound--and definitely not outdated, because those specs and tolerances cannot go out of date. In fact, they're still in use in your "state of art," "high tech" hybrid V6s.

You can argue for and against that, of course, but Liberty is a business with a mandate to make maximum money for it's shareholders, which to me leans towards manufacturer backed, hybrid engines, not risking a 1 or 2 make engine series with a smaller fan base / loss of money generating city tracks and so on.

LiburdeeTM is distribution rights, iirc. I'd think they'd want wow factor over OEM lobbying. I would expect they had a say in these current regs which produce more passes via power unit handicapping. Went the clickbait route.

The manufacturers are likely to want hybrids. That's what they're trying to sell on the road, so they'll want that link. The 50/50 split was too far and not required from a marketing perspective. A V6 turbo hybrid with more power from the ICE ticks all the boxes, and still let's the sport play a green card when it's turning up at all it's new street tracks etc, and ties in with the sort of flagship performance cars the likes of Ferrari, Merc, Audi, Mclaren etc etc will be trying to sell.

But we should not advocate for this. It is dishonest.

[gearboxtrouble]

A screaming V8 / V10 is an anachronism at this point. Roadcars don't use them, much of the modern fanbase has never encountered them. The emotional attachment is there for those of us that do remember them of course, but they're out dated, retro and feels like a risk for F1 to decline into a retro series, potentially losing manufacturer support etc etc.

I disagree. At the high end of the performance market, manufacturers have pivoted back to big ICEs. The examples are endless. Porsche delayed the EV Boxster and Cayman replacement because of a lack of interest and rushed to change the platform to accept a flat 6. Porsche cancelled the MissionX based hypercar because few people wanted it and is taking orders for a V8 hypercar to compete with the F80 and W1. BMW decided late on to develop a inline 6 Neue Klasse M3 in parallel with the all EV one they had originally planned. Rimac Neveras sold so poorly that the first thing Mate Rimac did as CEO of Bugatti was to throw out the EV car and ask Cosworth to make a NA V16 for the Tourbillion. Both Lamborghini and Ferrari re committed to keeping the NA V12 on in their flagship models. The hybrid 4 cylinder Mercedes AMG C63 was received so poorly it was killed and Mercedes is rushing to develop a new V8 for the 63 models. I could go on and on and on but the market has spoken and if F1 wants to stay road relevant with where the high end performance market is headed they had better switch to a V8+ formula. A turbo is fine but imho unnecessary because a NA V8 displacing ~2.4L would be plenty powerful enough. A small (~100KW) MGUK purely for push to pass and/or torque fill is fine if you ditch the turbo. They can even greenwash this with sustainable fuels if they cared.

F1 should be all about speed and drama and cars which can be pushed to the max at any time the driver wants to. That means a screaming ICE (preferably NA) with limited to no electrification. WEC can focus on efficiency which means hybrids and Formula E can exist for EV based racing.

[vorticism]

Note that much of the OEM decisionmaking has been due to government demands. OEMs have been put through the wringer on this--some more than others.

EV rollout has been clumsy to say the least. The lag in charging infrastructure has been astonishing to see and must say something more about the planners/bureaucrats than the grid industry players, who'd presumably want to maximize their market. Yet...

[Bence]

BRM V16 had 830 hp (the only time it had boost regulated by the 'non-lossy' vortex throttling) in 1970 Kyalami demo
this making the mechanically driven 2-stage centrifugal supercharging suitable for road circuits

in principle it could have had exhaust (free power) recovery turbines (coupled mechanically to the crankshaft)
recovery turbines are quite compatible with tuned exhaust lengths and with NA engines

exhaust recovery with no MGU-H no battery no CE no MGU-K

+1

And a sound to die for...