Concept power units from 2030

[vorticism]

He is probably the furthest you could be from calling yourself a motorsport fan, but his response to both clips was that the sound makes you feel something. It creates this hard to describe connection to what is happening which you just feel. It evokes emotion, feeling and awe. This is what's missing form F1 at the moment.

It's just a case of "what I first experienced is right and normal, everything else wrong".

Indeed, and the fans who started watching during the V6 hybrid era are some the worst offenders of this. They think the past decade should continue forever. Stuck in the past. I get it though. "All I've seen is the V6 so it must always be the V6." But these sorts of backward-looking, conservative obsessions do not help anyone. F1 needs to be progressive and innovative if it's truly the pinnacle of motorsport, not pandering to the feelings of a dwindling minority of fans. It's time to move on and stop being afraid of the unfamiliar. Out with the old and in with the new is something I'm sure we can both agree upon.

Honestly people are too nostalgic for their own good.

Agreed. Particularly the MGUH nostalgists. They don't fully understand how they work, yet they keep championing them because it's what they're familiar with. It's too bad, because they are fascinating tech, I quite like them, but they've unfortunately become associated with a certain problematic sector of the audience who are afraid of facts and science. They hear the MGUHs whistling sound and get all emotional, reminds them of some by-gone era that is never coming back, and then its facts and logic out the window. We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

[Bence]

One of the engines I experienced first is the BMW M12 and I can't imagine a more disgustingly uninspiring buzzer ever.

Similarly, when BMW debuted the hot vee 4.4 turbo in the F10, I just couldn't believe its cheap 4cyl sound.

[bananapeel23]

We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

I’ve never been against V8s. Wanting an MGU-H and a V8 is not mutually exclusive.

The primary problem with an NA formula for me is that you can't race a pure NA formula without DRS, and I don't like DRS. The current overtake mode is a vast improvement conceptually, even if the 2026 PU is so awful that the advantages are masked. The problem is that you can't really have overtake mode without a hybrid, or at least not without a turbo.

So if you want an NA formula you either need DRS or you need an MGU-K + battery for overtake.

Option 1: NA + DRS, no MGU-K

Removes interesting overtakes and the possibility for active aero. Heavy fuel loads at race start. The advantage is that it's light and loud.

Option 2: NA + Large MGU-K + battery

An MGU-K + battery only formula creates perverse incentives for lift and coast. The only solution for such a formula would be very aggressive harvesting and deployment caps, but then you would run into the issue of suddenly not being able to brake because the MGU-K ran out of harvesting allowance. That wouldn't be possible to compensate for, since a large MGU-K would mean that you couldn't keep the temperature up with full-sized rear brakes.

It's still loud, but not light due to the battery.

Option 3: MGU-H + small battery + small MGU-K (~100 kW) + active aero + overtake

If you don't want lift and coast or DRS, the only realistic option is an MGU-H formula, since MGU-H harvesting is entirely passive and non-parasitic, while encouraging and even rewarding flat out racing, since more time on throttle = more harvesting.

[ScottB]

I find the whole 'it must be loud' hope / complaint quite interesting.

First, cards on the table, I'm in my 40's, I've experienced the pre-hybrid engines in the flesh.

Anyway... it's been 12 years since F1 went hybrid, in the interim, the sport has become more popular than it has ever been, more viewers, more folk at races, more fans etc etc. Where's the argument that a somewhat quieter F1 has been a problem? I doubt these people would call it quiet, even!

I can fully accept that some might like to go back to what they remember, for nostalgic reasons or not, but I'm not sure there's much evidence that F1 would be even bigger today if it had continued with NA V8's and never had the MGU-H era.

Indeed I think the bulk of the audience has very little idea what is powering the cars, at least until our current formula, because it has to be talked about so often in the coverage. But would that drive a demand to go back to 'how it was' for those fans, eg the previous hybrids, rather than a non hybrid power unit? Or do they just lump all of it together into a dislike of, say, 'batteries' in general?

Certainly this could be the first time that the largely mass market / casual / however you want to put it, fanbase, has probably directly cared / had any particular feelings on the power unit rules. For those who came in with the DTS wave, the engines have effectively never really mattered or been a big differentiator / obvious influence on racing.

Indeed, the goal should be that the engines don't need to be talked about, to the extent they currently are, during race weekends. Fair enough to construct them in whatever way to land any desired marketing messages, or if they want to encourage tech innovation, to drive that, but my guess would be they're going to start seeing fan sentiment irked by having to hear constantly about charging, deployment, super clipping and so on and will presumably react accordingly.

[Cold Fussion]

Indeed, the goal should be that the engines don't need to be talked about, to the extent they currently are, during race weekends. Fair enough to construct them in whatever way to land any desired marketing messages, or if they want to encourage tech innovation, to drive that, but my guess would be they're going to start seeing fan sentiment irked by having to hear constantly about charging, deployment, super clipping and so on and will presumably react accordingly.

I do agree that the talk of energy deployment constantly throughout a grandprix weekend sucks (mostly because it's so artificial feeling) but I disagree that we want engines we don't want to talk about. F1 is a technical sport and any aspect of car design that brings performance should be talked about. What we don't ever want hear is constant talk of BOP which plagues sport car and gt racing.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... NA engine will always be louder and more melodious because of the turbo's sonic/acoustic attenuating effect, as the turbine wheel is in the way... The only REALLY loud turbo I ever heard personally was the Toyota RV8 SST Indy V8, but that is understandable because of the single side turbo. One bank was driving the turbo, the other was open. On a superspeedway when a Toyota flew by, it felt like your lung was about to rupture. When it was idling beside you on the pit lane, you couldn't hear the Honda HRH on full throttle at the end of the straights.....

yes ....
I mentioned this (weeks ago) but didn't know which car used it
btw.. now the world knows (1945 in East theater) P-51s latching high blower over-ride switches (for 100 " Hg MAP)
yes (to save anyone asking) I've got source material for the '3 yards of mercury' P-63 flights (108 " Hg MAP)

was the 1988 150 litre/84% toluene-fuelled Honda F1 really more efficient than the 3.5 litre NA jobs ? (I've forgotten)
or was the improvised equivalence too tight for the NA ?
the 'half-an-engine' (turbo) may be more efficient at low power (road use) - so what's that to do with F1 ?

F1 hybrid is all about rigged ICE rules (and having 8 gears) to help the electric side look good ...
and after 13 years people now see that

the mzso-style series petrol-electric hybrid will suffer (without gears)
because neither regen nor motoring can be efficient both at high speed/low torque and at low speed/high torque
that's why high-end sporty EVs have eg 2 gears

[vorticism]

I find the whole 'it must be loud' hope / complaint quite interesting.

You find the conversations you have with yourself interesting? Because that hasn't been a focus of this thread over the past few pages.

You do know that amplitude is not the same thing as frequency, right? Those are basic, fundamental components of the natural sciences. You should familiarize yourself with them and others before trying to assess the situation.

Anyway... it's been 12 years since F1 went hybrid, in the interim, the sport has become more popular than it has ever been, more viewers, more folk at races, more fans etc etc. Where's the argument that a somewhat quieter F1 has been a problem?

Where's the argument no one made? I don't know, Scott. Where could it be? As for "line go up," well: There are more races on the calendar. There is more broadcasting. There are more screens and computers worldwide, and, the obvious one: population size has increased. Netflix and LiburdeeTM would have sold whatever F1 had running.

I can fully accept that some might like to go back to what they remember, for nostalgic reasons or not, but I'm not sure there's much evidence that F1 would be even bigger today if it had continued with NA V8's and never had the MGU-H era.

Same goes for any random decade you could pick. A nostalgia for the 2010s (or more loosely, say 2014-2025) is just as easy to condemn--to the extent that nostalgia even should be condemned, as though it is a universally bad thing. Hence my sarcasm in my previous post. It's easy to use another's logical fallacies.

You like others in recent posts arrive again with this strawman. If you knew me personally, I'd probably be the least nostalgic person you know. You and others are trying to explain phenomenon only by their placement in time/history, but this ignores a plethora of other factors. Aesthetics, qualities, beauty, efficiency, intrigue, familiarity, engagement, etc.

I discuss reciprocating engine fundamentals and then have idiots lining up saying "Grunt grunt, you only say that because it is old" ignoring the fact the ICE has been in development across three centuries and we're splitting hairs over what is and isn't actually old, as though engineering fundamentals go out of date somehow. How does one even engage with this level of stupidity. It's like trying to condemn violins for being developed in the 16th century. It's all epically stupid.

"Hehe, you only like string instruments because they're old." Well, no, I like them because they produce beauty and are themselves beautiful, in that unavoidable reflection you sometimes find between sound and vision.

[mzso]

One of the engines I experienced first is the BMW M12 and I can't imagine a more disgustingly uninspiring buzzer ever.

Similarly, when BMW debuted the hot vee 4.4 turbo in the F10, I just couldn't believe its cheap 4cyl sound.

Ah, so you're one of the worst of zealots. You picked your favorite when you were a child and that is the only right sound. No point in talking about engines with you then.

F1 needs to be progressive and innovative if it's truly the pinnacle of motorsport, not pandering to the feelings of a dwindling minority of fans. It's time to move on and stop being afraid of the unfamiliar. Out with the old and in with the new is something I'm sure we can both agree upon.

Yes. However IMO if would really want to be tech-forward. It would be about how to make an EV F1 car. But I learnt that's pointless to raise here.
At least, I wouldn't mind a much relaxed engine formula with little more than a fuel flow and some reasonable material limits. We could see some cool rotaries and who knows what.

We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

Blade-and-fork boxers for maximum balance.

[Bence]

Ah, so you're one of the worst of zealots. You picked your favorite when you were a child and that is the only right sound. No point in talking about engines with you then.

Ah, OK. So can you specify the V10 in the 70s or the V12 from the turbo era that were my childhood favorites?

And because this endeavor is not gonna be fruitful, remember that a "conversation" not always represents someone's comfort zone only (this can fuel healthy discussions without getting personal; if other tools go blunt from the arse-nal). I kinda prefer real dialogues, so I'm not gonna miss a one-sided POV.

I value colorful differences where we all trying to find a golden ticket to solutions we perceive as "right". If someone says something unconventional, let's examine it. I tell my opinion, but I don't say I'm damned right. My 2¢.

[Bence]

I find the whole 'it must be loud' hope / complaint quite interesting.
...
Where's the argument that a somewhat quieter F1 has been a problem?

Basically everywhere if you listen carefully - but we didn't have a choice. If there would have been a similar top racing formula with true freedom and loudly singing engines, I'd have switched without a single thought or remorse.

Indeed, the goal should be that the engines don't need to be talked about, to the extent they currently are, during race weekends.

You recognize proper engines from the constant buzz people generate about them. Legends are born. People dream about them. They can't stop talking about them, record their sounds on various events, small boys scream hysterically when they hear them on the TV. Or make a living recording them and show them to the world. For example Bozzy's channel on YT. I'd be curious what he thinks about it... But I doubt a dull-sounding banger would generate enough views.

[Tommy Cookers]

We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

Blade-and-fork boxers for maximum balance. :)

2,4,6,8,&10 cylinder 'boxers' must have 2,4,6,8,&10 crank throws
so cannot use blade & fork rods
12 cylinder etc horizontally-opposed engines have eg 6 crank throws ie staggered rods
so cannot use blade & fork rods
but could cancel 'stagger' via a 'handed' ie longitudinally-symmetrical crank - (compatible with central power takeoff)

Mr Duckworth said that eg DFV valve motion gave as much vibration as any other source
yes HO seems better here

for 3 throw V6s the 90 deg bank angle is less vibratory than any other angle (eg even the 1961 Ferrari F1 120 deg)
fork & blade would be pointless (because engine length is dictated by cylinder bore spacing not rod width)

[wuzak]

We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

Blade-and-fork boxers for maximum balance.

Just use a 120° V6.

[wuzak]

Yes. However IMO if would really want to be tech-forward. It would be about how to make an EV F1 car. But I learnt that's pointless to raise here.
At least, I wouldn't mind a much relaxed engine formula with little more than a fuel flow and some reasonable material limits. We could see some cool rotaries and who knows what.

A rotary is unlikely to feature in a fuel flow limited formula.

[mzso]

I find the whole 'it must be loud' hope / complaint quite interesting.
...
Where's the argument that a somewhat quieter F1 has been a problem?

Basically everywhere if you listen carefully - but we didn't have a choice. If there would have been a similar top racing formula with true freedom and loudly singing engines, I'd have switched without a single thought or remorse.

Indeed, the goal should be that the engines don't need to be talked about, to the extent they currently are, during race weekends.

You recognize proper engines from the constant buzz people generate about them. Legends are born. People dream about them. They can't stop talking about them, record their sounds on various events, small boys scream hysterically when they hear them on the TV. Or make a living recording them and show them to the world. For example Bozzy's channel on YT. I'd be curious what he thinks about it... But I doubt a dull-sounding banger would generate enough views.

I see no point in talking about emotions, feelings and memories, hyperboles in technical topic. For me it has like 1% relevance.

[mzso]

We could, for example, have engines with inherent balance and equal firing intervals--but the V6 obsessives will say it's not possible.

Blade-and-fork boxers for maximum balance.

2,4,6,8,&10 cylinder 'boxers' must have 2,4,6,8,&10 crank throws
so cannot use blade & fork rods
12 cylinder etc horizontally-opposed engines have eg 6 crank throws ie staggered rods
so cannot use blade & fork rods
but could cancel 'stagger' via a 'handed' ie longitudinally-symmetrical crank - (compatible with central power takeoff)

Mr Duckworth said that eg DFV valve motion gave as much vibration as any other source
yes HO seems better here

for 3 throw V6s the 90 deg bank angle is less vibratory than any other angle (eg even the 1961 Ferrari F1 120 deg)
fork & blade would be pointless (because engine length is dictated by cylinder bore spacing not rod width)

The way I imagine it, it can have blade and forks. Just not in the conventional way. The opposed cylinders would use separate crank pins (three), with one pin can be shared by forked diagonal cylinders. A B4 could have 5 pins.

Not sure I understand the staggered parts. Horizontal opposed piston engines have two crankshafts, the way I understand it.