Concept power units from 2030

[Cold Fussion]

Hopefully nothing given it's primarily a spec series.

A silly blanket statement... BTW so is F1 by now. With spec parts, and a formula so specific that many other parts are practically the same.
The B.Sport guy for example pointed at the front regen that it would be a good solution to the current fiasko of F1. And even as an FE spec part it's not too bulky.

Calling F1 a spec series is absurd. Front regen without front deployment is just a band aid to an otherwise poor set of technical regulations, any open set of regulations would see front axle deployment if a motor was already present on the front axle. In my opinion F1 should either embrace awd with front axle regen, or develop a set of regulations where front axle harvesting isn't required to make the energy budget work.

[erikejw]

Has a hard hp cap been up for discussion for the 2030 rules.

That would level the playing field.

Set a hard cap on HP and possibly NM somehow and fuel flow.

Then the performance differentiators would be driveability and other softer characteristics.

The engines wouldnt he equal but in the same ballpark.

Is this viable?

[mzso]

Has a hard hp cap been up for discussion for the 2030 rules.

That would level the playing field.

Set a hard cap on HP and possibly NM somehow and fuel flow.

Then the performance differentiators would be driveability and other softer characteristics.

The engines wouldnt he equal but in the same ballpark.

Is this viable?

The fuel flow is meant to cap performance towards a target everyone gravitates to. I don't think they would consider an actual power limiter.

[gearboxtrouble]

No need to overthink this. A fuel flow cap combined with tightly regulated boost and electrical parameters should be enough. The goal should be 1000hp at most with a small, light 0.5MJ battery and a push to pass and quali only MGU-K providing 80hp. Less powerful cars would allow F1 to take out even more crash structure weight and with a major downsizing of the battery, lead to a massive improvement over the current cars.

[Stu]

Back to 2-strokes….
This is fantastic!!

[FW17]

F1 will switch to V8s and 'minimal' electric power - Ben Sulayem
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-v ... n-sulayem/

Maybe the right or wrong path, but I feel it is waste of a lot of research committed by OEM shareholders and F1 fans for the V6 formula over the last decade.

Ben Sulayem would be better off by ramping the fuel flow for the current engines from 3000MJ in 2026 to;

3500MJ in 2027 4 units a year
4000MJ in 2028 5 units a year
4500MJ in 2029 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2030 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2031 5 units a year
5000MJ in 2032 4 units a year

The ERS system can be phased out or whatever.

A V8 seems to be pouring money back into a technology, direct injection, non turbo seems not so interesting other than for only entertainment.

[bananapeel23]

F1 will switch to V8s and 'minimal' electric power - Ben Sulayem
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-v ... n-sulayem/

Maybe the right or wrong path, but I feel it is waste of a lot of research committed by OEM shareholders and F1 fans for the V6 formula over the last decade.

Ben Sulayem would be better off by ramping the fuel flow for the current engines from 3000MJ in 2026 to;

3500MJ in 2027 4 units a year
4000MJ in 2028 5 units a year
4500MJ in 2029 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2030 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2031 5 units a year
5000MJ in 2032 4 units a year

The ERS system can be phased out or whatever.

A V8 seems to be pouring money back into a technology, direct injection, non turbo seems not so interesting other than for only entertainment.

5000MJ is insane. The 2025 engines had a mediocre E10 fuel and ~4200 MJ/h, while producing ~640kW from the ICE alone. 5000MJ with 2025 fuels would produce ~750 kW. 5000MJ with 2026 fuels likely adds an additional 50kW or more. Then you add the MGU-K power and end up with a monster.

You also really can’t do this with a turbo formula if you also phase out the ERS. The turbo lag would be insanely dangerous. That is unless you reintroduce the MGU-H, which they really should do.

[FW17]

F1 will switch to V8s and 'minimal' electric power - Ben Sulayem
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-v ... n-sulayem/

Maybe the right or wrong path, but I feel it is waste of a lot of research committed by OEM shareholders and F1 fans for the V6 formula over the last decade.

Ben Sulayem would be better off by ramping the fuel flow for the current engines from 3000MJ in 2026 to;

3500MJ in 2027 4 units a year
4000MJ in 2028 5 units a year
4500MJ in 2029 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2030 6 units a year
5000MJ in 2031 5 units a year
5000MJ in 2032 4 units a year

The ERS system can be phased out or whatever.

A V8 seems to be pouring money back into a technology, direct injection, non turbo seems not so interesting other than for only entertainment.

5000MJ is insane. The 2025 engines had a mediocre E10 fuel and ~4200 MJ/h, while producing ~640kW from the ICE alone. 5000MJ with 2025 fuels would produce ~750 kW. 5000MJ with 2026 fuels likely adds an additional 50kW or more. Then you add the MGU-K power and end up with a monster.

You also really can’t do this with a turbo formula if you also phase out the ERS. The turbo lag would be insanely dangerous. That is unless you reintroduce the MGU-H, which they really should do.

Why should it be a single turbo?

1000hp from turbo engine is alright, nothing monstrous about it.
They wanted the electrical element limited, might as well go for the 1mj battery 120kw motor packaged on the front axel. (8 seconds of electrical power when battery is full)

[DenBommer]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1s- ... -era-team/

I assume this proposal would be without a turbo?

But they want lighter and smaller cars, and then they would give them 1200 hp? That seems like an enormous amount if they were ever to weigh 100–200 kg less.

[Zynerji]

Back to 2-strokes….
This is fantastic!!

I've been day dreaming of the Inline 5, centrifugally supercharged, TJI/DI, 2 stroke JP8 (jet diesel). Cap it at 9k rpm (sounds like 18k), and the fuel tanks can get down to like 70kg.

The F1 Jet formula!

[gearboxtrouble]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1s- ... -era-team/

I assume this proposal would be without a turbo?

But they want lighter and smaller cars, and then they would give them 1200 hp? That seems like an enormous amount if they were ever to weigh 100–200 kg less.

A 2.4V8 running these fuels would probably need a turbo to manage 800hp while being cheap and robust enough to last 1/3rd of the season. 1200hp with 400hp from the electric part and "lighter and simpler" do not go together. Outside of the massive battery weight penalty a 1200hp peak hp figure would be unsafe without massively heavier cars to absorb higher speed impacts. A 800-900hp car with a small 50-80hp electric boost for overtaking and qualifying could be made lighter and smaller than the current cars while providing much higher average power figures - the current formula is 550hp for 85% of the time and 1000hp for 15% of the time.

[FW17]

Why 2.4 L, they should go back to the OG, 3.5 L

[gearboxtrouble]

Why 2.4 L, they should go back to the OG, 3.5 L

Overkill with even a modest amount of boost. You don't want more than 800-900hp to keep fuel weights low and the cars themselves safe without more crash structure. 2.4L is a 50% scale up of the current engine. With a bump to fuel you should be able to get 50% more power which would be right in the ideal window. I don't think NA will be widely supported by the manufacturers - of those on the grid only Ford, GM and Ferrari still make NA sports and supercars. On the other hand a turbo V8 is nearly ubiquitous across the industry - even Toyota recently announced a new one.

[wuzak]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1s- ... -era-team/

I assume this proposal would be without a turbo?

But they want lighter and smaller cars, and then they would give them 1200 hp? That seems like an enormous amount if they were ever to weigh 100–200 kg less.

A 2.4V8 running these fuels would probably need a turbo to manage 800hp while being cheap and robust enough to last 1/3rd of the season. 1200hp with 400hp from the electric part and "lighter and simpler" do not go together. Outside of the massive battery weight penalty a 1200hp peak hp figure would be unsafe without massively heavier cars to absorb higher speed impacts. A 800-900hp car with a small 50-80hp electric boost for overtaking and qualifying could be made lighter and smaller than the current cars while providing much higher average power figures - the current formula is 550hp for 85% of the time and 1000hp for 15% of the time.

The 2006 - 2013 V8s had around 750hp - 800hp. RPM restrictions stopped them making more power in the later years, having gone from unrestricted in 2006, to 19k then 18k rpm.

They should be able to make similar power with the sustainable fuel - they will just have to burn more of it.

[FW17]

Why 2.4 L, they should go back to the OG, 3.5 L

Overkill with even a modest amount of boost. You don't want more than 800-900hp to keep fuel weights low and the cars themselves safe without more crash structure. 2.4L is a 50% scale up of the current engine. With a bump to fuel you should be able to get 50% more power which would be right in the ideal window. I don't think NA will be widely supported by the manufacturers - of those on the grid only Ford, GM and Ferrari still make NA sports and supercars. On the other hand a turbo V8 is nearly ubiquitous across the industry - even Toyota recently announced a new one.

When they say V8, I don't see any scenario where it is attached to a turbo. A silencer is probably more possible.