2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[wuzak]

Yes, but that concept is stillborn.
Because of hydrogen and because it's not a range extended EV, based on battery to fuel range.

More practical would be an LPG or alcohol based fuel cell.

But anyway, I'm not suggesting it's the way to go. More like an alternative for a small niche. (probably very small, and shrinking) When you must have a long range, and there's no charging available.

Curious that you consider fuel cells to be a "range extender".

The fuel cell vehicles from Toyota and Hyundai run on hydrogen, but they also have batteries. The batteries can provide extra power when required, and are used to store energy from brake regeneration.

LPG or alcohol fuel cells would still produce CO2.

Maybe ammonia is a better solution.

You really don't have basis for the mocking tone.
For one I said it is not a range extended EV. Because it has a teeny battery.
And using hydrogen fundamentally kills the technology. It wastes lots of energy, better used charging batteries.
So it would make sense to use fuel cells (not based on troublesome hydrogen) for rage extension, if it's really needed. Though to be fair it seems to be a quickly shrinking niche.

I didn't mean it to sound "mocking".

FWIW, the second generation Toyota Mirai achieved a range of 1,360 km (845 mi) on 5.65kg of Hydrogen.

Of course, 5.65kg of hydrogen takes up a lot of space.

The Toyota Mirai is quite heavy, at just under 2t.

And the fuel cell system takes up a lot of space.

The fuel cell can produce 114kW, while the motor is only 113kW.

For a range extender, what sort of power would you need from the fuel cell?

Those only produces CO2 if sourced from fossil fuels. (There is such thing as bioLPG as well)

I take it that you are suggesting sustainable, net-zero fuels?

Ammonia is hazardous substance. Not even good sarcasm to bring it up...

Aren't most fuels?

[Zynerji]

I still like the dual MGU-H Turbo on a muffler setup (like a jet) that burns "clean" compressed natural gas, and powers a front and rear electric motor for AWD cars.

Twin-Jet exhaust sound.
Afterburner overtake button.
Electric torque output.
Supercapacitor regen bank.
Vector differentials for efficiency.

Delete the ICE, but keep the fire!

A gas turbine is still an ICE.
Not sure what would be the gain. All that complexity and money for a little bit of jet sound. And it's not likely to be as efficient as current PUs.

How can something with a legitimate part named an external combustion chamber be considered an ICE?

Added complexity??! It adds a pipe and a second turbo/mguh. It deletes all of the complexity of the rest of parts that make up the ICE and transmission.

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

[wuzak]

A gas turbine is still an ICE.
Not sure what would be the gain. All that complexity and money for a little bit of jet sound. And it's not likely to be as efficient as current PUs.

How can something with a legitimate part named an external combustion chamber be considered an ICE?

The combustion in a gas turbine occurs inside the engine.

Air goes into the compressor, is fed to the combustion chamber, and them exits through the turbine, which then drives the compressor.

In an external combustion engine the heat from combustion is transferred to an intermediate fluid, such as steam, which then goes to drive the engine.

A steam turbine is an example of an external combustion engine.

Also, the "external combustion chamber" is probably misnamed.

I watched the video, but did not hear him describe the combustion chamber as extenal. Did I miss it, or was that somewhere else?

[mzso]

I didn't mean it to sound "mocking".

FWIW, the second generation Toyota Mirai achieved a range of 1,360 km (845 mi) on 5.65kg of Hydrogen.

Of course, 5.65kg of hydrogen takes up a lot of space.

The Toyota Mirai is quite heavy, at just under 2t.

And the fuel cell system takes up a lot of space.

The fuel cell can produce 114kW, while the motor is only 113kW.

Doesn't look really good, does it? The weight advantage of hydrogen is eaten up by the heavy, bulky fuel tanks of extreme pressure requirements another parts of the system. And of course the mentioned extra energy losses in the hydrogen supply chain.

For a range extender, what sort of power would you need from the fuel cell?

I would guess 10s of kWs, with a reasonably aerodynamic and efficient car. Of course I'm thinking of normal driving. Not road racing and police chases.

I'm reminded about the river-simple Fully Charged video:

Although that's a very different sort of hybrid it only gets 11hp from the fuel cell, being a tiny car.

I take it that you are suggesting sustainable, net-zero fuels?

If CO2 output is important, then yes. I don't care much about it personally. The human effect on climate change is rather questionable. (Or whether global warming is something we should stop in the first place) But I definitely care about toxins in the air that I breathe.

Aren't most fuels?

I guess I should have said very hazardous. You tend to not die of a little bit of spilled petrol, or a bit of leaking lpg,
unless you ignite them.

[mzso]

Added complexity??! It adds a pipe and a second turbo/mguh. It deletes all of the complexity of the rest of parts that make up the ICE and transmission.

As long as we're hand-waving things a typical ICE is just a piston moving in a cylinder, very trivial.

You also need two sets of full power electric machines. One for generation, the other for drive. Storage, which you propose to be super-capacitors that have poor power to weight ratio. So that adds up to both a lot of weight and complexity already. No that usable gas turbines are as trivial as you imply.
Plus to make matters more complex and even more wasteful on fuel you would add after-burning.

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

[wuzak]

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

I would also add that the 35%+ efficiency is for larger turbines, such as those used in airliners and utility power generation.

Smaller turbines are less efficient.

[wuzak]

Doesn't look really good, does it? The weight advantage of hydrogen is eaten up by the heavy, bulky fuel tanks of extreme pressure requirements another parts of the system. And of course the mentioned extra energy losses in the hydrogen supply chain.

They certainly are bulky, but I'm not sure how heavy they are.

For a range extender, what sort of power would you need from the fuel cell?

I would guess 10s of kWs, with a reasonably aerodynamic and efficient car. Of course I'm thinking of normal driving. Not road racing and police chases.

If you had, say, a 40-50kW fuel cell, a smallish battery (~20kWh) and decent sized electric motors, you could cruise on the fuel cell, and draw from the battery when extra power is needed and/or the fuel for the fuel cell is all used up.

[mzso]

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

I would also add that the 35%+ efficiency is for larger turbines, such as those used in airliners and utility power generation.

Smaller turbines are less efficient.

I see claims of 60%+ when combined with steam turbine heat recover. Since his proposal also has a form of recovery, 35% might be realistic?
Well technically it's harvesting from a jet, so who knows. It doesn't seem like he means any power delivery from the turbine shaft like turbofans/propfans do.

[mzso]

Doesn't look really good, does it? The weight advantage of hydrogen is eaten up by the heavy, bulky fuel tanks of extreme pressure requirements another parts of the system. And of course the mentioned extra energy losses in the hydrogen supply chain.

They certainly are bulky, but I'm not sure how heavy they are.

For a range extender, what sort of power would you need from the fuel cell?

I would guess 10s of kWs, with a reasonably aerodynamic and efficient car. Of course I'm thinking of normal driving. Not road racing and police chases.

If you had, say, a 40-50kW fuel cell, a smallish battery (~20kWh) and decent sized electric motors, you could cruise on the fuel cell, and draw from the battery when extra power is needed and/or the fuel for the fuel cell is all used up.

Extrapolating from the riversimple video maybe less is enough. 11 hp is 8kW. For a normal size/weight (modern) car I'd expect around 25-30.
EDIT:
Actually it should be possible to calculate a reasonable estimate for cars from highway MPGe ratings from EPA. (such as 126 for Tesla model 3)
I'm assuming the highway measure mostly includes driving at constant speed and little slowing and acceleration. (Though I'm not familiar with the EPA cycle)
Of course I don't have the mathemathic skills.

[Tommy Cookers]

given we now control the fueling/combustion of F1 engines in real time ....
a free-piston detonation-combustion engine (turbocharged) driving a linear (M)G should be the answer ....
what was the question ?

btw
the FIA's technical English is bad ....
a motorgenerator is an electric motor with flywheel coupled to a generator (driving traction motors driving a train) ....
every few miles/km the (ie 3rd rail 750 Vdc train) supply is for a short distance broken (different electrical substations)
in the break the traction motors receive current only as the generator is still turned by the inertia of the flywheel ...
without this MG the train could be unable to move ...
this is mechanical energy storage .....
but only electrical energy storage is allowed in F1

[TeamKoolGreen]

What options does F1 have to try and correct the glaring faults of these 2026 engine regs ?

Bumping up the size and power of the ICE is the only option. This will also help the lack of noise problem. Which was identified as a real problem after 2014

I don't see how movable aero at the front and back can be built safe enough for tracks like Saudi or Vegas. Someone's aero will fail and someone could get killed.

I think it only needs more fuel.

However there is no such thing as "lack of noise" problem.

F1 literally changed things to make the cars louder after 2014. (and they are still quieter than F2 cars)

And I know removing the MGU-k will help. But its no guarantee that they will be louder than F3 cars let alone F2 cars.

[TeamKoolGreen]

As far as having active aero front and back, here is what happened to Marcus Ericsson when his DRS stayed open for less than a second longer than it should have

[Zynerji]

Added complexity??! It adds a pipe and a second turbo/mguh. It deletes all of the complexity of the rest of parts that make up the ICE and transmission.

1. As long as we're hand-waving things a typical ICE is just a piston moving in a cylinder, very trivial.

You also need two sets of full power electric machines. One for generation, the other for drive. Storage, which you propose to be super-capacitors that have poor power to weight ratio. So that adds up to both a lot of weight and complexity already. No that usable gas turbines are as trivial as you imply.
Plus to make matters more complex and even more wasteful on fuel you would add after-burning.

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

2. This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

1. 6 pistons, ring packs, con rods, wrist pins, 24 valves, 4 camshafts, 24 air springs, rockers and finger followers, intake, exhaust and crank and gearbox are all deleted. All to be replaced by a single MGU-h turbocharger. That is like 100Kg of weight savings, 90Kg after you add the turbo. The differential would remain, and then add in a big MGU-K. We are still at close to 50Kg of savings. Then you remove the 100KG battery, and replace it with a 20kg super-cap buffer box. The point of this is that the MGUh2 would directly feed the MGUK in the driveline. The super caps would be just for quick recovery (engine braking) and reuse. It would not be for "storage" as it is today.

2. The 2014 engines were a big jump over the 2013 engines due to actual research and development engineering. Im pretty sure the teams would have my concept competitive in a year or 2...

[Stu]

Added complexity??! It adds a pipe and a second turbo/mguh. It deletes all of the complexity of the rest of parts that make up the ICE and transmission.

1. As long as we're hand-waving things a typical ICE is just a piston moving in a cylinder, very trivial.

You also need two sets of full power electric machines. One for generation, the other for drive. Storage, which you propose to be super-capacitors that have poor power to weight ratio. So that adds up to both a lot of weight and complexity already. No that usable gas turbines are as trivial as you imply.
Plus to make matters more complex and even more wasteful on fuel you would add after-burning.

It would move from 50ish% thermal efficiency to about 35%, but still well above a standard ICE, and can be developed from there.

2. This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

1. 6 pistons, ring packs, con rods, wrist pins, 24 valves, 4 camshafts, 24 air springs, rockers and finger followers, intake, exhaust and crank and gearbox are all deleted. All to be replaced by a single MGU-h turbocharger. That is like 100Kg of weight savings, 90Kg after you add the turbo. The differential would remain, and then add in a big MGU-K. We are still at close to 50Kg of savings. Then you remove the 100KG battery, and replace it with a 20kg super-cap buffer box. The point of this is that the MGUh2 would directly feed the MGUK in the driveline. The super caps would be just for quick recovery (engine braking) and reuse. It would not be for "storage" as it is today.

2. The 2014 engines were a big jump over the 2013 engines due to actual research and development engineering. Im pretty sure the teams would have my concept competitive in a year or 2...

A further point (which works very nicely with the the planned introduction of eFuels is that gas turbines tend to be very fuel tolerant.

…and to back up your earlier point…
Turbocharger-style gas turbines are external combustion devices, the fuel mixture & combustion take place externally of the compressor & turbine housings.
They are also a very nice fit for additional GU-H devices.

Efficiency would be addressed by an operating within a very small window (perfect for a power generation unit).

Kg for Kg, it would probably be a very effective device.

[wuzak]

…and to back up your earlier point…
Turbocharger-style gas turbines are external combustion devices, the fuel mixture & combustion take place externally of the compressor & turbine housings.
They are also a very nice fit for additional GU-H devices.

I disagree.

Conventional turbines don't have the combustion chamber inside the turbine or compressor housings.

The air flow is continuous between the compressor, combustion chamber and the turbine.

The combustion is internal to the system.