2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[gruntguru]

(Surface area)/(Swept volume) is the metric for considering heat loss. Mostly near TDC.

When I said CR and ER can be set high I meant relative to port opening. With OP engines The TDC clearance volume can be virtually zero so there is no problem setting volume at EO equal to 18 or more times the volume at TDC.

Fueling is GDI. Result will be no different to current F1 tech. TJI would be a problem (no head) - have to put the PC in a piston crown.

[vorticism]

Was thinking about how they would implement central features as well. Spark, injector, pressure sensor, PC. The crowns could form a non-pancake shape at TDC which a peripheral PC could be used within. That said those quotes about 2T are from 2020, and the FIA release from earlierthis week says V6s, so maybe they want to keep the existing combustion tricks. Otherwise they could eschew perfecting combustion efficiency and develop other metrics (OP without PC f.e.).

[johnny comelately]

Was thinking about how they would implement central features as well. Spark, injector, pressure sensor, PC. The crowns could form a non-pancake shape at TDC which a peripheral PC could be used within. That said those quotes about 2T are from 2020, and the FIA release from earlierthis week says V6s, so maybe they want to keep the existing combustion tricks. Otherwise they could eschew perfecting combustion efficiency and develop other metrics (OP without PC f.e.).

Perfecting the existing combustion strategy is path to go down imo.
Much further to go with fuels and that is coming, I hope like hell that they dont go down to 70% of current values of energy flow (Symonds. P). But the idea of an energy per unit of time rather than mass is interesting and would move along fuel development

[gruntguru]

Was thinking about how they would implement central features as well. Spark, injector, pressure sensor, PC. The crowns could form a non-pancake shape at TDC which a peripheral PC could be used within. That said those quotes about 2T are from 2020, and the FIA release from earlierthis week says V6s, so maybe they want to keep the existing combustion tricks. Otherwise they could eschew perfecting combustion efficiency and develop other metrics (OP without PC f.e.).

Perfecting the existing combustion strategy is path to go down imo.

Yep.

[johnny comelately]

Was thinking about how they would implement central features as well. Spark, injector, pressure sensor, PC. The crowns could form a non-pancake shape at TDC which a peripheral PC could be used within. That said those quotes about 2T are from 2020, and the FIA release from earlierthis week says V6s, so maybe they want to keep the existing combustion tricks. Otherwise they could eschew perfecting combustion efficiency and develop other metrics (OP without PC f.e.).

Perfecting the existing combustion strategy is path to go down imo.

Yep.

Milestone - consensus on an adversarial platform

[gruntguru]

Damn! No "hug" emoticon.

[mzso]

This was from 2020 though; the FIA article was from this year and mentions high revving V6s. The 'attracting new manufacturers' part leads me to believe it won't be anything too off the wall.

Also, the two stroke engines was pretty much only Symond's opinion/idea.

[J.A.W.]

This was from 2020 though; the FIA article was from this year and mentions high revving V6s. The 'attracting new manufacturers' part leads me to believe it won't be anything too off the wall.

Also, the two stroke engines was pretty much only Symond's opinion/idea.

Care to back-up your idea/opinion with some facts?

Given P. Symonds authority to slate-in a plan, his expressed views'd surely be a tad more than moot..

[J.A.W.]

comparisons of 4 stroke vs 2 stroke are utterly false unless cylinder sizes are equal ... because by geometry ....

the 2 stroke benefits disproportionately (in effective port area) from smaller cylinder sizes .....and ....
the 2 stroke loses disproportionately (in effective port area) from larger cylinder sizes
the last-attempt 500cc twin cylinder 2 strokes had 'only' c.140 hp NA because of this
(peakiness ? - both 4 and 2 cylinder GP bikes had 6 speed gearboxes)
also ....
wall-ported engines (2 stroke) cannot benefit in rpm from a high bore:stroke ratio as head-ported engines (4 stroke) can...

T-C, c'mon now, these kinds of ideas simply do not stand scrutiny, look at Ducati, which pushed its
short-stroke/big-bore high rpm V-twin superbike engine architecture to the nth degree, with saucer
sized pistons & huge poppet valves, plus revving well over 10,000rpm, but even they had to abandon
their decades-long trade-mark twins to compete with smaller 1000cc 4T 4-cylinder superbikes...

Not that MotoGP prototype 4-stroke 1000cc bikes have yet managed to match the (softly tuned, in fact)
Honda NRV500 twin 2T G.P. bike in specific output, over a 1/4 century later..

As for the 'blind alley' of (spiralled up to prohibitive) costs which cruelled atmo F1 from reaching up
to stratospheric rpm chasing marginal returns in time/area breathing & exponential friction/pumping
losses, well, that's hardly a grand story, given they still couldn't match the ~15 bar BMEP of G.P. 2Ts..

(Honda could've made this plain of course, but corporate ethos/pride - pig-headed/purblind notions
- precluded this, naturally.)..

[johnny comelately]

All those parity equations showed the naivety of FIA, FIM and every other "authority".
BSFC is it, the hour part of that equalises it all.
IMHO

[Zynerji]

Idea to get more revs in the new formula:

Move from turbos to crank mounted centrifugal superchargers. Then you can set it at a fixed ratio of 10ish:1, so to get 120k from the compressor, the engine has to spin 12k.

Then we get the unimpeded exhaust sound as well.

Thoughts?

[johnny comelately]

Idea to get more revs in the new formula:

Move from turbos to crank mounted centrifugal superchargers. Then you can set it at a fixed ratio of 10ish:1, so to get 120k from the compressor, the engine has to spin 12k.

Then we get the unimpeded exhaust sound as well.

Thoughts?

Personally I thought the downspeeding was a good thing with the increase in BMEP as the offset performance wise.
And helps to reduce costs.
The new focus on exhaust energy coupled with electrical assistance gives boosting all it needs which is now limited by fuel characteristics.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Idea to get more revs in the new formula:

Move from turbos to crank mounted centrifugal superchargers. Then you can set it at a fixed ratio of 10ish:1, so to get 120k from the compressor, the engine has to spin 12k.

Then we get the unimpeded exhaust sound as well.

Thoughts?

Why does it need more revs? With higher revs comes lower efficiency. The whole point is to compete upon efficiency, and turbos have been proven to be way more efficient than superchargers. What attempt to maximize an system already proven inferior in terms of efficiency?

[Zynerji]

Idea to get more revs in the new formula:

Move from turbos to crank mounted centrifugal superchargers. Then you can set it at a fixed ratio of 10ish:1, so to get 120k from the compressor, the engine has to spin 12k.

Then we get the unimpeded exhaust sound as well.

Thoughts?

Personally I thought the downspeeding was a good thing with the increase in BMEP as the offset performance wise.
And helps to reduce costs.
The new focus on exhaust energy coupled with electrical assistance gives boosting all it needs which is now limited by fuel characteristics.

I get all that, but noise and power are helpful for the show. The crank mounted impeller would free up the exhaust note, encourage revs, and still provide enough boost for TJI magic. And retaining the MGUK would make it ultra responsive.

[johnny comelately]

Idea to get more revs in the new formula:

Move from turbos to crank mounted centrifugal superchargers. Then you can set it at a fixed ratio of 10ish:1, so to get 120k from the compressor, the engine has to spin 12k.

Then we get the unimpeded exhaust sound as well.

Thoughts?

Personally I thought the downspeeding was a good thing with the increase in BMEP as the offset performance wise.
And helps to reduce costs.
The new focus on exhaust energy coupled with electrical assistance gives boosting all it needs which is now limited by fuel characteristics.

I get all that, but noise and power are helpful for the show. The crank mounted impeller would free up the exhaust note, encourage revs, and still provide enough boost for TJI magic. And retaining the MGUK would make it ultra responsive.

I see what you are getting at, But it defeats the necessary focus on exhaust energy recovery usage and introduces mechanical friction problems etc
It highlights the world friendly needs versus the show; the primal human nature versus the improved human nature