2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[saviour stivala]

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?

And as you called it ‘a crank mounted centrifugal supercharger’ will eat-up near all of the progress made in efficiency achievements of the present power unit. Boy racers are usually the ones most impressed by exhaust sound which makes them believe they are going a lot faster.

[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?

And as you called it ‘a crank mounted centrifugal supercharger’ will eat-up near all of the progress made in efficiency achievements of the present power unit. Boy racers are usually the ones most impressed by exhaust sound which makes them believe they are going a lot faster.

I disagree. A high efficiency 10:1 planetary gearbox isn't unobtanium in the F1 world. We need to move the new power unit to a "Concept" mentality (like concept cars from big manufacturers) instead of the ICE of Tomorrow mentality. The world has committed to going EV, so lets drop the BS pretenses of "road relevancy" and do something visceral and attention grabbing. Downsized, high-revving, boosted and loud AF. Add some torque-on-demand (KERS) and a smaller battery/larger gas tank, and we can have some wonder in the sport again.

800HP/400ftlb is plenty for F1 if it goes back to 1800mm cars and 500Kg minimum weight. Let the F1 technology drive focus on actual road relevance, and that can be lighter and stronger chassis engineering. There is far more benefit in the next 20 years to having high-speed, mass production of ultralight (recyclable?) automobile chassis than we get from currently dressing up the engine as the future of dead ICE cars.

[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.

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..

Well, he just made an interview, and not in the name of FIA.
I'm quite sure he doesn't have the power to move rules in a direction no manufacturer wants to be going.

[vorticism]

re: the last several posts, absolute volume isn't necessarily the issue, it's the frequency of exhaust pulses which define the sound for the most part. Most people are hearing a synthetic representation informed by microphones and rebroadcast by a thousand different types of loudspeakers. Trackside you're only hearing the cars at full volume intermittently. A ten or twelve cylinder version of the current formula would provide better sound and continued combustion development in line with their investment. The tradeoffs are some frictional and pumping losses, which are irrelevant in the big picture. It's the combustion science which transfers outside the sport if anything. Not the vee angle and cylinder count. There are a hundred items already on the car reducing its structural and aero efficiency in the name of spectacle and safety, so a reduction in their "50%" isn't really a problem; they simply need to rebrand it to reflect single cylinder efficiency metrics, not system total metrics, which are skewed anyway by a hundred different arbitrary rules.

[mzso]

so lets drop the BS pretenses of "road relevancy" and do something visceral and attention grabbing. Downsized, high-revving, boosted and loud AF. Add some torque-on-demand (KERS) and a smaller battery/larger gas tank, and we can have some wonder in the sport again.

Except manufacturers care about road relevancy, and wouldn't be sinking money into snowflake designs.
So then what? Should we shove back the last v10s from Cosworth and use them forever?

[mzso]

A ten or twelve cylinder version of the current formula would provide better sound and continued combustion development in line with their investment. The tradeoffs are some frictional and pumping losses, which are irrelevant in the big picture.

Well they would be longer and heavier, which would make some already present problems of f1 worse.

[vorticism]

A ten or twelve cylinder version of the current formula would provide better sound and continued combustion development in line with their investment. The tradeoffs are some frictional and pumping losses, which are irrelevant in the big picture.

Well they would be longer and heavier, which would make some already present problems of f1 worse.

Depends on minimum weight rule and displacement. Each piston and conrod would be smaller and lighter scaling with the increased cylinder count. Other option (in terms of sound and quick fixes) is converting existing format to two stroke which is more feasible than people give credit, I think.

[Zynerji]

so lets drop the BS pretenses of "road relevancy" and do something visceral and attention grabbing. Downsized, high-revving, boosted and loud AF. Add some torque-on-demand (KERS) and a smaller battery/larger gas tank, and we can have some wonder in the sport again.

Except manufacturers care about road relevancy, and wouldn't be sinking money into snowflake designs.
So then what? Should we shove back the last v10s from Cosworth and use them forever?

The manufacturers are going EV only in about 15 years. Any belief that 8M$ engines are currently road relevant is utter tosh. They should just stop pretending that they are the Future of ICE, as ICE is dead, and move into a more unique engine design. I'd be just as happy with torque vectoring, AWD electric differential/motor units driven by a MGUH mounted on a muffler. If Formula E has the monopoly on open-wheel, all electric series, then a bespoke "show" engine that is unique to anything else out there would be a critical differentiator and attraction.

PS: The teams should all get together and bring their last v-10 cars to Las Vegas for a demo run on track... The wail amongst the buildings would be epic...

[vorticism]

"ICEs to disappear in ten years" is a headline you'll read every ten years.

[Zynerji]

"ICEs to disappear in ten years" is a headline you'll read every ten years.

There haven't been laws yet like there is now. EV is a proven technology in the market, it is (sadly) inevitable.

They cant put the current tech into cars at an economically feasible level, or it would be in every Civic made. I think a crazy tech, bespoke, historic, whatever engine is what F1 should turn to going forward, and focus on the chassis safety, weight, materials and recyclability. Those are all engineering best-practices and patentable technologies that can really drive road-relevant transfer to the manufacturers and allow them to compete in the market. I'm sure the FIA would LOVE to hold the press conference introducing the F1 derived, 7 star crash test rating...

[vorticism]

Laws often fail. We're in an interesting time; the current obsession with efficiency in all walks of life is a reflection of policies which were promoted throughout the 20th c. Greed and population growth were chosen over restraint and higher culture. This demanded spreading too little butter over too much bread. Now, the entire Earth is being demanded to industrialize under the benign sounding monikers of globalism and emerging markets. One wonders how much longer the last tribes of the Amazon have before they are expected to deliver packages for Amazon inside of a mandated diversity zone.

I've made a thread about it before but F1's issues are in funding and the degenerating of their originating cultures. No perfect solution will be found outside of the larger context; motorsport is only a sport--sport is a reflection of culture, culture is a reflection of genetics. If you want want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

A return to a simpler formula may help, although you'd have to wonder who would want to participate at the current level of operating cost; the financiers and motorsport corporations are conservative and risk averse and this limits them to innovation and appropriation, rather than invention. A competition of unique inventions is risk prone; the timid ones want the conundrum of a casino with good odds, or worse yet: a day job. What they've ended up with is "solving the formula" instead of "solving the lap time". Honest fans know that solving the former is less inspiring. Navigating a bunch of arbitrary hurdles added to the course. Ironically few want to play that game as well, with maybe one OEM knocking on the door (Audi). It makes me think F1's future will be either a slow dwindle to irrelevance, or disappearing for a while as the nations of Earth sort themselves out. We can talk about powertrain options til the cows come home, but we're thinking like engineers not bankers.

[J.A.W.]

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..

Well, he just made an interview, and not in the name of FIA.
I'm quite sure he doesn't have the power to move rules in a direction no manufacturer wants to be going.

How is it you can be "...quite sure" in these claims?

Again, any evidence as back-up, or is this just how you are 'feeling' about it.

Certainly rules have been "moved" which have disadvantaged manufacturers;
case in point, the rule introduced to strictly limit oil consumption,
(& the 'secret' Ferrari 'cheat' matter)..

[mzso]

I'd be just as happy with torque vectoring, AWD electric differential/motor units driven by a MGUH mounted on a muffler.

Uh, what?

The manufacturers are going EV only in about 15 years. Any belief that 8M$ engines are currently road relevant is utter tosh. They should just stop pretending that they are the Future of ICE, as ICE is dead, and move into a more unique engine design.

Well, they can't even pretend with some exotic ICE.
So no way they would fund engine development with such.

[wuzak]

The biggest issue with 2-stroke engines IMO, is the stupidly narrow powerband - they would make F1 cars undrivable. I reckon the 80's turbo cars would be more drivable than an NA 2-stroke F1 car!

In point of fact, you'll have to revise that opinion, & actually, its about 180 degrees off course...

A few cases in point: Cosworth sliced a pair of cylinders from its very successful DFV F1 V8
back in the mid `70s - in an attempt to provide Norton with a 4-stroke capable of winning
bike G.P.'s ahead of the newly rampant 2-strokes, but it was a fail, being 'unrideable' tuned-up.

Honda tried again in `79-80, with a radical 'virtual V8' NR500 4-stroke, yet it was 'unrideable''.

Once the FIM allowed 990cc 4-strokes to compete in the 'Senior/500cc' class, Aprilia tried a 3cyl
slice off Cosworth's V10 F1, 'The Cube' - but this too, was... yeah, you guessed it.. 'unrideable'...

Not only did these massive Moto GP machines have to be 'de-rated' specific output-wise,
they also required all manner of electro-mechanical assists, from a back-torque limiting
'slipper' clutch, to traction-control for power-limiting in corners...

See the Honda dyno graph linked below - showing their 2-stroke G.P. bikes from over a 1/4
century ago, current Moto GP bikes are still nowhere near the (non-assisted, as Mick Doohan
pointed out, other than by the rider's proprioception & reaction time skills) power-density of
those Championship-winning 2-stroke G.P. bikes...

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/atta ... 1546116747

One might suspect that a 990cc 4 stroke GP bike with 280hp would be more difficult to ride than a 200hp 2-stroke.

[wuzak]

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?

And as you called it ‘a crank mounted centrifugal supercharger’ will eat-up near all of the progress made in efficiency achievements of the present power unit. Boy racers are usually the ones most impressed by exhaust sound which makes them believe they are going a lot faster.

I disagree. A high efficiency 10:1 planetary gearbox isn't unobtanium in the F1 world. We need to move the new power unit to a "Concept" mentality (like concept cars from big manufacturers) instead of the ICE of Tomorrow mentality. The world has committed to going EV, so lets drop the BS pretenses of "road relevancy" and do something visceral and attention grabbing. Downsized, high-revving, boosted and loud AF. Add some torque-on-demand (KERS) and a smaller battery/larger gas tank, and we can have some wonder in the sport again.

800HP/400ftlb is plenty for F1 if it goes back to 1800mm cars and 500Kg minimum weight. Let the F1 technology drive focus on actual road relevance, and that can be lighter and stronger chassis engineering. There is far more benefit in the next 20 years to having high-speed, mass production of ultralight (recyclable?) automobile chassis than we get from currently dressing up the engine as the future of dead ICE cars.

It takes power to drive a compressor. Not sure exactly how much, but the AMG One has a devleopment of the Mercedes F1 engine with an MGUH of 120hp (as reported in press).

Assuming 120hp for the compressor, your ICE would need to make 920hp before taking off the power for the compressor.

You could do a turbo-compound, with an independent turbine feeding power back to the engine through gears an variable speed drive (possibly a fluid coupling). Ditch the MGUK and battery and the system would be lighter than current units.

500kg F1 cars (not including driver) aren't coming back. There has been too much weight increase due to safety requirements and equipment.