Concept power units from 2030

[mzso]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

[Greg Locock]

Typical solidworks engine looking for suckers. I stopped reading the site after the first technical error.

[DenBommer]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

I have also been thinking about that. But won't the teams need to retrain all their staff or hire new personnel? Because this is quite a different type of engine.

And there are indeed also disadvantages as mentioned in this video:

[Zynerji]

Typical solidworks engine looking for suckers. I stopped reading the site after the first technical error.

Ive read your posts for years with a lot of respect, but could you expound on this?

LP has working prototypes and has finished DARPA funding. Why would you say this is for suckers? I invested heavily into RegiTECH RandCam 20 yrs ago and lost. I'd like to know what problem you see with this before I throw any money at it.

[mclaren111]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

I remember the good old days of a V10 weighing 35kg and then the FIA mandated it to a minimum of 45kg and then kept increacing it from then on...

[Vappy]

Perhaps it doesn't have to be something different than what we've already had previously. The sound spectacle has taken a back seat in the current formula, and it has once more taken a back seat for 2026. With the fuel flow rate limiting RPM to give or take 12,500PM, how can any formula sound intense, electrifying and thoroughly vibrate your body with such a restriction? Look at the leaked 2014 ferrari F1 engine sound that was effectively their engine in a road car, which rev'd way, way above 12,500RPM. The scream was very, very nice, and made all the characteristic noises of the early 2014 V6 engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_yiOp_Xyc

[mzso]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

I have also been thinking about that. But won't the teams need to retrain all their staff or hire new personnel? Because this is quite a different type of engine.

And there are indeed also disadvantages as mentioned in this video:

What do you mean? The only sense the teams deal with the engine mounting it, and using it. But it would surely be new to manufacturers.
Sure the torque would be maybe less, but if the engine is 1000hp does it matter much?

[mzso]

Typical solidworks engine looking for suckers. I stopped reading the site after the first technical error.

That doesn't mean the concept doesn't work, which it does. And websites are handled by marketing people, usually.

Typical solidworks engine looking for suckers. I stopped reading the site after the first technical error.

Ive read your posts for years with a lot of respect, but could you expound on this?

LP has working prototypes and has finished DARPA funding. Why would you say this is for suckers? I invested heavily into RegiTECH RandCam 20 yrs ago and lost. I'd like to know what problem you see with this before I throw any money at it.

I don't think it's likely that any ICE investments would pay off at this point in time.

[mzso]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

I remember the good old days of a V10 weighing 35kg and then the FIA mandated it to a minimum of 45kg and then kept increacing it from then on...

Any references? When was this? Late 90s? If true I suspect it was the time they used beryllium and such.

How would a modern 4-6 cylinder turbo compare, with such broad material use?
Better yet how much would yet mostly unused technologies help. Like metal matrix composites and 3d printing.

[mzso]

Perhaps it doesn't have to be something different than what we've already had previously. The sound spectacle has taken a back seat in the current formula, and it has once more taken a back seat for 2026. With the fuel flow rate limiting RPM to give or take 12,500PM, how can any formula sound intense, electrifying and thoroughly vibrate your body with such a restriction? Look at the leaked 2014 ferrari F1 engine sound that was effectively their engine in a road car, which rev'd way, way above 12,500RPM. The scream was very, very nice, and made all the characteristic noises of the early 2014 V6 engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_yiOp_Xyc

I fail to see why extra noise should be a factor.
Excitement should be delivered by racing, and technological marvel.

And I don't think that video supports you. As it revs up it sounds like an current F1 car at rather low pace.

[Vappy]

Perhaps it doesn't have to be something different than what we've already had previously. The sound spectacle has taken a back seat in the current formula, and it has once more taken a back seat for 2026. With the fuel flow rate limiting RPM to give or take 12,500PM, how can any formula sound intense, electrifying and thoroughly vibrate your body with such a restriction? Look at the leaked 2014 ferrari F1 engine sound that was effectively their engine in a road car, which rev'd way, way above 12,500RPM. The scream was very, very nice, and made all the characteristic noises of the early 2014 V6 engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_yiOp_Xyc

I fail to see why extra noise should be a factor.
Excitement should be delivered by racing, and technological marvel.

And I don't think that video supports you. As it revs up it sounds like an current F1 car at rather low pace.

Well yes, it does sound like the current F1 cars as it revs up because it's the ferrari F1 engine. However, the one in the video revs higher than the currently used ones, and the higher pitched sound that many fans enjoy from previous engine eras comes through. I agree that good racing and technological improvements are important, but saying that extra noise is not a factor to be considered is obtuse, bearing in mind that one of the main criticism's of current F1 is the reduction in noise and quality of that engine sound. It's gotten more appreciation, but F1 is a spectacle, and engine sound has historically gone hand in hand with it. This isn't formula e.

[Tommy Cookers]

... I suspect it was the time they used beryllium and such....

this was a major constituent of the piston material (only)
the weight saving there allowing c.1000 rpm more and so more power from the displacement-limited rules then
but useless with the fuel quantity/rate-limited rules today

[typhson_lee]

May I ask, which engine only weight 35kg? BMW had a 69kg prototype ready, when the 2.4l V8s where made mandatory in 2006: http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... BMW_F1.pdf
(There i also a thread in this forum regarding this paper, from 2013: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15504

BMWs lightest V10 was a completly new prototype with 82kg and 110mm Center of Gravity for the 2005 season. Because engine lifetime was suddenly increased from 800km to 1600km (from one to two races), they choose not to use their prototype, but rather develop their 2004 engine to last longer.

The BMW paper also states that a minimum weight for engines of 95kg was only introduced in 2006, together with the 2.4l V8 and a minimum CoG of 165mm. Does anyone have information about the introduction of specific minimum weights for single components like engines? Or was there a minimum weight for engines before, that later got removed again? I know that the minimum weight for the whole car is in the rules since ages, although with an ever changing value

Where Ilmor or ferrari 40kg lighter than BMW with their V10s in the early 2000s? The Cosworth DFV (3.0l) was at around 165kg at it's introduction, the DFY (3.0l) and the bigger DFZ (3.5l) around 150kg, the later DFR (3.5l) around 140kg, and the 3.0l V10 CR (same ara as BMW, so early 2000s) around 95kg (Wikipedia).


Just cause I think it's interesting, here is an overview over the development of some properties of the BMW engines:

2000, 3.0l V10, 72°, 117kg, 810hp, 167mm CoG, 400km lifetime
2001, 3.0l V10, 90°, 105kg, 880hp, 145mm CoG, 400km lifetime
2002, 3.0l V10, 90°, _86kg, 895hp, 125mm CoG, 400km lifetime
2003, 3.0l V10, 90°, _84kg, 940hp, 122mm CoG, 500km lifetime
2004, 3.0l V10, 90°, _86kg, 940hp, 124mm CoG, 800km lifetime (whole race weekend)
2005, 3.0l V10, 90°, _84kg, 950hp, 118mm CoG, 1600km liftemine (two race weekends)

Prototypes:
2005, 3.0l V10, 90°, _82kg, 950hp, 110mm CoG, 800km
2006, 2.4l V8_, 90°, _69kg, xxxhp, 118mm CoG (more or less the 2005 engine minus two cylinders)

Rules 2006:
2006, 2.4l V8_, 90°, _95kg, xxxhp, 165mm CoG, 1600km


Sorry for derailing the thread
Maybe we can see my post as a contribiution on how light 4 stroke piston engines could be with the 2030 rules.

[DenBommer]

People often claim to want a small and light engine. But they usually go to v8-v10 suggestions afteward, which doesn't make sense to me. The old turbos had the best power density in F1, didn't they? Some were only four cylinders and 1500cc.

Anyway what would be the best for lightest motors? I'm thinking something exotic. Recently I saw a mention of the "two stroke" LiquidPiston type motor.
I can't imagine anything more power dense than such an engine turbo charged with six combustion events in two rotations.

I have also been thinking about that. But won't the teams need to retrain all their staff or hire new personnel? Because this is quite a different type of engine.

And there are indeed also disadvantages as mentioned in this video:

What do you mean? The only sense the teams deal with the engine mounting it, and using it. But it would surely be new to manufacturers.
Sure the torque would be maybe less, but if the engine is 1000hp does it matter much?

Yes, okay, but apart from that, the video also mentions that to deliver a certain amount of power, a conventional diesel generator operates at a lower RPM than the liquid piston engine.

Wouldn't they already be further along with this engine in motorsport if it were viable?

For the record, I think this engine is amazing, especially if it produces the same sound as the rotary engine from the Mazda Le Mans car.

If they were to use this engine, would you still work with a transmission or with direct drive?

[mzso]

Wouldn't they already be further along with this engine in motorsport if it were viable?

Of course not. Rotary engines are banned for the most part.

If they were to use this engine, would you still work with a transmission or with direct drive?

I don't think the ICE is viable for direct drive in any shape or form.