Concept power units from 2030

[wuzak]

I've posted this before. Split the turbo and put the MGUH in between. I'm sure an F1 team could make much more efficiency gains with a few years of R+D. Also, I expect the Subaru Rocket exhaust would do this part better as well...

I'm confused.

Is it to be a pulse jet with power recovery turbine, or a turbocharger based gas turbine?

My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.

For all of those calling this fantasy, I understand, but no one has convinced me as of yet that the 97ish% H->K efficiency coupled with the reasonable efficiency of a compact gas turbine is impossible. The sizing that I expect may be way off. The size of turbos needed for 900HP worth of e-gen may just be too big. I'm open to being wrong in my assumptions, but I promise you that internet scorn will never have the effect that folks would wish it does.

The expected efficiency of the 2026 ICE is around 50%.

To get anywhere close to that you're going to have to recuperate heat from the exhaust to preheat the air post compressor/pre-combustion chamber.

And likely need multiple stages of compression.

And there is doubt that the current turbos are big enough to produce 470hp shaft output. You're likely going to need one, or more, stages of turbine to drive the MGU.

And how would a single combustion chamber work for two turbines?

Turbines are continuous combustion, so how are you seaparating the combustion gases into the two turbines?

[Rodak]

[

My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.

What you're suggesting sounds exactly like a turboshaft jet engine, but with power output going to a generator. They already make and use these......

[Zynerji]

[

My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.

What you're suggesting sounds exactly like a turboshaft jet engine, but with power output going to a generator. They already make and use these......

Then why does everyone lose their minds and call it impossible when I mention it here?!

It just seems like the most inevitable destination for F1 if full electric FIA cars is a Formula E exclusive for the next 90 years.

[Hoffman900]

[

My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.

What you're suggesting sounds exactly like a turboshaft jet engine, but with power output going to a generator. They already make and use these......

Then why does everyone lose their minds and call it impossible when I mention it here?!

It just seems like the most inevitable destination for F1 if full electric FIA cars is a Formula E exclusive for the next 90 years.

Because it doesn’t make sense in the application.

CoGen plants do exactly this. They’re essentially natural gas fueled turbines that also take the waste heat to turn to steam and recycled back to make even more power.

F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.

If what your proposed worked, a company like GE (who has experience with all this stuff) would have patented it and be using it on train locomotives where efficiency gains of half of a percent represents millions of dollars in fuel cost savings. This is where all the real work in this field is happening, because with the fuel consumed and miles traveled, small gains have big costs associated with them.

[DenBommer]

[

My thought was having 2 higher-power MGUH Turbochargers (current ones, but optimized for max electrical recovery) both connected to a central combustion chamber. Literally, just a high power turbine generator that harnesses current F1 technology to drive a front and rear 2026 spec MGUK that drives a differential. I expect the front could be mounted under the drivers leg and connect to the front diff via propshaft, and the rear unit to actually be closer to the driver's butt be connected to another diff via propshaft.

What you're suggesting sounds exactly like a turboshaft jet engine, but with power output going to a generator. They already make and use these......

Do you have an example of that?

[Tommy Cookers]

they made millions of them
eg industrial RR Avon sold for decades after the aircraft version was closed off

[Rodak]

Do you have an example of that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-turbine_turboshaft

[Zynerji]

[

What you're suggesting sounds exactly like a turboshaft jet engine, but with power output going to a generator. They already make and use these......

Then why does everyone lose their minds and call it impossible when I mention it here?!

It just seems like the most inevitable destination for F1 if full electric FIA cars is a Formula E exclusive for the next 90 years.

Because it doesn’t make sense in the application.

CoGen plants do exactly this. They’re essentially natural gas fueled turbines that also take the waste heat to turn to steam and recycled back to make even more power.

F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.

If what your proposed worked, a company like GE (who has experience with all this stuff) would have patented it and be using it on train locomotives where efficiency gains of half of a percent represents millions of dollars in fuel cost savings. This is where all the real work in this field is happening, because with the fuel consumed and miles traveled, small gains have big costs associated with them.

I think this is a symptom of piston purism if F1. I can respect that, but please call it what it is.

Even the current gen cars have Power Units defined in the regulations. Of COURSE they are powerplants.

[DenBommer]

Aren't the future power units for 2026 largely just generators?

[Hoffman900]

Then why does everyone lose their minds and call it impossible when I mention it here?!

It just seems like the most inevitable destination for F1 if full electric FIA cars is a Formula E exclusive for the next 90 years.

Because it doesn’t make sense in the application.

CoGen plants do exactly this. They’re essentially natural gas fueled turbines that also take the waste heat to turn to steam and recycled back to make even more power.

F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.

If what your proposed worked, a company like GE (who has experience with all this stuff) would have patented it and be using it on train locomotives where efficiency gains of half of a percent represents millions of dollars in fuel cost savings. This is where all the real work in this field is happening, because with the fuel consumed and miles traveled, small gains have big costs associated with them.

I think this is a symptom of piston purism if F1. I can respect that, but please call it what it is.

Even the current gen cars have Power Units defined in the regulations. Of COURSE they are powerplants.

Piston puratism isn’t what’s keeping Class 1 freight railways from using them. Turbines were tried in train (passenger and freight) 70 years ago and that idea died quickly.

This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:

US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l

The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.

You can read about the Union Pacific’s use of turbines here:
https://www.up.com/aboutup/special_trai ... 0in%201962.

[Zynerji]

Because it doesn’t make sense in the application.

CoGen plants do exactly this. They’re essentially natural gas fueled turbines that also take the waste heat to turn to steam and recycled back to make even more power.

F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.

If what your proposed worked, a company like GE (who has experience with all this stuff) would have patented it and be using it on train locomotives where efficiency gains of half of a percent represents millions of dollars in fuel cost savings. This is where all the real work in this field is happening, because with the fuel consumed and miles traveled, small gains have big costs associated with them.

I think this is a symptom of piston purism if F1. I can respect that, but please call it what it is.

Even the current gen cars have Power Units defined in the regulations. Of COURSE they are powerplants.

Piston puratism isn’t what’s keeping Class 1 freight railways from using them. Turbines were tried in train (passenger and freight) 70 years ago and that idea died quickly.

This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:

US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l

The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.

You can read about the Union Pacific’s use of turbines here:
https://www.up.com/aboutup/special_trai ... 0in%201962.

With what you've seen in the last 10 years of highly-restricted F1 hybrid system development, you want to talk about limitations from 70 years ago?!?

Please show where they have tried what I am suggesting with the modern technology that I have suggested.

[Hoffman900]

I think this is a symptom of piston purism if F1. I can respect that, but please call it what it is.

Even the current gen cars have Power Units defined in the regulations. Of COURSE they are powerplants.

Piston puratism isn’t what’s keeping Class 1 freight railways from using them. Turbines were tried in train (passenger and freight) 70 years ago and that idea died quickly.

This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:

US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l

The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.

You can read about the Union Pacific’s use of turbines here:
https://www.up.com/aboutup/special_trai ... 0in%201962.

With what you've seen in the last 10 years of highly-restricted F1 hybrid system development, you want to talk about limitations from 70 years ago?!?

Please show where they have tried what I am suggesting with the modern technology that I have suggested.

Modern technology? You’re sharing pulse jet designs that are about the same technology wise as they were in the 1930s.

F1 is using:

Miller Cycle (developed 1950s). Used in Indy Car (unsuccessfully) by its inventor in his home built cars.
HCCI / TJI ( developed 1970s)
Turbocharger (developed 1920s)

While restricting or outlawing variable geometry turbos and a whole host of engine technologies that have existed for decades. Hell, the FIA even dictates bore size!

What F1 is doing is not that new, but the combination of them is (and done so by very prescriptive rules), for the use (motorsports). I have no doubt Mercedes had a big jump with these PU’s to begin with due to their work in the heavy diesel world. Honda, Ferrari, Renault don’t have experience with this stuff, but Daimler sure does. The Audi LeMans diesels were also very similar to these PU’s, except they used a variable geometry turbo.

[Zynerji]

Piston puratism isn’t what’s keeping Class 1 freight railways from using them. Turbines were tried in train (passenger and freight) 70 years ago and that idea died quickly.

This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:

US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l

The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.

You can read about the Union Pacific’s use of turbines here:
https://www.up.com/aboutup/special_trai ... 0in%201962.

With what you've seen in the last 10 years of highly-restricted F1 hybrid system development, you want to talk about limitations from 70 years ago?!?

Please show where they have tried what I am suggesting with the modern technology that I have suggested.

Modern technology? You’re sharing pulse jet designs that are about the same technology wise as they were in the 1930s.

F1 is using:

Miller Cycle (developed 1950s)
HCCI / TJI ( developed 1970s)
Turbocharger (developed 1920s)

While restricting or outlawing variable geometry turbos and a whole host of engine technologies that have existed for decades.

What F1 is doing is new in motorsports, but it’s not new to the IC world. I have no doubt Mercedes had a big jump with these PU’s to begin with due to their work in the heavy diesel world.

Nevermind. You still haven't actually brought any actual things to proving this concept impossible. Just assumptions and interpretations. Math would have kept you off the ignore list, but there ya go.

[Hoffman900]

With what you've seen in the last 10 years of highly-restricted F1 hybrid system development, you want to talk about limitations from 70 years ago?!?

Please show where they have tried what I am suggesting with the modern technology that I have suggested.

Modern technology? You’re sharing pulse jet designs that are about the same technology wise as they were in the 1930s.

F1 is using:

Miller Cycle (developed 1950s)
HCCI / TJI ( developed 1970s)
Turbocharger (developed 1920s)

While restricting or outlawing variable geometry turbos and a whole host of engine technologies that have existed for decades.

What F1 is doing is new in motorsports, but it’s not new to the IC world. I have no doubt Mercedes had a big jump with these PU’s to begin with due to their work in the heavy diesel world.

Nevermind. You still haven't actually brought any actual things to proving this concept impossible. Just assumptions and interpretations. Math would have kept you off the ignore list, but there ya go.

Let’s not forget you admitted to coming up with some of these ideas based on “conversations with Chat-GPT”. As I said, your ideas read like science fiction because it is, and cannot be back up with math because the math doesn’t work. So that’s quite ironic reasoning… I’m not going to do the engineering analysis for you for free.

I pointed out several real uses for what you propose and that it has failed in a few applications that even are remotely similar to F1.

[mzso]

Then why does everyone lose their minds and call it impossible when I mention it here?!

Maybe because the weight and efficiency you imagine is pure fantasy?

It just seems like the most inevitable destination for F1 if full electric FIA cars is a Formula E exclusive for the next 90 years.

Surely not inevitable, even the possibility is highly doubtful.
We don't know the terms of the agreement. Might only cover BEVs. Which not suitable anyway.

Otherwise if F1 must have combustion engines, but no other restrictions. They could have a 1 CC engine, then don't use it, just carry it as deadweight.