Concept power units from 2030

[DenBommer]

Some time ago, Domenicali said that in the future they want louder engines, but sound is wasted energy.

The sound energy is minuscule.

What do you mean? That sound doesn’t contain much energy?

In that case, just bring me the V8.

[Greg Locock]

Yup, the radiated sound power from an engine block is of the order of fractions of a watt, the main sources are the intake and exhaust, both of which are attenuated by turbos. I can't remember exactly how powerful they are but would guess it is less than 10 W.

[mzso]

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future they decide to go with the V4. It’s similar to the size of their tires. I once heard in a podcast that as early as the mid-90s, they wanted to switch to 18-inch tires because the existing ones weren’t road-related. And now, since 2022, we are indeed using 18-inch tires.

Some time ago, Domenicali said that in the future they want louder engines, but sound is wasted energy. The combustion engine is far from dead (as can be seen in Volvo’s decision to continue producing combustion engines after 2030), but the fuel they burn should be used as efficiently as possible and not wasted on noise. Especially with e-fuels, which currently require an energy-consuming process to produce, the available e-fuel should be used as efficiently as possible. That’s why I think in 8-10 years, we might see the V4 with some sort of electric turbo, and unfortunately, no V8.

Aren’t they already using solid-state batteries? If not, I definitely see them being used in the future. Perhaps even structural batteries, not in the chassis itself, but designed in such a way that the battery contributes to the chassis’ strength. This, combined with a light, powerful electric motor that could deliver around 30-40 hp per kg.

The most efficient use of fuel is with a fuel cell. Not sure will happen in f1 anytime soon, since efficiency and eco consciousness is just a marketing strategy for them, a facade, not an actual goal, or desire.

[DenBommer]

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future they decide to go with the V4. It’s similar to the size of their tires. I once heard in a podcast that as early as the mid-90s, they wanted to switch to 18-inch tires because the existing ones weren’t road-related. And now, since 2022, we are indeed using 18-inch tires.

Some time ago, Domenicali said that in the future they want louder engines, but sound is wasted energy. The combustion engine is far from dead (as can be seen in Volvo’s decision to continue producing combustion engines after 2030), but the fuel they burn should be used as efficiently as possible and not wasted on noise. Especially with e-fuels, which currently require an energy-consuming process to produce, the available e-fuel should be used as efficiently as possible. That’s why I think in 8-10 years, we might see the V4 with some sort of electric turbo, and unfortunately, no V8.

Aren’t they already using solid-state batteries? If not, I definitely see them being used in the future. Perhaps even structural batteries, not in the chassis itself, but designed in such a way that the battery contributes to the chassis’ strength. This, combined with a light, powerful electric motor that could deliver around 30-40 hp per kg.

The most efficient use of fuel is with a fuel cell. Not sure will happen in f1 anytime soon, since efficiency and eco consciousness is just a marketing strategy for them, a facade, not an actual goal, or desire.

A fuel cell is indeed more efficient. However, the sound is also part of their marketing, DNA, and even the spirit of the sport, in my opinion.

[Tommy Cookers]

The most efficient use of fuel is with a fuel cell. Not sure will happen in f1 anytime soon, since efficiency and eco consciousness is just a marketing strategy for them, a facade, not an actual goal, or desire.

shame fuel cells don't work on fuel as we know it
we need a genuine glut of carbon-free electricity to make fuel cell fuel (genuine ie no carbon cost)

the plan of the powers that be .......
Joe Citizen goes BEV so tens of millions of batteries are available to store & support PTB's intermittent renewable electricity
this requires no new technology and no PTB expense
it also amounts to a priceless stabilising element in the electricity supply & demand

[bananapeel23]

Yup, the radiated sound power from an engine block is of the order of fractions of a watt, the main sources are the intake and exhaust, both of which are attenuated by turbos. I can't remember exactly how powerful they are but would guess it is less than 10 W.

Isn't the "sound is wasted energy" statement more about the fact that the types of engines that yield the best efficiency tend to be quieter, even if it's a case of correlation rather than cause. Like if you want to run a 900HP engine on 100kg of fuel, you would be better off running lower revs and forced induction, rather than a high rev, NA engine.

Like yes, sure, the noise itself is pretty low energy, but if you need to sacrifice a bunch of your engines efficiency in the form of friction and the loss of forced induction in order to regain that noise, the noise is indeed a symptom of a fundamental inefficiency and indicates a lot of energy is being wasted, even if that waste is in the form of friction and unburned fuel, rather than the noise itself.

Still I believe there is plenty of room to get a lot of the noise back without making the engines significantly less efficient. Couldn't they simply raise the RPM required to unlock the 100kg/h fuel flow from 10500 to 13000 or 15000 to get them to sound better? Or would the engines be running so impossibly lean at that point that they would need to reduce the boost or cut down on the displacement in order for them to run such high revs with so little fuel?

[saviour stivala]

The exhaust gases powering the turbine makes for the loss of nose, in fact when waste-gate is opened and so the exhaust gasses are not powering the turbine, exhaust nose will change nearer to that of an NA engine.

[DenBommer]

What if... we go back to the V10 but with Koenigsegg's direct drive? Would it sound like this?

What do you all think of this ?

[mzso]

The most efficient use of fuel is with a fuel cell. Not sure will happen in f1 anytime soon, since efficiency and eco consciousness is just a marketing strategy for them, a facade, not an actual goal, or desire.

shame fuel cells don't work on fuel as we know it
we need a genuine glut of carbon-free electricity to make fuel cell fuel (genuine ie no carbon cost)

the plan of the powers that be .......
Joe Citizen goes BEV so tens of millions of batteries are available to store & support PTB's intermittent renewable electricity
this requires no new technology and no PTB expense
it also amounts to a priceless stabilising element in the electricity supply & demand

Fuel is formulated for use and not the other way.
Besides your statement is false, it does work with common fuels, from methane to butane for example. A typical end result of cracking, which is widely used.

As for PTB, I don't know why some people insist on using obscure and/or ambigous acronyms.

[bananapeel23]

The exhaust gases powering the turbine makes for the loss of nose, in fact when waste-gate is opened and so the exhaust gasses are not powering the turbine, exhaust nose will change nearer to that of an NA engine.

Frankly I don't really think it's about how loud the cars are, but the pitch. Raise the RPM and they will sound like the old engines, just a bit quieter and with a bit of whine from the ERS.

[mzso]

A fuel cell is indeed more efficient. However, the sound is also part of their marketing, DNA, and even the spirit of the sport, in my opinion.

No point in discussing efficiency, if you're going to handwave the most efficient stuff with such hollow excuses. This way efficiency can only be a thin guise.

Such reiterated stock nonsense like DNA and "spirit", is particularly irksome.
By the way seems to have mutated away of loud NA engines, so it's not part of the DNA for a good while now... Your handwave, would also preclude turbos, or anything efficient ICE wise, which is clearly not the case already.

Spirit, is even more of a vapor-word.

[mzso]

The exhaust gases powering the turbine makes for the loss of nose, in fact when waste-gate is opened and so the exhaust gasses are not powering the turbine, exhaust nose will change nearer to that of an NA engine.

Frankly I don't really think it's about how loud the cars are, but the pitch. Raise the RPM and they will sound like the old engines, just a bit quieter and with a bit of whine from the ERS.

High RPM is wasteful and sucks for longevity. It's a last resort to increase engine power.

[mzso]

What if... we go back to the V10 but with Koenigsegg's direct drive? Would it sound like this?

What do you all think of this ?

Well v10 would still be inefficient and short lived. Plus the hydro coupling would add even more inefficiency. I don't know if it would gain anything to anyone.

[bananapeel23]

The exhaust gases powering the turbine makes for the loss of nose, in fact when waste-gate is opened and so the exhaust gasses are not powering the turbine, exhaust nose will change nearer to that of an NA engine.

Frankly I don't really think it's about how loud the cars are, but the pitch. Raise the RPM and they will sound like the old engines, just a bit quieter and with a bit of whine from the ERS.

High RPM is wasteful and sucks for longevity. It's a last resort to increase engine power.

Obviously yes, but if your choice is to remove the turbo to get the noise back or to suffer more friction losses with forced induction, the choice is obvious from an efficiency standpoint. A turbo engine will always be more efficient.

[mzso]

Frankly I don't really think it's about how loud the cars are, but the pitch. Raise the RPM and they will sound like the old engines, just a bit quieter and with a bit of whine from the ERS.

High RPM is wasteful and sucks for longevity. It's a last resort to increase engine power.

Obviously yes, but if your choice is to remove the turbo to get the noise back or to suffer more friction losses with forced induction, the choice is obvious from an efficiency standpoint. A turbo engine will always be more efficient.

Did anyone ever make a 18k+ reving turbo engine for a car (or anything really)? Is there any technical reason for anyone to have done that?