Concept power units from 2030

[bananapeel23]

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 to have done that?

Maybe aircraft engines? But no it literally makes no sense to build turbo engines that rev that high, since you can get enough oxygen for combustion at relatively low revs. I guess you could harvest stupid amounts of energy from an MGU-H at 18 000RPM though, since you basically have no use for the turbo at such high revs. I guess an 18 000RPM turbo engine would be running with a fully open wastegate/harvesting MGU-H at 18 000RPM and would only use it at lower revs.

It would probably still be more efficient than an NA engine running 18k though, since you would be able to harvest with an MGU-H and benefit from the turbo at low speeds. But I have no clue if a turbo engine could even survive 18k with fuel flow capped at 100kg/h. I feel like it would basically be running so lean it would eat itself alive, and fuel flow can't really be increased without the engine power getting out of control. You would probably have to reduce the displacement in order to make it survive at 18k RPM.

(I have a very poor understanding of how an ICE works)

[Tommy Cookers]

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.

@ mzso
*mod edit - removed*
line 3 says 'powers that be '
line 4 says 'PTB'
line 5 says 'PTB'
can you guess what PTB stands for ?


regarding butane - it's much too valuable to be used as motor fuel
the likely application for the fuel cell is using methanol to decarbonise shipping
methanol made using the inevitable surpluses of renewable electricity
acting as an alternative battery - whether using a fuel cell or as fuel for an ICE

but F1 is expected to help planting approved ideas in the minds of masses ie car users
ideas like the virtuous inevitability of what is actually a battery so-called electric vehicle

[Big Tea]

The cars would sound much louder if they turned the defining PA and music mixer down. You would not need to have ear defenders on all the time then

[DenBommer]

Are there currently any other concepts or ideas for the next regulations from 2030/2035 onwards?

[bananapeel23]

Are there currently any other concepts or ideas for the next regulations from 2030/2035 onwards?

FIA people tend to toy with the idea of going for high revving NA V10s or V8s running on carbon neutral synthetic fuels, but the FOM and the teams won’t accept that, because it’s basically a technological dead end.

Basically we’re probably locked into the current path of less and less fuel until the cars become so slow that viewer numbers take a nosedive, at which point they will go for a more exciting engine concept.

[DenBommer]

Are there currently any other concepts or ideas for the next regulations from 2030/2035 onwards?

FIA people tend to toy with the idea of going for high revving NA V10s or V8s running on carbon neutral synthetic fuels, but the FOM and the teams won’t accept that, because it’s basically a technological dead end.

Basically we’re probably locked into the current path of less and less fuel until the cars become so slow that viewer numbers take a nosedive, at which point they will go for a more exciting engine concept.

I think so too. I believe all the talk about going back to naturally aspirated V8s is just some marketing.

And what’s your idea of an exciting engine concept?

[bananapeel23]

Are there currently any other concepts or ideas for the next regulations from 2030/2035 onwards?

FIA people tend to toy with the idea of going for high revving NA V10s or V8s running on carbon neutral synthetic fuels, but the FOM and the teams won’t accept that, because it’s basically a technological dead end.

Basically we’re probably locked into the current path of less and less fuel until the cars become so slow that viewer numbers take a nosedive, at which point they will go for a more exciting engine concept.

I think so too. I believe all the talk about going back to naturally aspirated V8s is just some marketing.

And what’s your idea of an exciting engine concept?

Take the fuel flow and MGU-H from the 2014 regulations and put them in the 2026 engine. Raise the revs for max fuel flow from 10500RPM to like 12500 to get a more satisfying engine noise.

Remove the battery weight floor to get lighter batteries. Just generally loosen the exotic material bans and significantly reduce weight floors for engine components.

[Cold Fussion]

And what’s your idea of an exciting engine concept?

Personally i quite like the current engine formula. The biggest problem has always been that they sound absolutely terrible on tv, and I don't know whether it's just impossible to replicate how they sound in person on the broadcast or if FOM just haven't tried very hard to achieve it. In my opinion the v8's sound pretty terrible in person, it's just a wall of noise of noise which is of very dubious quality. Yes the V10's sound glorious, but the only way IMO we ever see a v10 again is F1 going all in on direct air capture derived synthetic fuels, and the FIA getting the cojones and telling the automotive manufacturers to get on board or get lost.

[DenBommer]

Wouldn't it be an option to switch to two-stroke engines? Possibly with HCCI ignition.

I think it's not without reason that Pat Symonds once suggested switching to two-stroke engines.

[Big Tea]

There has been talk of rotary valve engines for a while but not really practical. Was flicking through some vids and these look interesting. Sorry it it is not specific enough, but if there is freedom to develop the ideas F1 would be the ideal place

[Tommy Cookers]

afaik
rotary valves (pre ilmor's ban) might have helped in years 1914-2013 - (rules based on so-called volumetric efficiency)
but they won't help now - (rules based on fuel efficiency) ...

whereby they heavily compress the induction air, then maximally cool it to the limit of the rules on charge cooling ....
then restrict the inlet valves open period to under-charge the cylinders ....
to then expand the air in-cylinder before the compression stroke ... to cool it further ...
to enable ultra-high geometric compression & expansion ratios

fwiw I have a similar distaste for the implied claims of 'Early 2000 inlet ports'

[Big Tea]

afaik
rotary valves (pre ilmor's ban) might have helped in years 1914-2013 - (rules based on so-called volumetric efficiency)
but they won't help now - (rules based on fuel efficiency) ...

whereby they heavily compress the induction air, then maximally cool it to the limit of the rules on charge cooling ....
then restrict the inlet valves open period to under-charge the cylinders ....
to then expand the air in-cylinder before the compression stroke ... to cool it further ...
to enable ultra-high geometric compression & expansion ratios

fwiw I have a similar distaste for the implied claims of 'Early 2000 inlet ports'

Would there not be a mechanical saving for driving the valve gear, and an advantage of it being rotary and not having to overcome the inertia at every operation? As would Wankel engines?

I agree that some systems would give more or less advantage under different Regs sets, but if it was a new clean sheet leeway could be built into the rules at an early stage. Manufacturers of course need continuity of design and re use existing units that work, but what better way to develop things like this than in F1. There are probably many really good ideas from a century of use that were not feasible with technology or manufacturing of the day that could be worth looking at in a fresh light, so maybe extra 'credits to teams testing these ideas?

[mzso]

There has been talk of rotary valve engines for a while but not really practical. Was flicking through some vids and these look interesting. Sorry it it is not specific enough, but if there is freedom to develop the ideas F1 would be the ideal place

I think it's better not having any valves.

[DenBommer]

There has been talk of rotary valve engines for a while but not really practical. Was flicking through some vids and these look interesting. Sorry it it is not specific enough, but if there is freedom to develop the ideas F1 would be the ideal place

I think it's better not having any valves.

Freevalve??

[mzso]

There has been talk of rotary valve engines for a while but not really practical. Was flicking through some vids and these look interesting. Sorry it it is not specific enough, but if there is freedom to develop the ideas F1 would be the ideal place

I think it's better not having any valves.

Freevalve??

Not familiar with that. But there's two stroke, or rotary. (Others?)