2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Jolle]

A slightly bigger engine v4 means less moving parts than a v6. The mgu h should remain but the other manufacturers has to offer it for sale. Nicd cost cap.. A inline engine need a support frame. Hence a v4 is a better solution

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Why not use the existing inline-four 2.0 from Super Formula, DTM and SuperGT? There are already six engines designed to this formula (Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Audi) which could have a hybrid system added.

This was more or less the original idea in 2010, to make a “world championship standerd” 1.6 4 cylinder engine that would be used in various FIA championships in different configurations with/without turbocharging, electrification, etc. Mercedes and Renault were on board but Ferrari used their veto.

[toraabe]

A slightly bigger engine v4 means less moving parts than a v6. The mgu h should remain but the other manufacturers has to offer it for sale. Nicd cost cap.. A inline engine need a support frame. Hence a v4 is a better solution

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Just the camahft and piping, but a v4 will e a structural part of the car. Better gravity is also benificial. A inline four would require a support frame.. It will not by nature be stiff enough

[toraabe]

A slightly bigger engine v4 means less moving parts than a v6. The mgu h should remain but the other manufacturers has to offer it for sale. Nicd cost cap.. A inline engine need a support frame. Hence a v4 is a better solution

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Why not use the existing inline-four 2.0 from Super Formula, DTM and SuperGT? There are already six engines designed to this formula (Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Audi) which could have a hybrid system added.

That is going backwards... A F1 engine should be unique

[Jolle]

A slightly bigger engine v4 means less moving parts than a v6. The mgu h should remain but the other manufacturers has to offer it for sale. Nicd cost cap.. A inline engine need a support frame. Hence a v4 is a better solution

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Just the camahft and piping, but a v4 will e a structural part of the car. Better gravity is also benificial. A inline four would require a support frame.. It will not by nature be stiff enough

Double the camshafts, double the cylinder heads, double the fuel rails, double the exhaust headers vs a slightly odd shaped rear support frame.

I agree that a V4 is a much nicer solution, but is nearer the cost of a V6 then a 4L.

[mclaren111]

https://www.grandprix247.com/2021/07/23 ... our-sport/

The crux of what Tombazis said was that technical innovation in F1 was no longer relevant and that F1 and the FIA want the innovative focus to be biofuel and finance from 2022 onwards.

Is it really valid for F1’s greatest mandate to now be sustainability, be it environmental or financial, at the expense of the very reasons the sport was founded on in the first place?

Now that F1 has the hands of a publicly floated global media company with shareholder returns to answer for around its neck, I fear the sport is choking and forgetting what it is and where it came from.

Technical Innovation in F1:
From 13 May 1950 – 31 December 2021.
Rest In Peace. You will be dearly missed.

Sad State of Affairs Indeed...

[Jolle]

https://www.grandprix247.com/2021/07/23 ... our-sport/

The crux of what Tombazis said was that technical innovation in F1 was no longer relevant and that F1 and the FIA want the innovative focus to be biofuel and finance from 2022 onwards.

Is it really valid for F1’s greatest mandate to now be sustainability, be it environmental or financial, at the expense of the very reasons the sport was founded on in the first place?

Now that F1 has the hands of a publicly floated global media company with shareholder returns to answer for around its neck, I fear the sport is choking and forgetting what it is and where it came from.

Technical Innovation in F1:
From 13 May 1950 – 31 December 2021.
Rest In Peace. You will be dearly missed.

Sad State of Affairs Indeed...

can't you just open a thread where you can demand return of the V12 or something instead of being grumpy over here?

[mzso]

can't you just open a thread where you can demand return of the V12 or something instead of being grumpy over here?

I would call it spammy at this point.

[JordanMugen]

That is going backwards... A F1 engine should be unique

Why?

They are purpose-built racing engines, they are lightweight, they are efficient. They seem perfectly adequate. 600hp ICE + unlimited ERS (350hp+) would provide a good architecture.

I agree that a V4 is a much nicer solution, but is nearer the cost of a V6 then a 4L.

The inline-four racing engines already exist, and the structural problem is already solved in Super Formula I guess (I assume they use some kind of girdle, I can't find a picture).

The DTM/Super GT engines seem very attractive. Perhaps some cumulative power cap can be applied to the 2.0 turbos so Red Bull, AER/Mazda, or anyone else who also wants to build one (or adapt existing in Mazda's case) can get to the required level easily.

Attention could turn to freedoms -- unlimited output? -- on the electrical side of it, which is the more relevant side.

[wuzak]

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Why not use the existing inline-four 2.0 from Super Formula, DTM and SuperGT? There are already six engines designed to this formula (Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Audi) which could have a hybrid system added.

This was more or less the original idea in 2010, to make a “world championship standerd” 1.6 4 cylinder engine that would be used in various FIA championships in different configurations with/without turbocharging, electrification, etc. Mercedes and Renault were on board but Ferrari used their veto.

Ferrari didn't have to use their veto.

The V6 was preferred over the L4 by a few of the teams, including Red Bull. Once VW pulled out, the L4 was gone.

[NL_Fer]

I like the idea of a standard power output ICE combined with some competition on electric parts.

[jjn9128]

https://www.grandprix247.com/2021/07/23 ... our-sport/

The crux of what Tombazis said was that technical innovation in F1 was no longer relevant and that F1 and the FIA want the innovative focus to be biofuel and finance from 2022 onwards.

Is it really valid for F1’s greatest mandate to now be sustainability, be it environmental or financial, at the expense of the very reasons the sport was founded on in the first place?

Now that F1 has the hands of a publicly floated global media company with shareholder returns to answer for around its neck, I fear the sport is choking and forgetting what it is and where it came from.

Technical Innovation in F1:
From 13 May 1950 – 31 December 2021.
Rest In Peace. You will be dearly missed.

Sad State of Affairs Indeed...

You made me rewatch that godawful launch video again.. I can't see where Tombazis says that. Actual innovation has been missing from F1 for about a decade though - since they banned exhaust blowing and F-ducts.

[mclaren111]

https://www.grandprix247.com/2021/07/23 ... our-sport/

The crux of what Tombazis said was that technical innovation in F1 was no longer relevant and that F1 and the FIA want the innovative focus to be biofuel and finance from 2022 onwards.

Is it really valid for F1’s greatest mandate to now be sustainability, be it environmental or financial, at the expense of the very reasons the sport was founded on in the first place?

Now that F1 has the hands of a publicly floated global media company with shareholder returns to answer for around its neck, I fear the sport is choking and forgetting what it is and where it came from.

Technical Innovation in F1:
From 13 May 1950 – 31 December 2021.
Rest In Peace. You will be dearly missed.

Sad State of Affairs Indeed...

You made me rewatch that godawful launch video again.. I can't see where Tombazis says that. Actual innovation has been missing from F1 for about a decade though - since they banned exhaust blowing and F-ducts.

It was at a different interview I think...

The FIA is regulating F1 to Death...

And Liberty is following the Woke Brigade to scam More Money...

[Stu]

A slightly bigger engine v4 means less moving parts than a v6. The mgu h should remain but the other manufacturers has to offer it for sale. Nicd cost cap.. A inline engine need a support frame. Hence a v4 is a better solution

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Why not use the existing inline-four 2.0 from Super Formula, DTM and SuperGT? There are already six engines designed to this formula (Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Audi) which could have a hybrid system added.

I have been banging the ‘ultimate development of the FIA world engine’ for way too long now (since the idea was pushed in favour of the V6’s - 2012??), I still cannot understand why they moved away from the concept. It would also have played nicely with Sportscars/GT, by moving them both back to ‘stock block’ categories.
From what I can recall both Ferrari and Mercedes threatened to leave F1 if the went for the I4 architecture?

[Jolle]

A inline 4 has much less moving parts then a V4 and is a lot easier in construction (with only one exhaust side instead of two), and only needs two simple structures on the side as a support... I don't see your logic.

Why not use the existing inline-four 2.0 from Super Formula, DTM and SuperGT? There are already six engines designed to this formula (Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Audi) which could have a hybrid system added.

I have been banging the ‘ultimate development of the FIA world engine’ for way too long now (since the idea was pushed in favour of the V6’s - 2012??), I still cannot understand why they moved away from the concept. It would also have played nicely with Sportscars/GT, by moving them both back to ‘stock block’ categories.
From what I can recall both Ferrari and Mercedes threatened to leave F1 if the went for the I4 architecture?

Mercedes was all for the 4L engine, as that was perfect marketable for their high volume hot hatches.They even did early work on the 4l

[NL_Fer]

Mercedes was all for i4 until they saw the advantage they would have with the split turbo inside a V6. It was pretty easy to convince the fia after Audi backed out.

I doubt current manufacturers want to start from scratch with an i4 and spend another bilion on ICE.