This video is really disappointing, I expected this to be more like: "Right behind the driver is the Space Shuttle RS-25 engine which provides the 400,000 pounds of thrust necessary to reach Mach 1 exactly 0.21 seconds after leaving the starting grid. Once that speed is reached, the rocket and fuel tanks are jettisoned and the downforce-scramjet is able to activate to provide the 200,000 kilograms of downforce necessary to navigate turn 1 at 25 Gs. Now that the driver has been incapacitated, they too can be jettisoned to save weight, since F1 doesn't specify if the driver needs to be in control, or alive, when the car finishes the lap.
Ha ha, excellent reply. I'm with you on this one, although jettison the driver? Only if the track is just a straight line for 70 miles and its stuck on a track.
This is something I would watch, basically a no-holds racing, wings, displacement, wheels, and turbo's all up for grabs; it would be like the wacky races.
Yeah I'd love a racing series which has just some basic rules for the cars. Something like "Car must fit in X * Y * Z sized box, driver must be in the car, car + driver must weigh at least M kg." And have a budget gap so that some trillion dollar company can't throw a billion € per year into their Formula X team. Also the car should pass a crash test etc. so that crashes are at least somewhat survivable. If the cars are too fast and dangerous, you can always adjust the size, weight and budget limits so that you can't have too big engines or insane parts. F1 has become lame because every time someone invents something new, it gets banned. How can you innovate if everything you can do is already dictated in technical regulations and if you do innovate something, it's deemed illegal or unfair?
No limits hands down it ends up with a Wankel engine. Power to weight ratio is non comparable. Considering you can get 1000hp out of something a regular person can carry
A couple of days ago, I ran across a pretty crazy engine. A 2.2L diesel making 1000hp. Yes, absolutely massively boosted, running about 135psi of boost on a relatively low compression core engine, only a 7.5:1 compression ratio inside. Total inlet air pressure of 150psi, ~10bar. Engine also had a power recovery turbine downstream of the turbo that was geared to the crankshaft, with the turbo freely spinning based on gas flow. It's a 120deg V6, 2-stroke with uniflow scavenging like a Detroit 71 Series. Intake ports in the bore, 4x exhaust valves in the head. Mechanical injector in the center of the 4 exhaust valves. So the exhaust manifolds were on the inside of the vee and the turbo pushed air through an after cooler before it went into the cylinders. Even though it was a diesel, this engine spun at about 6200rpm. It's got options for adding more fuel or a methanol/water mix in the intake to further cool the intake air. Got better cooling effect out of the methanol/water mix, but just adding more fuel meant less complexity in the overall system. Whole package weighs about 432lbs/200kg, and was intended as an option for a helicopter powerplant. Garrett/DARPA Compound Cycle Engine. I want to build one.
Do you think they could mechanically sacrifice torque but gain total rpm which would then gain power? Even just to my time.playong forza... torque is great but only has a crazy difference when pulling weight through the gears, if that engine if making that much power as a diesel, what twould happen if it was made more efficiently for whatever weight the vehicle is and for the space it take up in the engine bay... a small wngine very efficiently putting down 1k hp would be great, I guess the real problem is lowering the boost as boost is just pressure and pressure is more danger. Higher the number the higher the risk.
@@nickhenley1338 Yeah, but this is the U.S. military we're talking about, if they really wanted it, they could probably throw enough money at it to make it real and fix all its problems
Nobody mentioned the gas turbine engine. See a 4 stroke only produces power 25% of the time, a 2 stroke 50%, a 1 stroke 100%. If you want a lot of power, the best way to go is a multistage gas turbine or rocket engine with a consistent 100% rotational output, then everything becomes balanced, almost no bearing drag from crankshaft torque, and no force wasted on moving valves up and down. When I say a lot of power, I'm talking well over 5,000HP for something you can fit in your car. Look at the M1 Abrams for instance, the engine in that thing puts out 1500HP stock for something that's smaller then some big block V8s that can barely do 1500HP after being built and tuned. It was built in the 70s and was made to reliably run on anything from dirty piss to jet fuel, while in a closed metal box with zero airflow in a 100 degree desert, not to make power. Piston engines are *not* suited for high power output, the only reason we use them is that they're cheap and really easy to mass produce. The forces inside piston engines do nothing but fight you the whole way from combustion to the crankshaft, any weight being flung up and down is a net energy loss. A turbine creates force in a purely rotational moment, the only power lost is from the compression stage and the bearing loss, which in a turbine is so small you can spin the thing by hand and it'll sit there and keep spinning for the next few seconds, try doing that with a piston engine.
spot on - Abrams tank turbine is tuned for field reliability and longevity and look at what it can do, if we look at single use type high performance turbines we start to see things like the Turbo Pumps on rocket engines, Space Shuttle for example, 85,000HP in a package not much bigger than a large V8....if that tech could be scaled down who knows where it would go. Billions of dollars invested and the smartest minds alive helped develop a cost is no objective Turbine engine from military to space.
@@motominded5275 It's has been proved time and time again to be really easy to scale down. Model airplanes have jet engines you can pickup and carry in your hand. Just a matter of someone spending the time and money to put one on a car.
Abrams engine weighs 2500 lbs... Thats a bit much for 1500 hp is it not? Something I would think about is take the Honda V5 1000cc motorcycle engine and redesign for 2 stroke and turbo charging. Then instead of 260hp from standard engine weighing 100lbs, hopefully it would be 1000 hp+. All that in a 100lbs package with very small dimensions. Mount it to a CVT to keep it at constant peak power. With such a small engine you could shrink the car and make it very light. 1000lb car with modern aerodynamics and a constant 1000hp.
@@_AnanasIEgenJuice_ Dude, it's 2500lbs only because it's armored, and designed to be able to handle literal anti tank weapons going off right beside the intake. No matter what a turbine jet engine will always be more lightweight and more efficient then a 2 stroke, for the exact same reason a 2 stroke will always be more lightweight and more efficient then a 4 stroke. Thermodynamic efficiency is higher.
There's a couple more things also not considered with turbines. First is that you have the hot exhaust that you can work with. Not much reason to think that can't be used to generate more downforce. Second they tend to run more efficiently at high RPMs than low, which is where you really want it to be anyways for acceleration.
I htink if you free up engine configuration rules, BUT limit the amount of fuel that can be burnt, have minimum car weights with the relative safety and aero rules, you'd have some interesting innovation around engines.
I want F1 to go to hydrogen combustion if they're not willing to ease up on engine regs. Not hydrogen fuel cells, mind you (otherwise it'd just be formula E with extra steps), hydrogen ICEs. All the same components and design of a gas engine, but with no hydrocarbons. They claim to want to innovate? There you go.
@@Majima_Nowherethey want a green F1 car, so just use sugarcane ethanol, the most green fuel to ever be invented because the plantation removes more CO2 from the atmosfere than it produces in the refinery and in the burning.
@@Nate-bd8fg "More efficient" is still good progress, and power will always matter to some extent - having a super-efficient engine is pretty useless for racing if if only makes 100bhp when your opponents have 1000bhp engines.
@@Majima_Nowhere Hydrogen would mean carrying around what more or less amounts to a bomb. Not to mention that you would need to carry like twice as much fuel as now, and you have a heavy ass car with a built in cryogenic bomb.
It was slightly less powerful by design as it traded power for reliability. It could have reved much higher and made WAY more power. Plus, turboing a rotary works extremely well because of the extended power stroke.
Whatever brings back the sound of those 12 cylinder motors. Without those screams, formula one has lost all its magic. To achieve that sound you need high rev's and no turbochargers to disturb the exhaust gases.
for those who are looking for the real no rules question: xkcd has a video covering that. Ultimately the limiting factor is whether or not there has to be a driver, and whether the driver has to survive. XKCD's video is about "nascar" but the principles would be the same for F1
Honestly there should be 2 rules for f1, a set budget and set amount of fuel per race. Name one aspect of racing that wouldnt be equalized with these two rules? Everything else would be up to the skill of the engineers of the car and the driver
The problem is how do you gage the budget? Materials, machining time, engineering, R&D. a $100,000 car with millions in research and development is not really a $100,000 car.
I think that's the playbook that Le Mans do for their races. They just set fuel limits for classes, and let the teams go full crazy with the designs, which give creations like diesel Audis, V4 Porsches, and even Front-wheel drive Nissans.
@@mulgerbill yeah, a lot of the sound of the Merlin is the prop tho, it’d be interesting to hear what it’s like when combined with race tires and tarmac.
A rotary might actually work, if a manufacturer puts money into it. The reliability issues can be fixed by just throwing money at it. Also, rotary engines are extremly small, light and have a lot of power. They are basicly the ideal race engine.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary Ran on hydrogen - Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets.. creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion! Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking! But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
Rotaries are technically more reliable than a piston engine, but not durable like one. Like an rx8 expect a rebuild every 90k miles iirc (whereas a piston engine can do 300k), but during that time, the rotary is less likely to develop an issue/broke down due to less moving parts, less complexity.
@@il-ma.le. The Reliability problems can be solved by using expensive materials for the rotor housing and apex seals. Considering how much money teams spend on their engines, it would be far from impossible to build an engine that can last a race no problem. Material science also has come a long way in the last 20+ years.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary Ran on hydrogen - Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets.. creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion! Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking! But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
@@J.C... Which is categorically untrue. Far superior engine tech exists much of which was already USED in F1 Indycar etc, but F1 banned it to keep costs down and make it more about "driving", thus the only real thing F1 can tinker with is Aero and why he mentions it so often. Idiot host has a gigantic WARPED view of F1.
Tip: Let the mic hang from something other than resting on the table. Every time you emote with your arms and touch the table, there is a low frequency banging noise - which sounds like someone is jumping on the roof or the floor above. Great video though :)
All things considered with weight and aero factored in, I think an inline 6 would be the best F1 engine. My calculations of about 2 liters would have the bore between 95-100mm. The inherent balance and smoothness and simplicity would be ideal for reliability and comfort. The firing order gives a nice torque curve as well. It would actually be very compact, since it would employ a dry sump and the intake would be on the side instead of the top, meaning one side pod for intake air and the other for cooling. Since I believe race cars neeed starter motors for safety, we might as well employ a compact but powerful MGU mainly to flatten the torque curve even more. The engine would rev quite easily to 20,000rpm and sound mentally good being half a v12 with more time between cylinder firings. Look up Honda CBX or Honda Valkyrie exhaust sound to get some idea. In a race car, a capacitor makes a lot of sense for energy storage, but an engineer would have to decide between that and a battery. I think F1 should be closed cockpit like WEC prototypes and employ race spec air condition in the cockpit to keep temps under control so a battery might make more sense. The last idea is up in the air, but imagine ONLY and MGU-H with no exhaust driven turbine ruining sound. And electric compressor, aka and electric centrifugal supercharger to add torque to a 2 liter straight 6.
Well racing and aircraft technologys did always pretty well 😅 so it is worth a shot I mean just look at the resach that was done in the 1940s too 1950s with airplanes (especially the engines) and how the technology slowly moved over racing too common tech for example turbo charging 😅 intercooler fuel injection etc even same stuff that didn't make the last step has its Routes in fighter planes like NOS or water-methanol injection and also aerodynamic knowledge I mean most wings today use still the NACA airfoil Profiles (NACA Was kinda pre SpaceAge NASA)
tbf he said "other than safety", which does bring some constraints and also it being track racing means the truly powerful stuff like rocket engines and (for the most part) turbofan jets are out of the picture bc they are way too slow at cutting power for quick braking and they don't provide nearly the low-speed (sub-100kph/60mph) acceleration that electric motors and internal combustion engines can provide. jets and rockets also require a ton of fuel, and only truly reach their fuel efficiency potential at high cruise speeds (around 300kph/200mph for turbofans, mach 4-5 for scramjets, and like mach 10 or so for rockets in the lower atmosphere) if someone can come up with a turbofan jet that can quickly reverse its thrust, that with an electric motor partly charged by the jet to boost low-speed acceleration could work if you can solve the fuel problem.
@@dead-claudia a torbofan produces thrust from air. I think people are talking about a turbine generator running at full power coupled to a high power electric engine.
I used to be an engineer and I would have loved the opportunity to design a completely new type of engine. The things that come to mind that i would experiment with would be, taking your block choice for some simplicity and going two stroke with a typical 4 stroke crankcase and valve design. Use the turbo for expelling exhaust, then continuing to charge the cylinder after the exhaust is flushed. Then push more towards the diesel style by using high pressure direct injection after tdc, may not be feasible but I'm tired and just playing. I would keep the hybrid turbo basics but replace the battery with a vacuum fly wheel. I would also add an additional combustion method for the turbine to speed it up and extract more of its existing potential. Like i said I'm not at my sharpest and just felt like playing and trying to re-live the good old days of conceptualizing before then spending a lot of time trying to figure out why it won't work until reaching a point that it might. Conceptualizing was one of my favorite parts especially with others and trying to see if you have an idea worth continuing to think about.
@@maxjtj31 that's a good question. I am just spit balling at the moment. If I'm not mixing anything up the cylinder actually clears itself quite a lot before the stroke due to the high pressure. So I think to be more clear the energy from the cylinder that would go into driving the turbine side would be mostly at the beginning of exhaust valve opening and it's the heat that drives all the work in the cylinder or the turbine. After that time the compressor would clear the remaining exhaust, if that was even necessary, both intake and exhaust valves would be open so other than friction of back pressures the turbo wouldn't use much energy. We have 10 cylinders contributing to this overlapping each other. I am also pretty sure the actual stroke doesn't contribute anything to the turbine. Once the exhaust valve closes though things will get very different. Not only will you be adding charge but you will be doing it against the up stroke which might be a mistake, maybe it would be better to keep the intake closed until most of the compression stroke is complete. The amount of compression I'm talking about is well above anything that would detonate gasoline, ethanol might help, or diesel. Basically as high a compression as you can possibly get in the cylinder without breaking anything and you will need a very clever means of cooling the compressed air down. Remember part of the system is using a recovered energy method to drive the compressor or compressors just instead of a battery hybrid I suggested a vacuum enclosed fly wheel. Also the turbine will be getting help from fuel being injected and ignited into the exhaust stream before entering the turbine. This turbine(s)/compressor(s) I see as being multi stage more simply a low and high pressure stage. A turbo engine I've joked is a turbine engine with a ridiculously complicated combustion chamber. What I'm trying to push towards here is still having a piston engine which is still important for certain driveability aspects but lean really hard into the jet engine power density side of things. Does that help?
Isn’t each cylinder part of the same pre-turbo manifold system while the exhaust valves are open? I don’t think the turbo would ever decrease the pressure of this system vs not having a turbo at all but I could be wrong. Couple more ideas - freevalve style pneumatic valves - tube feed on top and bottom of valve retainer inside a sealed cylinder - constant air pressure provided by engine pump and single servo per valve that adjust where air pressure is directed - above or below the valve retainer for each valve. Also for the powered turbo (or mug-h or whatever it’s called) - a super capacitor and motor might do the trick. Extremely detailed modulation and pretty much no limits on short term power - no mechanical and friction inefficiencies that a flywheel would have and much less waste than would come from charging and discharging a battery rapidly. Could probably get around 20 Wh/kg with a good bespoke graphene supercap. 150 kW in short burst would probably be enough for the electric turbo, so at 20 Wh/kg that’s 70 kW*seconds/kg. So 1 second of 150 kW per 2 kg of supercap.
@@chuckp6667 something I just thought of as well - you could have a 3rd turbine on the same shaft as the exhaust and intake turbines that creates negative pressure for the point of extracting exhaust gasses. You could have one exhaust valve on each cylinder connected to the main exhaust turbine and the other exhaust valve connected to a separate manifold that connects to the reverse turbine. With the pneumatic valves you could have the valve attached to the traditional turbo open to initially to send energy that way to power the system, then once that exhaust energy is extracted, close that valve and open the valve to the reverse turbo, sucking the rest of the exhaust out, then that one closes and the intake valves open and force the insanely high boost into the cylinder before it’s too far past bottom dead center.
@@maxjtj31 vacuum sealed fly wheels are extremely energy dense and very efficient. This means very high reliability and ease of use and implementation as opposed to just a different type of electrical storage that would still require a motor to use the stored energy. The valves wouldn't just be wide open all the time the exhaust valve would just be open for that amount of time to clear the last bit of exhaust if that is even necessary with the amount of charge that will ultimately be put in the cylinder. I'm pretty sure very large marine 2 strike diesels already use a similar technique. As far as fancy individually controlled valves and intricate systems go, I've heard people talking about these things for a long time but they can't seem to make them reliable. Most of what I'm suggesting doesn't require anything that isn't in some type of mainstream use. This means reliability should be reasonable to achieve because most of the components are already common use either in an engine or other commercial/industrial application. Nothing theoretical or requiring extensive r&d except the need to extremely increase the strength of the engine components. The charge air cooling system would also be challenging. To clarify the turbo components would be designed using jet turbine methods, things like single crystal grown turbines that are able to take heat much in excess of any automotive style turbo. Not much in this design would require the use of new technology, just repurposed existing and proven technology for the need to be reliable. The swept displacement of this engine would be very low. I should have reread what I wrote but when I think I said both valves would be open at the same time, I meant for a very short time, just enough to clear the remaining exhaust products, this is to avoid the exhaust stroke.
I will admit, subarus seem to be bad because of the kind of engine and Trans not doing so well, one or the other causes the problem and something fails. Lots of potential but it hasn't been done well in anything but a porsche. That low rpm torque of a flat 4 subie with a still decent rpm range just needs to be perfected mechanically, for some reason I haven't seen them do it well enough to gain recognition around it. Without a crazy amount of maintenance ofcourse.
They usually have one thing that is likely to go wrong (like head gaskets on some), but if you can avoid the failure point or replace it quickly, they do run forever. But I guess a Toyota does too, without having an expected failure.
I wouldn’t discount rotary engines. I think Rob Dahm’s 4 rotor is making upwards of 1500 horsepower in a relatively compact package, so I wonder what F1 engineers could do with a turbo 4 rotor, without the restrictions of using a mix of old Mazda road car parts and off the shelf aftermarket stuff.
Im not a bigtime f1 fan but if im not mistaken, nowadays they limit how much fuel you get for the race period, regardless of how much you can hold on board.
6:25 The Comprex supercharger is a genius design. It's basically a hollow pipe with 2-stroke-like gas ports, with a spinning airtight paddle wheel inside. The exhaust goes into the drum on one end, and pushes the air directly into the intake on the other end, and the spinning motion makes the exhaust gases miss the intake manifold port right as they approach it. The gas is reflected into the opposite direction where there's an open exhaust port, and on the same side soon opens the fresh air port that sucks in the air as the escaping exhaust gases leave behind vacuum.
as much as i love the s4 i feel like the supercharger would just take up too much space. packaging is the name of the game and only using turbos takes up way less room. considering power is relatively easy to make with turbos + modern technology and 3000+ hp is unusable i feel like the engineers would try make the smallest engine possible to maximize the aero solutions. It's ironic but the answer might be v6 turbo 😂
Or even better their group S engine. Essentially, the intake is coming straight down with 1 turbo on each side. The intake valves are not next to each other but rather across from each other. A correct inlet angle causes a vortex in the cylinder to form, improving efficiency. The 2 exhaust valves are also across from each other, 1 on the left and 1 on the right side of the engine. The packaging becomes not too dissimilar to a V6/V8. It would be a bit taller and longer in the middle, but coke bottling around the turbos gives room for aerodynamics.
The problem with 4 banger/inline engine, they cannot be stuctural like V6 to V12. Since mid 90, the rear of the car is only supported buy the engine and gearbox assembly. Since a V is wide it's quite strong, as opposed as an inline engine way more narrower. It would mean additionnal support in the chassis. In fact Williams made a 1.6 Inline 4 with F1 regulation in mind in early 2010, but FIA then choose V6 instead of inline 4. This engine is on the Jaguar prototype CX-75 (probably tuned down). Twin charger today's means nothing, there were a solution to turbo lag back in '80, since then we found multiple "weight free" solutions to reduce lag.
@@LMSCa18detI’m sure they could be made to be structural… if the rules are unlimited they would come up with a way with materials and the tech to do it.
The end part is a bit of a misnomer. Remember you have no rules. No one said you had to make the most powerful engine which would fit in that box. You would look at the whole car and its grip levels, work out the ideal power level to make best use of that and then go for the smallest, lightest options to hit that power target. For instance if you need less power you can run smaller turbos. If you run smaller turbos you're in less need of the hybrid stuff so that can go and suddenly you're a good number of kg's lighter and still well over the power level the car could use.
Spot on. You have to define if any rules apply to the rest of the car and then design around that. Assuming the car had to be driven by a human, I doubt it would use a V12 because in the absence of engine rules, I'd imagine you could get sufficient power from a smaller, lighter package with fewer cylinders or a Wankel.
@@dethak With no rules a rotary or a two stroke would almost certainly be the way to go - depending on power level and grunt required. They are usually quite a bit better in the power-weight department and with some development (which they have mostly been lacking for a few decades) they have the potential to make a lot more still. Lets be honest here - a boosted four rotor is likely to be able to hit any power level you could reasonably use on a track and it would be a darn sight smaller and lighter than a V12 which would only serve to light up the tyres every time you went near the throttle.
Agree. Taking the most recent rotary, the CR700W’s engine is just 34cm long and 24cm in diameter, weighing only 24kg, or 43kg including the six-speed, Nova Transmissions gearbox. Claimed output is 220bhp.
Sleeve valve. An ICE engine is at base, an air pump. If the engine restrictions were removed someone would try a liquid cooled sleeve valve engine, like the Napier Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. The Sabre engine produced 1.36 HP per cubic inch using relatively low octane gasoline (by present standards) and a low compression ratio of 7:1. A sleeve valve setup had the highest volumetric efficiency of the WW II aircraft engines. With no poppet valves, valve float and binding cannot occur. The complexities of the engine were a problem for front line fighter maintenance, but not such a problem in a race car, where teardown and rebuild is a given. And THEN you had turbocharging!
Why not just go full on Brute Force 2-Stroke? In the 90s Moto GP already got 450hp/l in their 500cc 4 cylinders on 98 Octane. Modern CFD has made a massive Difference in new Designs, same for Nitromethane. I would abandon 4 Strokes altogether. A Wankel or Liquid Piston would also be interesting, same for Turboshaft Engines, all of which can be pushed far beyond Reciprocating Engine Power Levels with relative ease.
If you talk about 1930 F1, yes youre right But we live in 2024. Sleeve valve aren't even exist anymore because surprise surprise, it can't go higher rev than 6000 RPM, even on post WW2 automobile engine. And guess what poppet valve does? 7000? 8000? 13000 RPM, at same era Sleeve valve are merely stopgap from worse poppet valve and better poppet valve. Heck, with same mental gymnastic to justify modern sleeve valve, you can developed better desmodromic valve and no float occur, at all.
0:19 nice seeing Cleetus Mcfarland on a random F1 video even though it's just for stock footage! Solid guy and I think everyone from the car community and the motorsport community including me really loves the guy!
Retired f1 engineer taught me tons about toluene. After lost of work in the fuel system to keep corrosion away, that is almost a cheat code for adding boost. It doesn't detonate nearly as early as most other fuels. I only ram about 15% but even that made a huge difference in how you could tune boost as well as ignition curves.
Toluene powered turbo rotary engines might be an idea because power density. Or, hell, two-strokes. You *might* have a hybrid (supercaps, no charge or discharge limit) and AWD. And active aero, active suspension, traction control, all that. No, boxers are not basically 180 degree V engines. Boxers have opposite piston power strokes happening simultaneously. Which means, the engine pictured at 10:15 is not a boxer.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary Ran on hydrogen - Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets.. creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion! Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking! But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
I was very disappointed not to hear any mention of two-strokes or rotaries, or of fuel technologies (they even did a video on Toluene and other "rocket fuels" a couple years ago), or other banned things like Beryllium alloys or ECU items like "Party Mode". Hell, ECU shenanigans could probably be its own video. The whole conclusion just seems very weird too. I mean, start with the question of how much power the modern F1 chassis can practically use (2000hp? 2500hp? more?) and work backwards from there to find the smallest lightest package that can output that power with a moderately usable powerband and enough reliability to finish the race distance 90% of the time. Instead they started with a couple of things they like... but then wound up with something bigger, heavier, and less efficient, with too much power for the chassis... The more interesting question would be whether we are assuming you are allowing refuelling or not for this theoretical engine. I have to assume given the premise that you would be allowing refuelling and any fuel tank size. At SOME point the fuel usage would become so excessive that the time saved per lap would be outweighed by the extra stops... especially if you're also shredding tires. If you're NOT allowing refuelling, then an MGU-K could be very desirable if the efficiency increase from the MGU-K allows you to save more fuel weight than the weight of the hybrid system.
@@toolbaggers Actually hydrogen has among the worse possible energy densities (energy per unit volume). Even in liquid form it has less than a third the energy density of gasoline. It has the best Specific Density (energy per unit mass), but you would need to tow a blimp behind the car to fuel it, and then you're still going to struggle to make any power out of the engine because you'd only be able to fit a tiny bit of hydrogen into the cylinder. Now, if you don't want to tow a blimp consider this: a 700-bar carbon fibre tank weighs 96kg in order to hold 5kg of hydrogen. So in order to carry the same energy as a 220L (159kg) gasoline tank you would need only 48kg of hydrogen... but 931kg of fuel tanks.
I’ve often contemplated how the F1 landscape would look if the rules allowed manufacturers to use whatever form of propulsion they wanted with a cap on fuel amounts and type. The premise would be a race of 25-50 laps with a capped amount for qualifying and race. Those that complete the laps would be ranked by time and those that come up short would be placed according to distance travelled. While I’m sure many would arrive at similar conclusions, it would be cool to return to an era where each manufacturer had varied configurations, cylinder numbers, displacements, and use of turbos/superchargers/hybrid batteries.
Using gasoline is so boring though. Get that alcohol based fuel in there with the insane air to fuel ratios, and add in some nitros for even more oxygen.
@@wile123456 Set up a standard, where you take a base amount of gasoline, and other fuels are allowed in amounts calculated by cost and pollution factors. I've been posting this exact suggestion of an open engine formula based around a set fuel amount for YEARS. I really believe I can make a rotary that has WAY WAY better fuel economy, making it a monster for such a series
I remember talking to someone who had been working on a 2-stroke F1 engine. The basic plan was to combine as many Formula A kart engines together (each producing ~30hp and rev up to 20K rpm) onto a single drive shaft, with a modular design to swap out modules for quick "rebuilds". I was told that a FIA rule change mandating 4-stroke engines killed the project - would have loved to see it work though.
I suspect that 2 stroke engine was omitted in the rules due to the dirty emissions of 2 stroke engines.. To stop further development of that engine design.. It would certainly be interesting to definitely get a lot of power in a small package..
What about an intercooler? Light and efficient. Also, if we start to gain too much power, we can remove some pistons to gain some power-to-weight. Also, very wide/deep wheels and a suction device linked to the timing belt, to glue the vehicle to the track.
I’ve always wanted f1 to go to a “no technology limits” model, and just limit engine capacity, fuel load and price cap. Imagine a 500cc hybrid turbo AWD variable aero and active suspension. It would lead to so much real world application development.
I think they should only specify the fuel and amount of fuel used. And everytime cars would get dangerously fast, they would just decrease fuel used. Also, I would free up electricity demands. Battery is mostly dead weight in 2 hours long race, so it would only be used for energy recovery. Also it would be super useful for actual real life engines, as it would focus on increasing fuel efficiency.
@@geekswithfeet9137 "displacement isn’t a technology, it’s a scale" It's almost the opposite of a scale because if you limit the displacement they'll just add turbo's or find some slick way of putting the valves outside "the cylinder". The only real scale would be available fuel; give them X gallons and "that's it", if you run out you run out.
Someone should make an experimental racing series where the only rules are a standardized car, and the companies can do whatever they want with the powertrain. Call it FX or F0
and maybe even allow mixed electric and gas, to let them compete on that some safety requirements do need to exist tho, but that could be part of the standardized car frame.
A Centrifugal supercharged, 32 Cylinder, 8 liter, piston port, two stroke DIESEL, Four row, radial, with ten speed gear box. It makes well over 1,500 HP at a weight about half that of the 1,350 HP BMW mentioned before the Commel. The size is also much less than you mentioned. RPM can go to 22,000 RPM, but that is not required for the listed power. Then you use a blow down power recovery turbine to form a Turbo-Compound engine. With the standard 1500+ HP is doubled to +3,000 HP! Now for the best part, EVERYTHING IS OFF THE SHELF PARTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PRODUCTION FOR AGES!! Lighter weight and weight distribution, better aero, All encompassing body to cover the huge rear tires, or all four if you like, and the Underbody Venturi for huge down force and Hydro-dynamic suspension to down load the entire car with three to four times the current load!
Diesel is terrible for the short f1 races. Makes sense for endurance races where you need to save on pitstops to get ahead. Alcohol based fuels with higher oxygen ratios than gasoline makes more sense
Nice idea, but if you're going to use a diesel engine for an application where power to weight ratio matters a great deal, then it should be an opposed-piston design as well as using the 2-stroke cycle. This eliminates the need for a bulky and heavy cylinder head, and is what the first diesel aircraft engine did - the Junkers Jumo 205, which was an efficient and successful engine design at the time (during World War 2), and subsequently inspired the design of the Napier Deltic, which worked in a similar way. Also, just a small point, but I thought a genuine radial engine needed to have an odd number of cylinders per row? Some early versions had 3 or 5, whereas most radials made and used during WW2 (and for a couple of decades post-war) had either 7 or 9. I think a few have been made with 11, but these were comparatively rare.
When I was in engineering school I designed a compound radial-turbine engine. At the front end was an axial compressor, like a jet engine. Then there was a five or seven cylinder radial engine, like a radial aircraft engine. Most of the hot compressed air would bypass the radial, but enough air for combustion air would bleed into the radial. Then the radial exhaust would mix with the bypass air to further heat it, more fuel would be added, and then combusted through a gas turbine. The power shaft from the turbine would be linked to the radial engine crankshaft with a double planetary gearset, giving about an 8:1 RPM reduction that would put the power shaft and crankshaft at the same speed. The radial was set up as a two-stroke diesel configuration and both the radial and the turbine would use kerosene or jet fuel as a fuel. The power and torque characteristics of both engine units were very complimentary. I got an "A+" grade on my design.
I wish there was just a racing category with no rules on anything other than safety, so we would be able to see engineers actually push everything to it's limits, with different body shapes and things like cars with fans
Turbocharged two strokes. No valves so lighter and smaller, allowing more displacement per space. No wasted piston strokes. Can be done with dry sump lubrication, so no lost power from oil in the fuel. Tuned pipe exhaust further raising power.
Take a turboshaft, let it rev to wherever it is putting out all of its power (baby!) and transfer it with a cvt or a centrifugal clutch (whatever works really, i'm lost here) like that old williams, use the intake to suck the air from where would be a high pressure area (like the thrust ssc), and the exhaust to both blow some aero part and create pressure so that air from parts in front of it would be pulled to it (like gordon murray's T.50's underside uses its fan[?]). Now stick something to make a lot of electricity out of it and send it straight to the front axle's electric engines (no batteries, just a howling jet!). all thats left is bonkers aero that takes advantage of what i just describe and a mad active suspension to keep that within its operating range. Now all we need is videogame-like tracks that makes those things go vertical, upside down, loops, jump from canyons and go sideways with a werid ass 4wheel steering system. (speed racer theme growing louder)
turboshaft from a helicopter coupled to a generator, with 4 hub-motor electric motors in each wheel to give you very precise wheel torque vectoring and traction control. Basically like a diesel electric locomotive.
Fun fact.. i designed the lotus in the beginning when i was about 8.. the initial design was made out a small pine wood block and we used to race them against each other down a handbuilt wooden sloped track. We weren't even allowed engine back then. Rules were super strict. We instead used lead weights to try and go faster. That was the only goal. Go faster.
@@deathtrooper2048 sure its slower than LMP era to cut cost i think. Hybrid not mandatory tho, AM will run Naturally Aspirated based on the info, Caddy also N/A
No tech limits would get me interested in racing again. Anyway, I'm an engineer but not in the automotive space. What I think makes the most sense is a turbine connected to a generator, with super capacitors, and an elective drive train. Turbines like constant load, and are terrible at acceleration. They spin at high speeds making mechanical gearboxes complex. Meanwhile, electric motors are great at torque - this is why most trains are diesel electric rather than using mechanical transmissions. Anyway, supercaps can charge and discharge much faster than any battery, allowing you to decelerate into a corner, fully charge the supercaps, then throw down gobs of torque - all while keeping your turbine at constant speed providing baseline power for the vehicle. I also think a similar design (but using batteries) makes sense for consumer vehicles. When your tesla is low but you're almost home, you can just put 1 gallon of gas in, and the turbine will recharge the electric system. Or put in 10 gallons while on a road trip.
I heard some manufacturer (Jaguar?) investigated it, with a small gas turbine constantly making a few dozen kW, then a set of batteries and electric motors to actually drive the car. I think it was discontinued due to cost of operating the turbine (wear and tear, maintenance, etc.).
"I also think a similar design (but using batteries) makes sense for consumer vehicles. When your tesla is low but you're almost home, you can just put 1 gallon of gas in, and the turbine will recharge the electric system. Or put in 10 gallons while on a road trip." Isn't this basically what MAZDA is doing with their new rotary generators?
A point of clarification. You said keeping the rpm low keeps the reciprocating mass down. Mass doesn't change with speed, only kinetic energy, so keeping the rpm low keeps the kinetic energy low.
@@dougerrohmer G force is unrelated to mass. Its how quickly something changes direction. It's an acceleration, but mass usually plays a role in how quickly or not, something can accelerate. With that said, a heavy object changing direction will experience a massive strain when changing direction fast
Light is always better. But, a fan would drastically change the body and driving. You could carry much more speed around the corners and wouldn’t need as much power.
I stood next to a 16 cylinder BRM engine getting warmed up/revved at Goodwood. It was utterly insane. It genuinely felt like an earthquake and the fumes were making my eyes stream with tears. To this day I've never experienced anything like that.
instead of the battery, you could try using a supercapacitor like the Lamborghini Sian FKP, they would be far, far lighter, and the energy output would be even faster than a battery. You could use the super cap to fill in the performance gaps of the ICE, and make an even more potent combo
its not lighter. those store only a fraction of power compared to battery. but its true if you need to store only for few seconds it would work the best.
some supercapacitors are just modified batteries btw batteries can be designed for rapid discharge, tho that usually comes at the cost of energy storage density (why evs are such a technological challenge for battery manufacturers - they need both, and even lithium ion only half fits the bill)
Supercapacitors don't contain enough nearly enough energy. The formula is E = 0.5 * C * V^2, increasing capacitance doesn't really do anything, and supercapacitors (currently) only work at extremely low voltages so you'd need a crap load of them. Supercapacitors haven't even really approached the point where they can store enough energy to reliably replace the lead acid battery for your starter motor. Nothing "stores" energy better then combustible fuel, from a purely theoretical standpoint a lithium battery will never beat the energy density of an equal volume of gasoline. A battery needs a conductive anode (copper / lead), an electrolyte (polymer / sulfuric acid), a conductive cathode (lithium / lead), and finally an insulator (plastic / paper). With a combustible fuel you only need a fuel (gasoline / methanol), and an oxygen (air / NOS / LOX). Anything someone says there's a revolutionary new EV tech that will beat ICE on range, they're lying and that's why - it is theoretically impossible to have a battery that stores more energy then a combustible fuel.
@@AzathothsAlarmClock Flywheels have gyroscopic precession, Supercapacitors contain very little energy, Lithium and combustion are the only thing that makes any sense for automotive purposes. And combustion is the only thing that makes sense for hauling long distances.
I think a Prodrive-style "rocket" anti lag system could eliminate the need for a second turbo to bridge turbo lag, as a big single turbo could be always kept at high rotation speed.
@@theKashConnoisseur MGU-H could power the front axle like 4wd, they just need to be clever with the wiring to get the needed torque, no battery needed, the wheels will spin the turbo itself.
I grew up about 16 miles from Watkins Glen, New York racetrack. My father had told me that in the 70's was a formula one car that had a big fan under it that would draw the car tight to the track and would exhaust the air out the back. He told me that they could no longer use that technology because drivers were complaining about the debris showering them well driving behind that type of car.
Did I miss the part where you discussed exotic fuels? There is more power to be had using them, safety be damd. Also, I heard no mention of rotary valve tech, or other camless tech. And more discussion of using gas turbine power would be interesting, much progress has been made with those... But this was still a fascinating thought exercise, thank you D61!
The bugatti W16 is technically A VVR16. The engines heritage came from the VR6 on the golf. Then they double it up with two banks of VR6 hence, the W12 in bentleys. Then they thought "lets make the ultimate engine by adding 4 more cylinders!" said those germans.
You dismissed the rotary too quickly, and never even considered a two-stroke. In SCCA racing there used to be a 2-stroke car that was unbeatable until it was banned. Double the power strokes, fewer moving parts, lighter weight. A lot of possibilities to ignore.
Wrong approach! You should be looking at what would be the max Hp needed to build the fastest car. Example: 2000hp then go about designing the perfect setup to achieve 2000hp with preferential parameters like packaging size, weigh, rpm, fuel consumption and and and
Love me or hate for it, but I gotta say, that BRM type-15 diagram at 7:41 is one sexy mamma jamma. Just looking at it makes me imagine some sort of steampunk airship - I love it.
I apologize for my English, and also for my ignorance. I would like to ask why F1 doesn't use electric motors placed in the front wheels to anticipate accelerations when exiting corners.
There was a time when F1 was full of different concepts, the golden age of F1. Today's F1: now you're too fast, now you're too slow, safety first, the track is too dangerous, not city racing - a family friendly show.
It would easily just be a Turboshaft Hybrid engine and supercapacitors (instead of batteries) with some powerful speakers to make it sound like a V10 😂
hear me out: Boxer-8, 2.0L, titanium internals (crank, rods and pistons), double rotary valves for each piston (also made out of titanium), billet block and head, variable geometry turbo, timing gears and variable valve timing. expect at least 800HP to 1000HP out of this (would probably make much more) and way over 15k RPM redline. plus perfect balance (as it is a Boxer-8) and fewer moving parts because of the rotary valves plus less torque being wasted on opening the valves and no valve float at all. it is not a very complex engine btw, if you want to make it complex take off the timing gears and swap it straight for a little eletric motor that will spin the valves and connect it to the ECU so it will act like a Freevalve. this would be an absolute beast, no need for hybrid motors, but if you want one, go on, add one too. also wouldnt have much turbo lag because of modern tecnology and the ammount of cylinders.
I feel like if there was unlimited budget, we'd see some kind of jet or capacitor. Perhaps not for racing but definitely if we're just building for a single lap.
I'm pretty sure it would be a series turbine-electric like they use on trains. Jets don't like running at low or variable RPM, but if they are just turning a generator, then the electric motors on the other side can handle all of that gracefully. Then add a battery in there to add some oomph coming out of corners. The only remaining question is if you can make a good, small gas turbine engine.
@@motominded5275 so... I have done gas turbine (jet and rocket engine) design classes before, and if I remember anything from them, things don't usually "just scale up" or "just scale down". There are various problems with that, mostly relating to blade working area, local speed of sound, and Reynolds numbers. Furthermore, the size of an ECU doesn't change much whether the engine makes 500 or 5000 horsepower; that means that it's going to hurt the 500 HP engine's weight and size disproportionately compared to the 5000 HP one.
@@JMurph2015 yeah - it doesn't scale 1:1, but it certainly scales.....an even more extreme example is SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine), it's turbopump is rated at something like 85,000HP and the size people quote is "about the size of a car engine", who knows in reality how it could be packaged but it's a single use TP that could be scaled down to produce thousands if not tens of thousands HP in a smaller form function than we currently see on the shuttle. Std. aircraft turbines don't scale well since they are designed for thousands of hours of use and have to have impeccable reliability ratings over those thousands of hours unlike a rocket that is single use and rebuild, more sim. to a F1 engine. Reality it would be somewhere in between rocket TP and a aircraft Turbine if custom manuf. no rules by a F1 team, the technology, material science and components are out there to make 85,000HP, power to weight is off the charts.....power to fuel consumption, who knows....but with a lighter engine you can add more fuel, but how much power do you really need? I can't imagine over 2-3k would be useful....seems to me you start to get into the realm of prioritizing packaging constraints, aero, balance, reliability, fuel consumption and all the other things that become more important as long as you have enough HP.
Many, actually. He just kept discarding architectures for no reason, like the W based on the old design when Bugatti's ones wouldn't have so much trouble in regard to packaging
Do we really wanna ditch the hybrid system? Without rules we can recover and deploy far more energy than what is currently allowed under F1 rules. The added weight can be offset by using a smaller engine since it no longer needs to be as powerful. Also, the improved fuel efficiency means we don’t have to carry around as much fuel, saving weight that way. Without rules we don’t even have to use batteries. We could use flywheels, for example, which are far lighter and can store more energy than batteries.
When you thump the table with your elbows, it booms my home theatre subwoofer - not annoyingly so, but enough to be noticeable. You may wish to equalise out bass below 240hz, that should do it. Interesting video too, thanks for exploring this.
Look at the engine in the Yaris GR. 300hp from a 1.5l Turbo I3 Now lets make that a V6 with 3l displacement 600hp? But that engine is tuned to last, but what if we tuned it to last 10 races or so? 750hp? Now you can lose weight from the removal of batteries.
Dude your answer is ridiculous im sorry. The CURRENT f1 engines are only 1.6 liters v6 and make 1000hp. Whatever you are on about is a waste of thought and time honestly.
Ahh, You crowning the 1980 BMW engine really tickles me nice. The story behind it is awsome, too. I have to confess: at the times I didn´t like F1 at all. Now I´m a grown man, became a hobby mechanic and still look for the BMW poster that showed the engine with glowing headers, it looks so cool (pun intended). If someone would like to part from such poster I´d be glad to start negotiations.
Keeping the engine reliable and less complex seems like a pretty good idea in the overall design. You 1st have to finish the race, and the season on top to be the best. A simple design, which produces a reliable amout out of power. Say a V12 twin turbo with around 1000hp.
I would keep MGU-K for efficiency and save the battery weight by moving away from a chemical battery. I'd use a mechanical flywheel battery. More efficient electrical energy conversion, quicker charge & discharge rates, and if you orient the flywheel correctly, it's rotation provides a gyroscopic force that directly counters 1 degree of freedom in any roll axis you choose. I.e., you would be able to use the grip of all 4 tires through a turn cause you directly counter the lateral load transfer. Williams tried this in the '90s I believe before it was banned because it would require other manufacturers to change chassis design mid-season. Same reason a lot of good innovations have died... I would also include a J-damper (a.k.a live damper) in the nose with a linear alternator attached (think 2000's Renault). Gives electrical power from bumps/curbs at every corner entry, apex & exit.
Back in the 1960s it was being suggested that you merely limited the fuel to a certain number of Btus for the race. No other engine limits. It becomes the engine designers task to balance power, mass, external volume and economy to get to the end of the race as soon as possible. Super powerful and you run out of fuel before the end. Directs design towards efficiency. Run on coal in a steam engine if you want, turbine, H24 turbo running on sponsors brandy if that is what you want. It all gets out of hand with ridiculous levels of power? Just adjust the ration of Btus for future races downwards. The wildest idea mentioned at the time was to feed a spool of thermite into a water tank and use the high pressure steam either as a rocket jet or through a turbine.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary Ran on hydrogen - Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets.. creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion! Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking! But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
@@martynclinton8092 You don't need banks... Just make it a 6 rotors burning hydrogen with the hybrid turbo that uses the heat mentioned in the video. This would be crazy... Maybe add a small motor at the crank just for some extra torque in the very low rpm. 🔥
I would say: turbine, small buffer battey bank, and a small transmission with only the highest gears to be used on straights (everything else - series hybrid)
That was my First thought too, but after calculating, the current Tech doesn't deliver yet. Imagine two 800hp e-motors at a total of 80kg. Then you need 1600hp of electric Power. Split that to an 800 HP Generator and an 800hp battery (assuming 100% charging efficiency). LIPO batteries are at a Power density(not Energy density) up to 430W/kg. So you need a 140 kg battery to prevent voltage collapsing or overheating. But that's without cooling. So the package already weighs more than a current F1 engine + Gearbox but you still need an 800HP Generator.
@@kooooons Your "battery" (supercap) would be moderately sized as you'd run mostly direct from the turbine-generator and would mainly exist for conditioning and ERS. Huge advantages in efficiency from being able to run at ideal RPM all of the time. Also would be relatively simple along with having exceptional reliability.
@@KingSvenDeluxe The highest discharge Rates of LIPO batteries are at 85C. That means they completely discharge in less than a Minute. At that point Energy density gets more important than power density and I think LIPO batteries easily beat supercaps at that. So yeah, you need less supercaps for 800Hp but those wouldn't last a long straight and once you have enough of them to last a long straight they are heavier than the lipos were. Btw: That AMZ Mythen record EV that accelerated to 100 km/h in less than a second was also powered by bespoke LIPO batteries and not by supercaps and im pretty sure they know more about this and would have had the means to do otherwise. So maybe supercaps are a bit of a myth.
@@kooooons well, possible solution for long straights would be to just unload the generator, adjust exhaust for maximum thrust and use the turbine as a jet engine
Hybrid system which has no batteries. Like nissan did in one of their new cars, have teeny battery, use engine to charge it, and use electric motors to spin wheels. We could engage the engine to the wheels if we wanted even more power. Nitromethane engine, 4 motors (one per wheel with very good ecu for all the traction control). Perhaps we use mineral oil like Bugatti to cool the battery. Also a twin charger for the engine. The advatage of not always using the engine to directly power the wheels is that we can run it at its most efficient rpm. Basically rimac + qashqai + tourbillion. We can just do a really high torque engine with massive turbo lag, as it doesnt matter as the powertrain is fully controlled by the ecu. We could also imrove the turbo lag issue with (wait for it) a CVT. Peak torque, at all times, even when slowing down. The cvt might take ages to adapt to the speed the vehicle is travelling at, which is where the electric motors are useful. The engine is only really for top speed. Sorry for yappy comment but I think this would be really cool
Before I watch the video, I'm guessing they would still use 3 liter V10 but probably with electric turbo(eliminates the turbo lag) that makes around 1400 horse power and weights around 800kg. For even bigger power than this you'll need MASSIVE slick tires and a tons of downforce. I think 1400hp for a 800kg bolid is a sweet spot
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt hybrid didn't fail in F1, You are totally wrong about valves ua-cam.com/video/OZWeNPi2XkE/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/E9KJ_f7REGw/v-deo.html
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary Ran on hydrogen - Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets.. creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion! Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking! But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
Terrible design, great novelty for the 1970's, but vastly inferior to current technology. Inefficient, pollution of the 2-stroke like oiled combustion chamber is dirty. Thermally a complete mess, too many large critical flat surfaces subjected to uneven heat at high temps, low compression, inefficient combustion chamber design. I could go on, but why?
Right!? The Mazda 787B proved that you can make a reliable rotary, they're extremely small and light for their power, and they're extremely rev-happy. The R26B in the 787B weighs just 180 kg, and makes nearly 700 hp NA, imagine what you could do with another rotor or 2, forced induction, and maybe a power recovery turbine geared to the E-shaft to wrench some extra power off the exhaust
make a rotary, or not, throw turbo in the bin and instead feed that thing 90% nitromethane. just like in dragsters. engines there are basically stone age, but these engines outperform any other combustion engines. why? nitromethane. it has a lot of oxygen in itself, so its fuel to air ratio is like 1.5 parts of fuel to 1 part of air. but in dragracing its lowered to 0.5 to 1, because, well, monopropellant. more fuel burning - more power
@@gardenerofthesun Belated, but the problem here is track length - sure, you get an absolute buttload of power upfront, but you also run out of fuel in literally a minute or two tops. F1 is, unfortunately, not about going 'grug smash', flooring the pedal and going 0-400 in half a second, then running out of fuel and having to replace half your car, as funny as top fuel dragsters are Oh man, you'd get a hell of a first lap though, haha
In a wonderful bout of irony, I stumbled on this video whilst sitting in my cubicle at the Northrop test site where that shuttle rocket booster test took place. Cool vid!
Really Interesting look at what could be possible. I have often wondered about the solutions to more power/less weight if the rule book were to be dumped. One suggestion though, you really need an microphone isolation mount, especially one that is not connected to the desk - every time your elbows or arms touched the table there was a very audible "thump" transmitted to the mic. Drove me nuts! Ok, drove me more nuts. Cheers, Susi.
The last paragraph is the most significant. An unlimited engine could create more horsepower than the car/driver could use. We saw that when Porsche was in Can Am in the early 1970's. They could deliver 1100 hp for race conditions, 1350 hp for qualifying. Those cars literally had enough power to spin the rear wheels in forth gear. Corner to corner wheel spin. Modern aero is much better, but could it deliver 3 to 4 g's for the cars handling? Can a driver deal with those kinds of forces for the length of a race? There is a reason that racing classes put limits on engine development. In the US the top two race series have settled on targeting in car horse power for the race cars in the 650-750 hp range. This delivers race speeds commensurate with driver skills, and limits the maximum speeds of the cars to areas that can be more safely designed for. Think run off areas and barriers plus car chassis designs. Ultimately, and unrestricted engine rule means the team with the deepest pockets is always going to be the winner. Think of Penske and its one off Mercedes Indy car engine. All that development work to win one race knowing the sanctioning body would ban the engine immediately after the win.
IMO the turbine didn't get a fair shake because the only example was before hybrid drivetrains were a thing. It performed poorly because they have extremely slow throttle response and would require some really odd gear ratios. Using electric to move the wheels and a turbine to make the power is the best of both worlds.
This video is really disappointing, I expected this to be more like: "Right behind the driver is the Space Shuttle RS-25 engine which provides the 400,000 pounds of thrust necessary to reach Mach 1 exactly 0.21 seconds after leaving the starting grid. Once that speed is reached, the rocket and fuel tanks are jettisoned and the downforce-scramjet is able to activate to provide the 200,000 kilograms of downforce necessary to navigate turn 1 at 25 Gs. Now that the driver has been incapacitated, they too can be jettisoned to save weight, since F1 doesn't specify if the driver needs to be in control, or alive, when the car finishes the lap.
What is this comment 💀💀
Ha ha, excellent reply. I'm with you on this one, although jettison the driver? Only if the track is just a straight line for 70 miles and its stuck on a track.
@@stevemcilroy.62 It has a ejection seat capable of savely maneuvering to the side of the track XD
10/10 comment right here
Except that would murder the driver. G-forces are literally fatal.
This is something I would watch, basically a no-holds racing, wings, displacement, wheels, and turbo's all up for grabs; it would be like the wacky races.
Try watching Pikes Peak hillclimb races, if you already haven't.
Something like the Can-Am races, those were wacky races with innovative and not-so innovative designs
German hill climbing is basically this - wildly unique vehicles. The main limitation; diy budgets.
Yeah I'd love a racing series which has just some basic rules for the cars. Something like "Car must fit in X * Y * Z sized box, driver must be in the car, car + driver must weigh at least M kg." And have a budget gap so that some trillion dollar company can't throw a billion € per year into their Formula X team. Also the car should pass a crash test etc. so that crashes are at least somewhat survivable. If the cars are too fast and dangerous, you can always adjust the size, weight and budget limits so that you can't have too big engines or insane parts.
F1 has become lame because every time someone invents something new, it gets banned. How can you innovate if everything you can do is already dictated in technical regulations and if you do innovate something, it's deemed illegal or unfair?
I heard a song AbroadInJapan uses a lot and now I see wacky. Coincidence?
No limits hands down it ends up with a Wankel engine. Power to weight ratio is non comparable. Considering you can get 1000hp out of something a regular person can carry
Wrong
@@ThisIsGooglegood point, love your thought process and communication techniques
How many rotors would you want then?
Or a 2 stroke, similar specific output, but less complex and lighter
@@hello7533 Wankel engines are super simple. Even on conservative tunes nowadays a 4 rotor is 800+ HP NA
A couple of days ago, I ran across a pretty crazy engine. A 2.2L diesel making 1000hp. Yes, absolutely massively boosted, running about 135psi of boost on a relatively low compression core engine, only a 7.5:1 compression ratio inside. Total inlet air pressure of 150psi, ~10bar.
Engine also had a power recovery turbine downstream of the turbo that was geared to the crankshaft, with the turbo freely spinning based on gas flow.
It's a 120deg V6, 2-stroke with uniflow scavenging like a Detroit 71 Series. Intake ports in the bore, 4x exhaust valves in the head. Mechanical injector in the center of the 4 exhaust valves.
So the exhaust manifolds were on the inside of the vee and the turbo pushed air through an after cooler before it went into the cylinders.
Even though it was a diesel, this engine spun at about 6200rpm. It's got options for adding more fuel or a methanol/water mix in the intake to further cool the intake air. Got better cooling effect out of the methanol/water mix, but just adding more fuel meant less complexity in the overall system.
Whole package weighs about 432lbs/200kg, and was intended as an option for a helicopter powerplant. Garrett/DARPA Compound Cycle Engine.
I want to build one.
Diesel is goated
wtf?!
whattt???
Do you think they could mechanically sacrifice torque but gain total rpm which would then gain power? Even just to my time.playong forza... torque is great but only has a crazy difference when pulling weight through the gears, if that engine if making that much power as a diesel, what twould happen if it was made more efficiently for whatever weight the vehicle is and for the space it take up in the engine bay... a small wngine very efficiently putting down 1k hp would be great, I guess the real problem is lowering the boost as boost is just pressure and pressure is more danger. Higher the number the higher the risk.
@@nickhenley1338 Yeah, but this is the U.S. military we're talking about, if they really wanted it, they could probably throw enough money at it to make it real and fix all its problems
Nobody mentioned the gas turbine engine. See a 4 stroke only produces power 25% of the time, a 2 stroke 50%, a 1 stroke 100%. If you want a lot of power, the best way to go is a multistage gas turbine or rocket engine with a consistent 100% rotational output, then everything becomes balanced, almost no bearing drag from crankshaft torque, and no force wasted on moving valves up and down. When I say a lot of power, I'm talking well over 5,000HP for something you can fit in your car. Look at the M1 Abrams for instance, the engine in that thing puts out 1500HP stock for something that's smaller then some big block V8s that can barely do 1500HP after being built and tuned. It was built in the 70s and was made to reliably run on anything from dirty piss to jet fuel, while in a closed metal box with zero airflow in a 100 degree desert, not to make power. Piston engines are *not* suited for high power output, the only reason we use them is that they're cheap and really easy to mass produce. The forces inside piston engines do nothing but fight you the whole way from combustion to the crankshaft, any weight being flung up and down is a net energy loss. A turbine creates force in a purely rotational moment, the only power lost is from the compression stage and the bearing loss, which in a turbine is so small you can spin the thing by hand and it'll sit there and keep spinning for the next few seconds, try doing that with a piston engine.
spot on - Abrams tank turbine is tuned for field reliability and longevity and look at what it can do, if we look at single use type high performance turbines we start to see things like the Turbo Pumps on rocket engines, Space Shuttle for example, 85,000HP in a package not much bigger than a large V8....if that tech could be scaled down who knows where it would go. Billions of dollars invested and the smartest minds alive helped develop a cost is no objective Turbine engine from military to space.
@@motominded5275 It's has been proved time and time again to be really easy to scale down. Model airplanes have jet engines you can pickup and carry in your hand. Just a matter of someone spending the time and money to put one on a car.
Abrams engine weighs 2500 lbs... Thats a bit much for 1500 hp is it not?
Something I would think about is take the Honda V5 1000cc motorcycle engine and redesign for 2 stroke and turbo charging.
Then instead of 260hp from standard engine weighing 100lbs, hopefully it would be 1000 hp+. All that in a 100lbs package with very small dimensions. Mount it to a CVT to keep it at constant peak power.
With such a small engine you could shrink the car and make it very light. 1000lb car with modern aerodynamics and a constant 1000hp.
@@_AnanasIEgenJuice_ Dude, it's 2500lbs only because it's armored, and designed to be able to handle literal anti tank weapons going off right beside the intake. No matter what a turbine jet engine will always be more lightweight and more efficient then a 2 stroke, for the exact same reason a 2 stroke will always be more lightweight and more efficient then a 4 stroke. Thermodynamic efficiency is higher.
There's a couple more things also not considered with turbines. First is that you have the hot exhaust that you can work with. Not much reason to think that can't be used to generate more downforce. Second they tend to run more efficiently at high RPMs than low, which is where you really want it to be anyways for acceleration.
I htink if you free up engine configuration rules, BUT limit the amount of fuel that can be burnt, have minimum car weights with the relative safety and aero rules, you'd have some interesting innovation around engines.
Fuel is their go juice. Limit that and you only get innovation on more efficient cars
I want F1 to go to hydrogen combustion if they're not willing to ease up on engine regs. Not hydrogen fuel cells, mind you (otherwise it'd just be formula E with extra steps), hydrogen ICEs. All the same components and design of a gas engine, but with no hydrocarbons. They claim to want to innovate? There you go.
@@Majima_Nowherethey want a green F1 car, so just use sugarcane ethanol, the most green fuel to ever be invented because the plantation removes more CO2 from the atmosfere than it produces in the refinery and in the burning.
@@Nate-bd8fg "More efficient" is still good progress, and power will always matter to some extent - having a super-efficient engine is pretty useless for racing if if only makes 100bhp when your opponents have 1000bhp engines.
@@Majima_Nowhere Hydrogen would mean carrying around what more or less amounts to a bomb. Not to mention that you would need to carry like twice as much fuel as now, and you have a heavy ass car with a built in cryogenic bomb.
I'm surprised rotary wasn't the pick given packaging constraints.
because he took in consideration reliability
@@johnantonopoulous6381 if u can do an 24h race with it u should be able to do some f1 races
Rotary was underpowered, only won le mans by luck
900hp in quali trim is underpowered? @@erikheijden9828
It was slightly less powerful by design as it traded power for reliability. It could have reved much higher and made WAY more power.
Plus, turboing a rotary works extremely well because of the extended power stroke.
Regardless of type or displacement or power I just want the revs to go back to 18K rpms in F1.
The current V-6 can rev to 20k, but they artificially limit it (in the rules) for reliability purposes.
I miss the 1.5L turbo 4s vs 3.0 v12s. Should have multiple configuration options
@@asjmpickle Agreed but F1 isn't what it used to be.
Whatever brings back the sound of those 12 cylinder motors. Without those screams, formula one has lost all its magic. To achieve that sound you need high rev's and no turbochargers to disturb the exhaust gases.
Inline-6 and V12 are one of the best sounding engine configurations
for those who are looking for the real no rules question: xkcd has a video covering that. Ultimately the limiting factor is whether or not there has to be a driver, and whether the driver has to survive.
XKCD's video is about "nascar" but the principles would be the same for F1
Honestly there should be 2 rules for f1, a set budget and set amount of fuel per race. Name one aspect of racing that wouldnt be equalized with these two rules? Everything else would be up to the skill of the engineers of the car and the driver
i like it, would be fun to watch people's creations
The problem is how do you gage the budget? Materials, machining time, engineering, R&D. a $100,000 car with millions in research and development is not really a $100,000 car.
Budget. So how are they going to manage that? There's soooo many ways to cook the books that they'd need a fleet of auditors.
I think that's the playbook that Le Mans do for their races. They just set fuel limits for classes, and let the teams go full crazy with the designs, which give creations like diesel Audis, V4 Porsches, and even Front-wheel drive Nissans.
I expected this to go more like “FUCK IT, let’s shove a Merlin in.”
EDIT: Add the gun cowlings from a mustang to get the whistle, too.
Wouldn't fit in the one metre long box
Would sound amazing!
@@mulgerbill yeah, a lot of the sound of the Merlin is the prop tho, it’d be interesting to hear what it’s like when combined with race tires and tarmac.
@@judet2992 Technically top gear did, with the bentley meteor engine.
It's only missing the supercharger sound
Ford GAA powered open wheel car.
@@judet2992 - You've clearly never stood next to a Merlin while it's running
A rotary might actually work, if a manufacturer puts money into it. The reliability issues can be fixed by just throwing money at it. Also, rotary engines are extremly small, light and have a lot of power. They are basicly the ideal race engine.
Can agree with everything except the 'throw money at it' part, Ford and Toyota reaped nothing and spent every year more than the rest of the grid.
Honestly, rotary isn’t really that unreliable, they are okay for using as racing
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary
Ran on hydrogen -
Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen
And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets..
creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion!
Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over
A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking!
But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
Rotaries are technically more reliable than a piston engine, but not durable like one. Like an rx8 expect a rebuild every 90k miles iirc (whereas a piston engine can do 300k), but during that time, the rotary is less likely to develop an issue/broke down due to less moving parts, less complexity.
@@il-ma.le. The Reliability problems can be solved by using expensive materials for the rotor housing and apex seals. Considering how much money teams spend on their engines, it would be far from impossible to build an engine that can last a race no problem. Material science also has come a long way in the last 20+ years.
I cannot believe you completely overlooked the engine style banned in F1, The Mazda Wankel style motor. Time for a new video just on this engine.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary
Ran on hydrogen -
Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen
And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets..
creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion!
Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over
A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking!
But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
@@martynclinton8092 Would LH2 be worth using as a fuel given the added weight of the pressurized tank and all the insulation?
Every engine type is banned in F1, except 1.6 l V6 turbo-hybrids.
He didn't really overlook it as much as he just essentially said "it sucks for this so no".
@@J.C... Which is categorically untrue. Far superior engine tech exists much of which was already USED in F1 Indycar etc, but F1 banned it to keep costs down and make it more about "driving", thus the only real thing F1 can tinker with is Aero and why he mentions it so often. Idiot host has a gigantic WARPED view of F1.
Tip: Let the mic hang from something other than resting on the table.
Every time you emote with your arms and touch the table, there is a low frequency banging noise - which sounds like someone is jumping on the roof or the floor above.
Great video though :)
All things considered with weight and aero factored in, I think an inline 6 would be the best F1 engine. My calculations of about 2 liters would have the bore between 95-100mm. The inherent balance and smoothness and simplicity would be ideal for reliability and comfort. The firing order gives a nice torque curve as well. It would actually be very compact, since it would employ a dry sump and the intake would be on the side instead of the top, meaning one side pod for intake air and the other for cooling. Since I believe race cars neeed starter motors for safety, we might as well employ a compact but powerful MGU mainly to flatten the torque curve even more. The engine would rev quite easily to 20,000rpm and sound mentally good being half a v12 with more time between cylinder firings. Look up Honda CBX or Honda Valkyrie exhaust sound to get some idea. In a race car, a capacitor makes a lot of sense for energy storage, but an engineer would have to decide between that and a battery. I think F1 should be closed cockpit like WEC prototypes and employ race spec air condition in the cockpit to keep temps under control so a battery might make more sense. The last idea is up in the air, but imagine ONLY and MGU-H with no exhaust driven turbine ruining sound. And electric compressor, aka and electric centrifugal supercharger to add torque to a 2 liter straight 6.
I don't usually burst out laughing at the mention of an engine, but when you said "Pratt and Whitney", I couldn't help it! You've got to love Lotus!
Well racing and aircraft technologys did always pretty well 😅 so it is worth a shot I mean just look at the resach that was done in the 1940s too 1950s with airplanes (especially the engines) and how the technology slowly moved over racing too common tech for example turbo charging 😅 intercooler fuel injection etc even same stuff that didn't make the last step has its Routes in fighter planes like NOS or water-methanol injection and also aerodynamic knowledge I mean most wings today use still the NACA airfoil Profiles (NACA Was kinda pre SpaceAge NASA)
@@TheLtVoss ... girling brakes.
all the cooling tech we use today was developped during ww2.
How about Continental?
The Howmet TX won a couple of races in the late '60's
This guy: "What if F1 engines had no rules?"
Also this guy: "There's must be some rules"
This guy: We don't want them using rocket engines
Us: We don't???
tbf he said "other than safety", which does bring some constraints
and also it being track racing means the truly powerful stuff like rocket engines and (for the most part) turbofan jets are out of the picture bc they are way too slow at cutting power for quick braking and they don't provide nearly the low-speed (sub-100kph/60mph) acceleration that electric motors and internal combustion engines can provide. jets and rockets also require a ton of fuel, and only truly reach their fuel efficiency potential at high cruise speeds (around 300kph/200mph for turbofans, mach 4-5 for scramjets, and like mach 10 or so for rockets in the lower atmosphere)
if someone can come up with a turbofan jet that can quickly reverse its thrust, that with an electric motor partly charged by the jet to boost low-speed acceleration could work if you can solve the fuel problem.
@@dead-claudia a torbofan produces thrust from air. I think people are talking about a turbine generator running at full power coupled to a high power electric engine.
"Can use hybrid, but no full electric. Limited space, very specially specified, no rocket"... I left this video after 1:51.
Rocket engine would make no sense at all as well, would run out of fuel in a matter of probably 1-2 laps
Psychologist: engines can’t hurt you
Me: Horizontal K Engine
well basically x would work better. except if you want a star engine.. like having 6 rows of cylinders.
i think it's like v or w engine but with 4 banks
It just ultra wide w engine
ü engine
K24 the ultimate road vehicle engine.
I used to be an engineer and I would have loved the opportunity to design a completely new type of engine. The things that come to mind that i would experiment with would be, taking your block choice for some simplicity and going two stroke with a typical 4 stroke crankcase and valve design. Use the turbo for expelling exhaust, then continuing to charge the cylinder after the exhaust is flushed. Then push more towards the diesel style by using high pressure direct injection after tdc, may not be feasible but I'm tired and just playing. I would keep the hybrid turbo basics but replace the battery with a vacuum fly wheel. I would also add an additional combustion method for the turbine to speed it up and extract more of its existing potential. Like i said I'm not at my sharpest and just felt like playing and trying to re-live the good old days of conceptualizing before then spending a lot of time trying to figure out why it won't work until reaching a point that it might. Conceptualizing was one of my favorite parts especially with others and trying to see if you have an idea worth continuing to think about.
How would the turbo help expel the exhaust? isn't creating backpressure inherently?
@@maxjtj31 that's a good question. I am just spit balling at the moment. If I'm not mixing anything up the cylinder actually clears itself quite a lot before the stroke due to the high pressure. So I think to be more clear the energy from the cylinder that would go into driving the turbine side would be mostly at the beginning of exhaust valve opening and it's the heat that drives all the work in the cylinder or the turbine. After that time the compressor would clear the remaining exhaust, if that was even necessary, both intake and exhaust valves would be open so other than friction of back pressures the turbo wouldn't use much energy. We have 10 cylinders contributing to this overlapping each other. I am also pretty sure the actual stroke doesn't contribute anything to the turbine. Once the exhaust valve closes though things will get very different. Not only will you be adding charge but you will be doing it against the up stroke which might be a mistake, maybe it would be better to keep the intake closed until most of the compression stroke is complete. The amount of compression I'm talking about is well above anything that would detonate gasoline, ethanol might help, or diesel. Basically as high a compression as you can possibly get in the cylinder without breaking anything and you will need a very clever means of cooling the compressed air down. Remember part of the system is using a recovered energy method to drive the compressor or compressors just instead of a battery hybrid I suggested a vacuum enclosed fly wheel. Also the turbine will be getting help from fuel being injected and ignited into the exhaust stream before entering the turbine. This turbine(s)/compressor(s) I see as being multi stage more simply a low and high pressure stage. A turbo engine I've joked is a turbine engine with a ridiculously complicated combustion chamber. What I'm trying to push towards here is still having a piston engine which is still important for certain driveability aspects but lean really hard into the jet engine power density side of things. Does that help?
Isn’t each cylinder part of the same pre-turbo manifold system while the exhaust valves are open? I don’t think the turbo would ever decrease the pressure of this system vs not having a turbo at all but I could be wrong.
Couple more ideas - freevalve style pneumatic valves - tube feed on top and bottom of valve retainer inside a sealed cylinder - constant air pressure provided by engine pump and single servo per valve that adjust where air pressure is directed - above or below the valve retainer for each valve.
Also for the powered turbo (or mug-h or whatever it’s called) - a super capacitor and motor might do the trick. Extremely detailed modulation and pretty much no limits on short term power - no mechanical and friction inefficiencies that a flywheel would have and much less waste than would come from charging and discharging a battery rapidly. Could probably get around 20 Wh/kg with a good bespoke graphene supercap. 150 kW in short burst would probably be enough for the electric turbo, so at 20 Wh/kg that’s 70 kW*seconds/kg. So 1 second of 150 kW per 2 kg of supercap.
@@chuckp6667 something I just thought of as well - you could have a 3rd turbine on the same shaft as the exhaust and intake turbines that creates negative pressure for the point of extracting exhaust gasses. You could have one exhaust valve on each cylinder connected to the main exhaust turbine and the other exhaust valve connected to a separate manifold that connects to the reverse turbine. With the pneumatic valves you could have the valve attached to the traditional turbo open to initially to send energy that way to power the system, then once that exhaust energy is extracted, close that valve and open the valve to the reverse turbo, sucking the rest of the exhaust out, then that one closes and the intake valves open and force the insanely high boost into the cylinder before it’s too far past bottom dead center.
@@maxjtj31 vacuum sealed fly wheels are extremely energy dense and very efficient. This means very high reliability and ease of use and implementation as opposed to just a different type of electrical storage that would still require a motor to use the stored energy. The valves wouldn't just be wide open all the time the exhaust valve would just be open for that amount of time to clear the last bit of exhaust if that is even necessary with the amount of charge that will ultimately be put in the cylinder. I'm pretty sure very large marine 2 strike diesels already use a similar technique. As far as fancy individually controlled valves and intricate systems go, I've heard people talking about these things for a long time but they can't seem to make them reliable. Most of what I'm suggesting doesn't require anything that isn't in some type of mainstream use. This means reliability should be reasonable to achieve because most of the components are already common use either in an engine or other commercial/industrial application. Nothing theoretical or requiring extensive r&d except the need to extremely increase the strength of the engine components. The charge air cooling system would also be challenging. To clarify the turbo components would be designed using jet turbine methods, things like single crystal grown turbines that are able to take heat much in excess of any automotive style turbo. Not much in this design would require the use of new technology, just repurposed existing and proven technology for the need to be reliable. The swept displacement of this engine would be very low. I should have reread what I wrote but when I think I said both valves would be open at the same time, I meant for a very short time, just enough to clear the remaining exhaust products, this is to avoid the exhaust stroke.
Funny that the reliability clip you show of the subaru is actually the clutch/flywheel exploding lol
I will admit, subarus seem to be bad because of the kind of engine and Trans not doing so well, one or the other causes the problem and something fails. Lots of potential but it hasn't been done well in anything but a porsche. That low rpm torque of a flat 4 subie with a still decent rpm range just needs to be perfected mechanically, for some reason I haven't seen them do it well enough to gain recognition around it. Without a crazy amount of maintenance ofcourse.
The one Subaru engine that might be the most reliable they've ever made is the ej22. I have it in my 98 legacy.
They usually have one thing that is likely to go wrong (like head gaskets on some), but if you can avoid the failure point or replace it quickly, they do run forever. But I guess a Toyota does too, without having an expected failure.
I wouldn’t discount rotary engines. I think Rob Dahm’s 4 rotor is making upwards of 1500 horsepower in a relatively compact package, so I wonder what F1 engineers could do with a turbo 4 rotor, without the restrictions of using a mix of old Mazda road car parts and off the shelf aftermarket stuff.
I think rotary's would still be used in racing if it wasn't for the fuel consumption. If fuel size is limited it means more pit stops.
Im not a bigtime f1 fan but if im not mistaken, nowadays they limit how much fuel you get for the race period, regardless of how much you can hold on board.
@@thefinalkayakbossyep no refuelling during the races these days.
Rotary engines are not as efficient as reciprocating piston engines.
Has Rob Dahm not been working on that engine for almost 10 years now? Trying to make it stable, idle properly and not need constant repairs.
I would put in a turbo rotary engine. Small, light, and with enough RnD you can make big power and make it also reliable enough.
26B can already produce 700hp and i think it is still NA and if somebody gave mazda enough money they can do that
@@thomaschui2141turbo it is even better, using na would have low low-end torque
Plus, they sound great,
Then you need a pitspot every 20 laps for fuel!!!!
@@Blasterxp who cares? Like i can refueling it anyways
All I want is a V10 with blown diffusers and DAS to make it extra grippy
V10 LIFE!
F1 Drivers: so you have chose death
6:25 The Comprex supercharger is a genius design. It's basically a hollow pipe with 2-stroke-like gas ports, with a spinning airtight paddle wheel inside. The exhaust goes into the drum on one end, and pushes the air directly into the intake on the other end, and the spinning motion makes the exhaust gases miss the intake manifold port right as they approach it. The gas is reflected into the opposite direction where there's an open exhaust port, and on the same side soon opens the fresh air port that sucks in the air as the escaping exhaust gases leave behind vacuum.
The flat 12 sounds so cool.
Well, how about Lancis's twin charged 1.8l straight 4 from group B?
That produced 1,000hp at 5 bar.
So twin charging sounds good.
as much as i love the s4 i feel like the supercharger would just take up too much space. packaging is the name of the game and only using turbos takes up way less room. considering power is relatively easy to make with turbos + modern technology and 3000+ hp is unusable i feel like the engineers would try make the smallest engine possible to maximize the aero solutions. It's ironic but the answer might be v6 turbo 😂
Or even better their group S engine. Essentially, the intake is coming straight down with 1 turbo on each side. The intake valves are not next to each other but rather across from each other. A correct inlet angle causes a vortex in the cylinder to form, improving efficiency. The 2 exhaust valves are also across from each other, 1 on the left and 1 on the right side of the engine. The packaging becomes not too dissimilar to a V6/V8. It would be a bit taller and longer in the middle, but coke bottling around the turbos gives room for aerodynamics.
The problem with 4 banger/inline engine, they cannot be stuctural like V6 to V12. Since mid 90, the rear of the car is only supported buy the engine and gearbox assembly. Since a V is wide it's quite strong, as opposed as an inline engine way more narrower. It would mean additionnal support in the chassis.
In fact Williams made a 1.6 Inline 4 with F1 regulation in mind in early 2010, but FIA then choose V6 instead of inline 4. This engine is on the Jaguar prototype CX-75 (probably tuned down).
Twin charger today's means nothing, there were a solution to turbo lag back in '80, since then we found multiple "weight free" solutions to reduce lag.
Then a V4 works well like the 919@@LMSCa18det
@@LMSCa18detI’m sure they could be made to be structural… if the rules are unlimited they would come up with a way with materials and the tech to do it.
The end part is a bit of a misnomer. Remember you have no rules. No one said you had to make the most powerful engine which would fit in that box. You would look at the whole car and its grip levels, work out the ideal power level to make best use of that and then go for the smallest, lightest options to hit that power target. For instance if you need less power you can run smaller turbos. If you run smaller turbos you're in less need of the hybrid stuff so that can go and suddenly you're a good number of kg's lighter and still well over the power level the car could use.
Exactly this video is very simplistic analysis
Spot on. You have to define if any rules apply to the rest of the car and then design around that. Assuming the car had to be driven by a human, I doubt it would use a V12 because in the absence of engine rules, I'd imagine you could get sufficient power from a smaller, lighter package with fewer cylinders or a Wankel.
@@dethak With no rules a rotary or a two stroke would almost certainly be the way to go - depending on power level and grunt required. They are usually quite a bit better in the power-weight department and with some development (which they have mostly been lacking for a few decades) they have the potential to make a lot more still. Lets be honest here - a boosted four rotor is likely to be able to hit any power level you could reasonably use on a track and it would be a darn sight smaller and lighter than a V12 which would only serve to light up the tyres every time you went near the throttle.
Agree. Taking the most recent rotary, the CR700W’s engine is just 34cm long and 24cm in diameter, weighing only 24kg, or 43kg including the six-speed, Nova Transmissions gearbox. Claimed output is 220bhp.
@@firstnamelastname2669That engine is wild. Insane how they can extract so much power from something so small and light.
Sleeve valve. An ICE engine is at base, an air pump. If the engine restrictions were removed someone would try a liquid cooled sleeve valve engine, like the Napier Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. The Sabre engine produced 1.36 HP per cubic inch using relatively low octane gasoline (by present standards) and a low compression ratio of 7:1. A sleeve valve setup had the highest volumetric efficiency of the WW II aircraft engines. With no poppet valves, valve float and binding cannot occur. The complexities of the engine were a problem for front line fighter maintenance, but not such a problem in a race car, where teardown and rebuild is a given. And THEN you had turbocharging!
Why not just go full on Brute Force 2-Stroke? In the 90s Moto GP already got 450hp/l in their 500cc 4 cylinders on 98 Octane. Modern CFD has made a massive Difference in new Designs, same for Nitromethane.
I would abandon 4 Strokes altogether.
A Wankel or Liquid Piston would also be interesting, same for Turboshaft Engines, all of which can be pushed far beyond Reciprocating Engine Power Levels with relative ease.
If you talk about 1930 F1, yes youre right
But we live in 2024. Sleeve valve aren't even exist anymore because surprise surprise, it can't go higher rev than 6000 RPM, even on post WW2 automobile engine. And guess what poppet valve does? 7000? 8000? 13000 RPM, at same era
Sleeve valve are merely stopgap from worse poppet valve and better poppet valve. Heck, with same mental gymnastic to justify modern sleeve valve, you can developed better desmodromic valve and no float occur, at all.
0:19 nice seeing Cleetus Mcfarland on a random F1 video even though it's just for stock footage! Solid guy and I think everyone from the car community and the motorsport community including me really loves the guy!
Retired f1 engineer taught me tons about toluene. After lost of work in the fuel system to keep corrosion away, that is almost a cheat code for adding boost. It doesn't detonate nearly as early as most other fuels. I only ram about 15% but even that made a huge difference in how you could tune boost as well as ignition curves.
Toluene powered turbo rotary engines might be an idea because power density. Or, hell, two-strokes. You *might* have a hybrid (supercaps, no charge or discharge limit) and AWD. And active aero, active suspension, traction control, all that.
No, boxers are not basically 180 degree V engines. Boxers have opposite piston power strokes happening simultaneously. Which means, the engine pictured at 10:15 is not a boxer.
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary
Ran on hydrogen -
Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen
And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets..
creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion!
Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over
A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking!
But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
i used to occasionally add a litre of touline to a tank of 93 RON in my 2.9L cammed aluminum VR6 and it ran amazing and increased the power nicely.
Burning hydrogen is the most energy dense form of fuel.
I was very disappointed not to hear any mention of two-strokes or rotaries, or of fuel technologies (they even did a video on Toluene and other "rocket fuels" a couple years ago), or other banned things like Beryllium alloys or ECU items like "Party Mode". Hell, ECU shenanigans could probably be its own video.
The whole conclusion just seems very weird too. I mean, start with the question of how much power the modern F1 chassis can practically use (2000hp? 2500hp? more?) and work backwards from there to find the smallest lightest package that can output that power with a moderately usable powerband and enough reliability to finish the race distance 90% of the time. Instead they started with a couple of things they like... but then wound up with something bigger, heavier, and less efficient, with too much power for the chassis...
The more interesting question would be whether we are assuming you are allowing refuelling or not for this theoretical engine. I have to assume given the premise that you would be allowing refuelling and any fuel tank size. At SOME point the fuel usage would become so excessive that the time saved per lap would be outweighed by the extra stops... especially if you're also shredding tires.
If you're NOT allowing refuelling, then an MGU-K could be very desirable if the efficiency increase from the MGU-K allows you to save more fuel weight than the weight of the hybrid system.
@@toolbaggers Actually hydrogen has among the worse possible energy densities (energy per unit volume). Even in liquid form it has less than a third the energy density of gasoline. It has the best Specific Density (energy per unit mass), but you would need to tow a blimp behind the car to fuel it, and then you're still going to struggle to make any power out of the engine because you'd only be able to fit a tiny bit of hydrogen into the cylinder. Now, if you don't want to tow a blimp consider this: a 700-bar carbon fibre tank weighs 96kg in order to hold 5kg of hydrogen. So in order to carry the same energy as a 220L (159kg) gasoline tank you would need only 48kg of hydrogen... but 931kg of fuel tanks.
I’ve often contemplated how the F1 landscape would look if the rules allowed manufacturers to use whatever form of propulsion they wanted with a cap on fuel amounts and type. The premise would be a race of 25-50 laps with a capped amount for qualifying and race. Those that complete the laps would be ranked by time and those that come up short would be placed according to distance travelled. While I’m sure many would arrive at similar conclusions, it would be cool to return to an era where each manufacturer had varied configurations, cylinder numbers, displacements, and use of turbos/superchargers/hybrid batteries.
Using gasoline is so boring though. Get that alcohol based fuel in there with the insane air to fuel ratios, and add in some nitros for even more oxygen.
@@wile123456id be ok with whatever fuel… as long as all the teams have to use it/
@@wile123456 Way too dangerous
@@wile123456 Set up a standard, where you take a base amount of gasoline, and other fuels are allowed in amounts calculated by cost and pollution factors.
I've been posting this exact suggestion of an open engine formula based around a set fuel amount for YEARS.
I really believe I can make a rotary that has WAY WAY better fuel economy, making it a monster for such a series
If there was that many cars not finishing you'd be best off just making a low powered, reliable car that would always complete the distance.
I remember talking to someone who had been working on a 2-stroke F1 engine. The basic plan was to combine as many Formula A kart engines together (each producing ~30hp and rev up to 20K rpm) onto a single drive shaft, with a modular design to swap out modules for quick "rebuilds". I was told that a FIA rule change mandating 4-stroke engines killed the project - would have loved to see it work though.
I just want to see a kart engine with cvt transmission race series
I suspect that 2 stroke engine was omitted in the rules due to the dirty emissions of 2 stroke engines..
To stop further development of that engine design..
It would certainly be interesting to definitely get a lot of power in a small package..
What about an intercooler? Light and efficient. Also, if we start to gain too much power, we can remove some pistons to gain some power-to-weight. Also, very wide/deep wheels and a suction device linked to the timing belt, to glue the vehicle to the track.
Tom scream at 0:04
I’ve always wanted f1 to go to a “no technology limits” model, and just limit engine capacity, fuel load and price cap.
Imagine a 500cc hybrid turbo AWD variable aero and active suspension.
It would lead to so much real world application development.
I think they should only specify the fuel and amount of fuel used.
And everytime cars would get dangerously fast, they would just decrease fuel used.
Also, I would free up electricity demands. Battery is mostly dead weight in 2 hours long race, so it would only be used for energy recovery.
Also it would be super useful for actual real life engines, as it would focus on increasing fuel efficiency.
No technology limits yet you want to limit the engine capacity??
@@deathtrooper2048 displacement isn’t a technology, it’s a scale
@@geekswithfeet9137 "displacement isn’t a technology, it’s a scale"
It's almost the opposite of a scale because if you limit the displacement they'll just add turbo's or find some slick way of putting the valves outside "the cylinder".
The only real scale would be available fuel; give them X gallons and "that's it", if you run out you run out.
Turbine hybrid electric.
Someone should make an experimental racing series where the only rules are a standardized car, and the companies can do whatever they want with the powertrain. Call it FX or F0
and maybe even allow mixed electric and gas, to let them compete on that
some safety requirements do need to exist tho, but that could be part of the standardized car frame.
@@dead-claudia Make them driven remotely (but still have to be able to accomodate a dummy) so you can do away with the “Safety” requirements...
Call it death race
to much reliability issues like group B in rally
Nintendo already has the trademark for F-Zero
A Centrifugal supercharged, 32 Cylinder, 8 liter, piston port, two stroke DIESEL, Four row, radial, with ten speed gear box. It makes well over 1,500 HP at a weight about half that of the 1,350 HP BMW mentioned before the Commel. The size is also much less than you mentioned. RPM can go to 22,000 RPM, but that is not required for the listed power. Then you use a blow down power recovery turbine to form a Turbo-Compound engine. With the standard 1500+ HP is doubled to +3,000 HP!
Now for the best part, EVERYTHING IS OFF THE SHELF PARTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PRODUCTION FOR AGES!! Lighter weight and weight distribution, better aero, All encompassing body to cover the huge rear tires, or all four if you like, and the Underbody Venturi for huge down force and Hydro-dynamic suspension to down load the entire car with three to four times the current load!
Sounds like your tell me free energy is a reall thing ? Just kidding but that just sounds to good to be true, what is the catch ?
Diesel is terrible for the short f1 races. Makes sense for endurance races where you need to save on pitstops to get ahead. Alcohol based fuels with higher oxygen ratios than gasoline makes more sense
An 8 liter engine that weighs *LESS* than a 1.5 liter engine, you say ? 😆🤣😂😂
Nice idea, but if you're going to use a diesel engine for an application where power to weight ratio matters a great deal, then it should be an opposed-piston design as well as using the 2-stroke cycle. This eliminates the need for a bulky and heavy cylinder head, and is what the first diesel aircraft engine did - the Junkers Jumo 205, which was an efficient and successful engine design at the time (during World War 2), and subsequently inspired the design of the Napier Deltic, which worked in a similar way.
Also, just a small point, but I thought a genuine radial engine needed to have an odd number of cylinders per row? Some early versions had 3 or 5, whereas most radials made and used during WW2 (and for a couple of decades post-war) had either 7 or 9. I think a few have been made with 11, but these were comparatively rare.
When I was in engineering school I designed a compound radial-turbine engine. At the front end was an axial compressor, like a jet engine. Then there was a five or seven cylinder radial engine, like a radial aircraft engine. Most of the hot compressed air would bypass the radial, but enough air for combustion air would bleed into the radial. Then the radial exhaust would mix with the bypass air to further heat it, more fuel would be added, and then combusted through a gas turbine. The power shaft from the turbine would be linked to the radial engine crankshaft with a double planetary gearset, giving about an 8:1 RPM reduction that would put the power shaft and crankshaft at the same speed. The radial was set up as a two-stroke diesel configuration and both the radial and the turbine would use kerosene or jet fuel as a fuel. The power and torque characteristics of both engine units were very complimentary. I got an "A+" grade on my design.
6:14 Is that the Lotus 97T? On Spa too, literally the most fun combo. Throw the turbo to 90%, no stability control and the thing is SO squirrelly
You need a shock mount for your mic. There's a deep sub bass hit every time you hit your hand or arms on your desk.
I wasn't expecting james 'MO POWA BABEH' 8:50 but it makes me happy!
There's always a place for that quote! 😆
I wish there was just a racing category with no rules on anything other than safety, so we would be able to see engineers actually push everything to it's limits, with different body shapes and things like cars with fans
That's what F1 _was_ for a very long time. The rules creep has slowly homogenized the sport.
Bring back Can-Am!!!
Pikes Peak hillclimb is your sport then.
@@alaeriia01 Yay, a motorsport with one race a year! We are so blessed.
@@theKashConnoisseur There's a lot of people who only watch the Indy 500.
Ferrari developed an F1 engine with Desmodromic Variable Valve Actuation (DVVA) but the FIA banned it (probably on costs). Ducati use it in MotoGP
And, Mercedes used desmodromic valve mechanisms in its world-beating 1954 &1955 Grand Prix lay-down straight-eights.
they did, but the pneumatic valves they used in the 3.0 v10s are just as good for rpm if not better, and technically offers more control
Ducati's been using desmodromic valve train way back to the bevel drive towers of yor............
Just saying.............
At @4:35 you say Subaru's aren't known for reliability, but here in Alaska they're the single most reliable car, and have been for over 30 years.
Turbocharged two strokes. No valves so lighter and smaller, allowing more displacement per space. No wasted piston strokes. Can be done with dry sump lubrication, so no lost power from oil in the fuel. Tuned pipe exhaust further raising power.
What ever happened to driving up-side-down in a tunnel?
Cost to build happened, they need funding for it.
They tried but their lives got turned upside down.
They should just drive it down under, solution achieved.😂
Was wondering the same thing
@@Michael_Brockand risk falling off the Earth and down into space?? No way too risky
Take a turboshaft, let it rev to wherever it is putting out all of its power (baby!) and transfer it with a cvt or a centrifugal clutch (whatever works really, i'm lost here) like that old williams, use the intake to suck the air from where would be a high pressure area (like the thrust ssc), and the exhaust to both blow some aero part and create pressure so that air from parts in front of it would be pulled to it (like gordon murray's T.50's underside uses its fan[?]). Now stick something to make a lot of electricity out of it and send it straight to the front axle's electric engines (no batteries, just a howling jet!). all thats left is bonkers aero that takes advantage of what i just describe and a mad active suspension to keep that within its operating range.
Now all we need is videogame-like tracks that makes those things go vertical, upside down, loops, jump from canyons and go sideways with a werid ass 4wheel steering system. (speed racer theme growing louder)
So a V12 Turbo with an MGU-H would be very OP... Mclaren only missed 1 thing in 1988
turboshaft from a helicopter coupled to a generator, with 4 hub-motor electric motors in each wheel to give you very precise wheel torque vectoring and traction control. Basically like a diesel electric locomotive.
Fun fact.. i designed the lotus in the beginning when i was about 8.. the initial design was made out a small pine wood block and we used to race them against each other down a handbuilt wooden sloped track. We weren't even allowed engine back then. Rules were super strict. We instead used lead weights to try and go faster. That was the only goal. Go faster.
Honestly thats why i’m so excited about Aston Martin Valkryie in IMSA/ WEC its nice to see V12 back against V8 and V6.
But the cars in WEC are over 6 seconds a lap slow than they were just a few years ago and hybrids and being forced.
@@deathtrooper2048 sure its slower than LMP era to cut cost i think. Hybrid not mandatory tho, AM will run Naturally Aspirated based on the info, Caddy also N/A
@@AzathothsAlarmClock sure it will get bop. But probably we still seeing fight on durability,aero, and driver. And hopefully the Sound
No tech limits would get me interested in racing again. Anyway, I'm an engineer but not in the automotive space. What I think makes the most sense is a turbine connected to a generator, with super capacitors, and an elective drive train. Turbines like constant load, and are terrible at acceleration. They spin at high speeds making mechanical gearboxes complex. Meanwhile, electric motors are great at torque - this is why most trains are diesel electric rather than using mechanical transmissions. Anyway, supercaps can charge and discharge much faster than any battery, allowing you to decelerate into a corner, fully charge the supercaps, then throw down gobs of torque - all while keeping your turbine at constant speed providing baseline power for the vehicle.
I also think a similar design (but using batteries) makes sense for consumer vehicles. When your tesla is low but you're almost home, you can just put 1 gallon of gas in, and the turbine will recharge the electric system. Or put in 10 gallons while on a road trip.
I heard some manufacturer (Jaguar?) investigated it, with a small gas turbine constantly making a few dozen kW, then a set of batteries and electric motors to actually drive the car.
I think it was discontinued due to cost of operating the turbine (wear and tear, maintenance, etc.).
"I also think a similar design (but using batteries) makes sense for consumer vehicles. When your tesla is low but you're almost home, you can just put 1 gallon of gas in, and the turbine will recharge the electric system. Or put in 10 gallons while on a road trip."
Isn't this basically what MAZDA is doing with their new rotary generators?
A point of clarification. You said keeping the rpm low keeps the reciprocating mass down. Mass doesn't change with speed, only kinetic energy, so keeping the rpm low keeps the kinetic energy low.
Don't the g forces on the piston increase, which is more weight?
Yea, why else would cars rev up to 20k RPM in 2000s
@@kerimca98 Your comment is not related to my statement, you have misunderstood what I said.
@@14768 I was just agreeing with you
@@dougerrohmer G force is unrelated to mass. Its how quickly something changes direction. It's an acceleration, but mass usually plays a role in how quickly or not, something can accelerate. With that said, a heavy object changing direction will experience a massive strain when changing direction fast
Light is always better. But, a fan would drastically change the body and driving. You could carry much more speed around the corners and wouldn’t need as much power.
I stood next to a 16 cylinder BRM engine getting warmed up/revved at Goodwood. It was utterly insane. It genuinely felt like an earthquake and the fumes were making my eyes stream with tears. To this day I've never experienced anything like that.
instead of the battery, you could try using a supercapacitor like the Lamborghini Sian FKP, they would be far, far lighter, and the energy output would be even faster than a battery. You could use the super cap to fill in the performance gaps of the ICE, and make an even more potent combo
its not lighter. those store only a fraction of power compared to battery. but its true if you need to store only for few seconds it would work the best.
some supercapacitors are just modified batteries btw
batteries can be designed for rapid discharge, tho that usually comes at the cost of energy storage density (why evs are such a technological challenge for battery manufacturers - they need both, and even lithium ion only half fits the bill)
electric with caps re-charged in real time via a gas turbine generator. basically gas powered fully electric
Supercapacitors don't contain enough nearly enough energy. The formula is E = 0.5 * C * V^2, increasing capacitance doesn't really do anything, and supercapacitors (currently) only work at extremely low voltages so you'd need a crap load of them. Supercapacitors haven't even really approached the point where they can store enough energy to reliably replace the lead acid battery for your starter motor.
Nothing "stores" energy better then combustible fuel, from a purely theoretical standpoint a lithium battery will never beat the energy density of an equal volume of gasoline. A battery needs a conductive anode (copper / lead), an electrolyte (polymer / sulfuric acid), a conductive cathode (lithium / lead), and finally an insulator (plastic / paper). With a combustible fuel you only need a fuel (gasoline / methanol), and an oxygen (air / NOS / LOX).
Anything someone says there's a revolutionary new EV tech that will beat ICE on range, they're lying and that's why - it is theoretically impossible to have a battery that stores more energy then a combustible fuel.
@@AzathothsAlarmClock Flywheels have gyroscopic precession, Supercapacitors contain very little energy, Lithium and combustion are the only thing that makes any sense for automotive purposes. And combustion is the only thing that makes sense for hauling long distances.
I think a Prodrive-style "rocket" anti lag system could eliminate the need for a second turbo to bridge turbo lag, as a big single turbo could be always kept at high rotation speed.
Don’t need either with an mgu-h…
@@cjsawinski MGU-H would be a lot heavier than this solution.
@@theKashConnoisseur MGU-H could power the front axle like 4wd, they just need to be clever with the wiring to get the needed torque, no battery needed, the wheels will spin the turbo itself.
@@Dakkyun I'm not sure you'd be able to extract enough energy to keep the hybrid system going without a battery.
I would have only one engine regulation. A 3 litre cap on displacement. Apart from that it should be do what you like
Imagine a 3 litre rotary...i don't think a "normal" engine would come close to the power a rotary would generate with this much engine displacement.
But when you feed it to the moon with boost I think it all changes...@@maxmustermann8247
Well then everyone would turbo it for more power.
@maxmustermann8247 you would have to add another 500L of fuel to finish a race.
the teams would probably make twin turbo V10/V12, 12000 rpm max rev. No need to rev it higher since the turbos give plenty of power anyway
I grew up about 16 miles from Watkins Glen, New York racetrack. My father had told me that in the 70's was a formula one car that had a big fan under it that would draw the car tight to the track and would exhaust the air out the back.
He told me that they could no longer use that technology because drivers were complaining about the debris showering them well driving behind that type of car.
Yes, it was called the Brabham BT46 'fan car'. Watkins Glen is a great track and the whole area is gorgeous.
How about a miniature deltic configuration? Very compact with lots of pistons, and 2 stroke so double the power strokes.
Did I miss the part where you discussed exotic fuels? There is more power to be had using them, safety be damd.
Also, I heard no mention of rotary valve tech, or other camless tech. And more discussion of using gas turbine power would be interesting, much progress has been made with those...
But this was still a fascinating thought exercise, thank you D61!
When he moved on from the valves i was like; "hang on what about rotary valves, and there is nothing other than pneumatic valves? "
The bugatti W16 is technically A VVR16. The engines heritage came from the VR6 on the golf. Then they double it up with two banks of VR6 hence, the W12 in bentleys. Then they thought "lets make the ultimate engine by adding 4 more cylinders!" said those germans.
Correct, the W16 from Bugatti is technically not a W-engine. That should already be obvious if you were trying to divide 16 by 3.
You dismissed the rotary too quickly, and never even considered a two-stroke. In SCCA racing there used to be a 2-stroke car that was unbeatable until it was banned. Double the power strokes, fewer moving parts, lighter weight. A lot of possibilities to ignore.
Wrong approach! You should be looking at what would be the max Hp needed to build the fastest car.
Example: 2000hp then go about designing the perfect setup to achieve 2000hp with preferential parameters like packaging size, weigh, rpm, fuel consumption and and and
Love me or hate for it, but I gotta say, that BRM type-15 diagram at 7:41 is one sexy mamma jamma. Just looking at it makes me imagine some sort of steampunk airship - I love it.
I apologize for my English, and also for my ignorance. I would like to ask why F1 doesn't use electric motors placed in the front wheels to anticipate accelerations when exiting corners.
Increased complexity and weight in terms of electric motors and batteries required.
There was a time when F1 was full of different concepts, the golden age of F1. Today's F1: now you're too fast, now you're too slow, safety first, the track is too dangerous, not city racing - a family friendly show.
It would easily just be a Turboshaft Hybrid engine and supercapacitors (instead of batteries) with some powerful speakers to make it sound like a V10 😂
hear me out:
Boxer-8, 2.0L, titanium internals (crank, rods and pistons), double rotary valves for each piston (also made out of titanium), billet block and head, variable geometry turbo, timing gears and variable valve timing.
expect at least 800HP to 1000HP out of this (would probably make much more) and way over 15k RPM redline. plus perfect balance (as it is a Boxer-8) and fewer moving parts because of the rotary valves plus less torque being wasted on opening the valves and no valve float at all. it is not a very complex engine btw, if you want to make it complex take off the timing gears and swap it straight for a little eletric motor that will spin the valves and connect it to the ECU so it will act like a Freevalve. this would be an absolute beast, no need for hybrid motors, but if you want one, go on, add one too. also wouldnt have much turbo lag because of modern tecnology and the ammount of cylinders.
Without watching im gonna say a twin turbo small block v8
Man I'm gonna be constantly thinking about a Bugatti W16 engine in an F1 car now
The W16 is a complete bad design and far too heavy.
@@Abarth1368he’s talking about the new n/a v16
@@xSN1P3ZZzz he talked about the W16 engine.
Too big, too heavy
Do you even know how heavy V6 is? Heck do you even know how heavy is 3 cylinder..
I feel like if there was unlimited budget, we'd see some kind of jet or capacitor. Perhaps not for racing but definitely if we're just building for a single lap.
I'm pretty sure it would be a series turbine-electric like they use on trains. Jets don't like running at low or variable RPM, but if they are just turning a generator, then the electric motors on the other side can handle all of that gracefully. Then add a battery in there to add some oomph coming out of corners. The only remaining question is if you can make a good, small gas turbine engine.
@JMurph2015 100% can, rocket engines use Turbopumps, 2000 lbs @ 50,000+ hp, that scaled down
@@motominded5275 so... I have done gas turbine (jet and rocket engine) design classes before, and if I remember anything from them, things don't usually "just scale up" or "just scale down". There are various problems with that, mostly relating to blade working area, local speed of sound, and Reynolds numbers. Furthermore, the size of an ECU doesn't change much whether the engine makes 500 or 5000 horsepower; that means that it's going to hurt the 500 HP engine's weight and size disproportionately compared to the 5000 HP one.
@@JMurph2015 yeah - it doesn't scale 1:1, but it certainly scales.....an even more extreme example is SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine), it's turbopump is rated at something like 85,000HP and the size people quote is "about the size of a car engine", who knows in reality how it could be packaged but it's a single use TP that could be scaled down to produce thousands if not tens of thousands HP in a smaller form function than we currently see on the shuttle. Std. aircraft turbines don't scale well since they are designed for thousands of hours of use and have to have impeccable reliability ratings over those thousands of hours unlike a rocket that is single use and rebuild, more sim. to a F1 engine. Reality it would be somewhere in between rocket TP and a aircraft Turbine if custom manuf. no rules by a F1 team, the technology, material science and components are out there to make 85,000HP, power to weight is off the charts.....power to fuel consumption, who knows....but with a lighter engine you can add more fuel, but how much power do you really need? I can't imagine over 2-3k would be useful....seems to me you start to get into the realm of prioritizing packaging constraints, aero, balance, reliability, fuel consumption and all the other things that become more important as long as you have enough HP.
“So let’s say our no rules engine has a rule”
Not really. It wasn't a rule, it was a self-imposed limit. Not quite the same thing.
Many, actually. He just kept discarding architectures for no reason, like the W based on the old design when Bugatti's ones wouldn't have so much trouble in regard to packaging
@@andredanielleite7859he also straight up didn’t answer the question at the end. He literally just said a v12 engine with an e turbo.
a racing league with "anything goes" as far as vehicle specs would be kind of crazy and fun to watch. like straight up 5000 hp setups or something
Do we really wanna ditch the hybrid system? Without rules we can recover and deploy far more energy than what is currently allowed under F1 rules. The added weight can be offset by using a smaller engine since it no longer needs to be as powerful. Also, the improved fuel efficiency means we don’t have to carry around as much fuel, saving weight that way. Without rules we don’t even have to use batteries. We could use flywheels, for example, which are far lighter and can store more energy than batteries.
that is what f1 was - the best ideas and concepts for battle and not slowing down the race to safe tires..... good old times!
When you thump the table with your elbows, it booms my home theatre subwoofer - not annoyingly so, but enough to be noticeable. You may wish to equalise out bass below 240hz, that should do it. Interesting video too, thanks for exploring this.
Look at the engine in the Yaris GR.
300hp from a 1.5l Turbo I3
Now lets make that a V6 with 3l displacement
600hp?
But that engine is tuned to last, but what if we tuned it to last 10 races or so?
750hp?
Now you can lose weight from the removal of batteries.
I am not really sure that engime is "tuned to last" lol
Dude your answer is ridiculous im sorry. The CURRENT f1 engines are only 1.6 liters v6 and make 1000hp. Whatever you are on about is a waste of thought and time honestly.
Ahh, You crowning the 1980 BMW engine really tickles me nice. The story behind it is awsome, too. I have to confess: at the times I didn´t like F1 at all. Now I´m a grown man, became a hobby mechanic and still look for the BMW poster that showed the engine with glowing headers, it looks so cool (pun intended). If someone would like to part from such poster I´d be glad to start negotiations.
Keeping the engine reliable and less complex seems like a pretty good idea in the overall design. You 1st have to finish the race, and the season on top to be the best. A simple design, which produces a reliable amout out of power. Say a V12 twin turbo with around 1000hp.
Jesus Christ you need a shock mount for that microphone!
The quick clip of Jackstand Jimmy bobbing his head with the tempo of blower surge was an epic addition.
0:47 I’ve never clicked off a video fast. How is there no rules and you go “but rule number one” ???
Otherwise, the track would be Cape Canaveral.
I would keep MGU-K for efficiency and save the battery weight by moving away from a chemical battery. I'd use a mechanical flywheel battery. More efficient electrical energy conversion, quicker charge & discharge rates, and if you orient the flywheel correctly, it's rotation provides a gyroscopic force that directly counters 1 degree of freedom in any roll axis you choose. I.e., you would be able to use the grip of all 4 tires through a turn cause you directly counter the lateral load transfer.
Williams tried this in the '90s I believe before it was banned because it would require other manufacturers to change chassis design mid-season.
Same reason a lot of good innovations have died...
I would also include a J-damper (a.k.a live damper) in the nose with a linear alternator attached (think 2000's Renault). Gives electrical power from bumps/curbs at every corner entry, apex & exit.
Back in the 1960s it was being suggested that you merely limited the fuel to a certain number of Btus for the race. No other engine limits. It becomes the engine designers task to balance power, mass, external volume and economy to get to the end of the race as soon as possible. Super powerful and you run out of fuel before the end. Directs design towards efficiency. Run on coal in a steam engine if you want, turbine, H24 turbo running on sponsors brandy if that is what you want. It all gets out of hand with ridiculous levels of power? Just adjust the ration of Btus for future races downwards. The wildest idea mentioned at the time was to feed a spool of thermite into a water tank and use the high pressure steam either as a rocket jet or through a turbine.
It took half the video to find out v12 is the preferred configuration
V12 isnt though. V10 is cheaper, revs higher and is more compact. Way better for this application
3 rotors just entered the chat
Then exploded and exited immediately
@@Daily_didyouknowI could be wrong but I think the 787b was actually slow af but won because of reliability
@@Daily_didyouknow that's bs, we're not back in the 70s
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary
Ran on hydrogen -
Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen
And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets..
creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion!
Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over
A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking!
But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
@@martynclinton8092 You don't need banks... Just make it a 6 rotors burning hydrogen with the hybrid turbo that uses the heat mentioned in the video. This would be crazy... Maybe add a small motor at the crank just for some extra torque in the very low rpm. 🔥
If it's not a turbine used to power batteries, then I think you have it wrong.
I would say: turbine, small buffer battey bank, and a small transmission with only the highest gears to be used on straights (everything else - series hybrid)
That was my First thought too, but after calculating, the current Tech doesn't deliver yet. Imagine two 800hp e-motors at a total of 80kg. Then you need 1600hp of electric Power. Split that to an 800 HP Generator and an 800hp battery (assuming 100% charging efficiency). LIPO batteries are at a Power density(not Energy density) up to 430W/kg. So you need a 140 kg battery to prevent voltage collapsing or overheating. But that's without cooling. So the package already weighs more than a current F1 engine + Gearbox but you still need an 800HP Generator.
@@kooooons Your "battery" (supercap) would be moderately sized as you'd run mostly direct from the turbine-generator and would mainly exist for conditioning and ERS.
Huge advantages in efficiency from being able to run at ideal RPM all of the time. Also would be relatively simple along with having exceptional reliability.
@@KingSvenDeluxe The highest discharge Rates of LIPO batteries are at 85C. That means they completely discharge in less than a Minute. At that point Energy density gets more important than power density and I think LIPO batteries easily beat supercaps at that. So yeah, you need less supercaps for 800Hp but those wouldn't last a long straight and once you have enough of them to last a long straight they are heavier than the lipos were. Btw: That AMZ Mythen record EV that accelerated to 100 km/h in less than a second was also powered by bespoke LIPO batteries and not by supercaps and im pretty sure they know more about this and would have had the means to do otherwise. So maybe supercaps are a bit of a myth.
@@kooooons well, possible solution for long straights would be to just unload the generator, adjust exhaust for maximum thrust and use the turbine as a jet engine
Hybrid system which has no batteries. Like nissan did in one of their new cars, have teeny battery, use engine to charge it, and use electric motors to spin wheels. We could engage the engine to the wheels if we wanted even more power. Nitromethane engine, 4 motors (one per wheel with very good ecu for all the traction control). Perhaps we use mineral oil like Bugatti to cool the battery. Also a twin charger for the engine. The advatage of not always using the engine to directly power the wheels is that we can run it at its most efficient rpm. Basically rimac + qashqai + tourbillion. We can just do a really high torque engine with massive turbo lag, as it doesnt matter as the powertrain is fully controlled by the ecu. We could also imrove the turbo lag issue with (wait for it) a CVT. Peak torque, at all times, even when slowing down. The cvt might take ages to adapt to the speed the vehicle is travelling at, which is where the electric motors are useful. The engine is only really for top speed.
Sorry for yappy comment but I think this would be really cool
Before I watch the video, I'm guessing they would still use 3 liter V10 but probably with electric turbo(eliminates the turbo lag) that makes around 1400 horse power and weights around 800kg.
For even bigger power than this you'll need MASSIVE slick tires and a tons of downforce. I think 1400hp for a 800kg bolid is a sweet spot
Electromagnetically actuated engine valves.
This. Freevalve with some F1 levels of money going into the research would result in some extremely efficient engines.
Yes, it saves weight and rotating mass, and gives about 5% more power.
@@damstachizz lighter engine, fewer moving parts, no air intake control gate, more power, drive chain......
Electromagnetic motors and dynamos. Why did hybrid fail in F1 ? So many people tried to innovate valves, but only air spring stayed.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt hybrid didn't fail in F1, You are totally wrong about valves
ua-cam.com/video/OZWeNPi2XkE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E9KJ_f7REGw/v-deo.html
What about Rotary engines?
Out of current technology yes absolutely
Imagine a 6 bank (3 each side) rotary
Ran on hydrogen -
Each rotor being very lean stoic with. A evinrude e-tec injector, In the air intake! Really lean hydrogen
And then a mahle jet ignition direct just 20 degrees after the inlets..
creating a combustion ignition in a instant for a better more complete combustion!
Ran on a single turbo with a power take off on the turbo to absorb power into a power bank that ran at a high tick over
A slipper clutch so that it absorbed power and all your breaking would be done under brake pedal and no engine breaking!
But giving you a huge torque driving that single turbo our of the corners! 😮
Terrible design, great novelty for the 1970's, but vastly inferior to current technology.
Inefficient, pollution of the 2-stroke like oiled combustion chamber is dirty. Thermally a complete mess, too many large critical flat surfaces subjected to uneven heat at high temps, low compression, inefficient combustion chamber design. I could go on, but why?
Make a demonic rotary engine, turbo it, then make it a hybrid
The issue is you’re gonna be GUZZLING fuel so depending you’re gonna be refueling a lot or using rly potent fuels
Right!? The Mazda 787B proved that you can make a reliable rotary, they're extremely small and light for their power, and they're extremely rev-happy. The R26B in the 787B weighs just 180 kg, and makes nearly 700 hp NA, imagine what you could do with another rotor or 2, forced induction, and maybe a power recovery turbine geared to the E-shaft to wrench some extra power off the exhaust
make a rotary, or not, throw turbo in the bin and instead feed that thing 90% nitromethane. just like in dragsters. engines there are basically stone age, but these engines outperform any other combustion engines.
why? nitromethane. it has a lot of oxygen in itself, so its fuel to air ratio is like 1.5 parts of fuel to 1 part of air. but in dragracing its lowered to 0.5 to 1, because, well, monopropellant. more fuel burning - more power
@@gardenerofthesun Belated, but the problem here is track length - sure, you get an absolute buttload of power upfront, but you also run out of fuel in literally a minute or two tops. F1 is, unfortunately, not about going 'grug smash', flooring the pedal and going 0-400 in half a second, then running out of fuel and having to replace half your car, as funny as top fuel dragsters are
Oh man, you'd get a hell of a first lap though, haha
@@manoflead643 yeah, these things are kinda funny, but pretty logical, since co concentrated nitromethane works as oxidizer itself :p
In a wonderful bout of irony, I stumbled on this video whilst sitting in my cubicle at the Northrop test site where that shuttle rocket booster test took place. Cool vid!
Really Interesting look at what could be possible. I have often wondered about the solutions to more power/less weight if the rule book were to be dumped.
One suggestion though, you really need an microphone isolation mount, especially one that is not connected to the desk - every time your elbows or arms touched the table there was a very audible "thump" transmitted to the mic. Drove me nuts! Ok, drove me more nuts. Cheers, Susi.
"But first, lets set the rules for our no-rules engine"
Hands up those who recognised Jackstand Jimmy! 😄
I'm so happy to just see Cleetus McFarlane in your video😂
The last paragraph is the most significant. An unlimited engine could create more horsepower than the car/driver could use. We saw that when Porsche was in Can Am in the early 1970's. They could deliver 1100 hp for race conditions, 1350 hp for qualifying. Those cars literally had enough power to spin the rear wheels in forth gear. Corner to corner wheel spin. Modern aero is much better, but could it deliver 3 to 4 g's for the cars handling? Can a driver deal with those kinds of forces for the length of a race? There is a reason that racing classes put limits on engine development. In the US the top two race series have settled on targeting in car horse power for the race cars in the 650-750 hp range. This delivers race speeds commensurate with driver skills, and limits the maximum speeds of the cars to areas that can be more safely designed for. Think run off areas and barriers plus car chassis designs. Ultimately, and unrestricted engine rule means the team with the deepest pockets is always going to be the winner. Think of Penske and its one off Mercedes Indy car engine. All that development work to win one race knowing the sanctioning body would ban the engine immediately after the win.
IMO the turbine didn't get a fair shake because the only example was before hybrid drivetrains were a thing. It performed poorly because they have extremely slow throttle response and would require some really odd gear ratios. Using electric to move the wheels and a turbine to make the power is the best of both worlds.