Concept power units from 2030

[ispano6]

AI just regurgitates some well promoted ideas. Even if they're wrong.
Burning H in an ICE is a wasteful way of using it. It's doubly true for rotary. Since no-one demonstrated an efficient rotary engine. The second part with H as an "energy source" is just plain wrong. It isn't an energy source. It's a storage medium, a very troublesome and wasteful one at that.

Your stance just seems to be to give up before trying. What I'm saying, and what AI is regurgitating, is that researchers ARE in fact researching the use of Green/Blue hydrogen and ammonia. They aren't sitting on their laurels thinking "Why?" They are figuring out "WHY NOT?"

[Tommy Cookers]

the renewables fanatics need to destroy the private car ICE without destroying the private car
because they need to use our EV car batteries to enable the intermittents (renewables) takeover
eg the UK needs 20 million EV car batteries to intermittently store and regurgitate for public electricity 'supply'

hydrogen/ammonia fuel would allow F1-style ICEs to be c.55% efficient
and utility combined-cycle turbines to be c.70% efficient (or with CHP to be c.90% efficient)

Kawasaki has a hydrogen-fueled motorcycle

in France this year another discovery of natural hydrogen aka white hydrogen takes their total to 92 million tons
Germany has approved a national hydrogen main (to use that produced by electrolysis in Norway and piped in)

[mzso]

AI just regurgitates some well promoted ideas. Even if they're wrong.
Burning H in an ICE is a wasteful way of using it. It's doubly true for rotary. Since no-one demonstrated an efficient rotary engine. The second part with H as an "energy source" is just plain wrong. It isn't an energy source. It's a storage medium, a very troublesome and wasteful one at that.

Your stance just seems to be to give up before trying. What I'm saying, and what AI is regurgitating, is that researchers ARE in fact researching the use of Green/Blue hydrogen and ammonia. They aren't sitting on their laurels thinking "Why?" They are figuring out "WHY NOT?"

They'll be researching a long trying to change the laws of physics. No matter the source hydrogen is problematic. And ammonia is outright dangerous.

[gruntguru]

To repeat Tommy's earlier point.
There may be a role for Hydrogen in a future energy system where intermittent renewables are producing a glut of electricity at a time when more efficient (read more expensive) storage is unable to absorb all of it. Rather than curtailing (wasting) that solar or wind energy, why not convert it into hydrogen for one of the specific possible uses already identified for a decarbonised world - green steel, aviation fuel, line haul fuel. Additionally, the hydrogen could be stored as an emergency energy reserve to be burned in converted gas turbines. (up to 60% Thermal Efficiency in the case of combined cycle GT)

As a fuel for cars in the distant future? Probably not.

[ispano6]

To repeat Tommy's earlier point.
There may be a role for Hydrogen in a future energy system where intermittent renewables are producing a glut of electricity at a time when more efficient (read more expensive) storage is unable to absorb all of it. Rather than curtailing (wasting) that solar or wind energy, why not convert it into hydrogen for one of the specific possible uses already identified for a decarbonised world - green steel, aviation fuel, line haul fuel. Additionally, the hydrogen could be stored as an emergency energy reserve to be burned in converted gas turbines. (up to 60% Thermal Efficiency in the case of combined cycle GT)

As a fuel for cars in the distant future? Probably not.

This is exactly Honda's stance and they have been developing Solar hydrogen systems.

[bananapeel23]

As much as I want high-revving NA V10s or some kind of wacky hydrogen car, I honestly I think we will end up getting something between the 2026 and 2014 engine regulations. The 2014-2025 V6 turbo hybrid is really just an amazing engine, even if the sound is a bit underwhelming, which is why I expect something similar in 2030. Meanwhile hydrogen would be really dangerous and cause the cars to get really fat and bulky since the huge pressurized tank that would be required for such a low density fuel can really only be circular in cross-section, which is a packaging nightmare. Hence why I think some kind of more traditional biofuel will be used.

I expect the return of the MGU-H, probably either simplified or specifically cost capped, along with and a pretty big rear-axle MGU-K in the 250-300KW range. I expect a low displacement turbo engine. I can't rule out another 1.6L V6, but I think it might be time to switch engine layouts to an inline 4 or maybe even a tiny 2L V8.

The most open part of the regs will probably be the battery rules and fuel regs, hopefully with a very difficult to hit battery weight limit to encourage weight savings, tight packaging and development of solid state batteries. Again probably with a sliding budget cap for battery development.

Fuel flow around 85-90KG/h to ensure the cars don't get too powerful, as well as to keep the fuel tanks relatively small.

My personal hope is that they sacrifice some efficiency to get the cars to upshift at around 15000 RPM to get some noisier cars. This could be accomplished by tweaking the rev/fuel flow curves to only allow max fuel flow from 13500 onwards, similar to how it's currently 10500 RPM for max fuel flow.

[wuzak]

I would expect the post 2030 rules to be an extension of the 2026 rules.

There may be some adjustment to the fuel flow (3,000MJ/h in 2026, about 73-79kg/h) and MGUK output and energy allowance between 2026 and 2030.

That may be further adjusted for post 2030, maybe raising the fuel flow up a little, but more likely reducing the output of the MGUK and reducing the battery size.

The 2026 ICE could have been a smaller capacity, lighter engine - I would expect the 2030 ICE to be lighter than the 2026 ICE.

[bananapeel23]

I would expect the post 2030 rules to be an extension of the 2026 rules.

There may be some adjustment to the fuel flow (3,000MJ/h in 2026, about 73-79kg/h) and MGUK output and energy allowance between 2026 and 2030.

That may be further adjusted for post 2030, maybe raising the fuel flow up a little, but more likely reducing the output of the MGUK and reducing the battery size.

The 2026 ICE could have been a smaller capacity, lighter engine - I would expect the 2030 ICE to be lighter than the 2026 ICE.

It would be utterly insane to make the 2026 engines weaker than they already are by cutting MGU-K output.

If anything the power would be revised upwards by significantly raising the energy flow. But again, I think these regulations will flop so hard that they will be considered unsalvageable (even after raising fuel flow) and will be abandoned ASAP for something more similar to what we have now.

[DenBommer]

As much as I want high-revving NA V10s or some kind of wacky hydrogen car, I honestly I think we will end up getting something between the 2026 and 2014 engine regulations. The 2014-2025 V6 turbo hybrid is really just an amazing engine, even if the sound is a bit underwhelming, which is why I expect something similar in 2030. Meanwhile hydrogen would be really dangerous and cause the cars to get really fat and bulky since the huge pressurized tank that would be required for such a low density fuel can really only be circular in cross-section, which is a packaging nightmare. Hence why I think some kind of more traditional biofuel will be used.

I expect the return of the MGU-H, probably either simplified or specifically cost capped, along with and a pretty big rear-axle MGU-K in the 250-300KW range. I expect a low displacement turbo engine. I can't rule out another 1.6L V6, but I think it might be time to switch engine layouts to an inline 4 or maybe even a tiny 2L V8.

The most open part of the regs will probably be the battery rules and fuel regs, hopefully with a very difficult to hit battery weight limit to encourage weight savings, tight packaging and development of solid state batteries. Again probably with a sliding budget cap for battery development.

Fuel flow around 85-90KG/h to ensure the cars don't get too powerful, as well as to keep the fuel tanks relatively small.

My personal hope is that they sacrifice some efficiency to get the cars to upshift at around 15000 RPM to get some noisier cars. This could be accomplished by tweaking the rev/fuel flow curves to only allow max fuel flow from 13500 onwards, similar to how it's currently 10500 RPM for max fuel flow.

And maybe also energy recovery through the front axle? But still RWD

[Tommy Cookers]

... My personal hope is that they sacrifice some efficiency to get the cars to upshift at around 15000 RPM to get some noisier cars. This could be accomplished by tweaking the rev/fuel flow curves to only allow max fuel flow from 13500 onwards, similar to how it's currently 10500 RPM for max fuel flow.

the V6 engine (53 mm stroke & ferrous pistons) won't be useable to 15000 rpm for the 7 or 8 races required

[wuzak]

I would expect the post 2030 rules to be an extension of the 2026 rules.

There may be some adjustment to the fuel flow (3,000MJ/h in 2026, about 73-79kg/h) and MGUK output and energy allowance between 2026 and 2030.

That may be further adjusted for post 2030, maybe raising the fuel flow up a little, but more likely reducing the output of the MGUK and reducing the battery size.

The 2026 ICE could have been a smaller capacity, lighter engine - I would expect the 2030 ICE to be lighter than the 2026 ICE.

It would be utterly insane to make the 2026 engines weaker than they already are by cutting MGU-K output.

I would expect the MGUK output to be reduced, and the ICE output to be increased.

Lower MGUK output would allow for lighter MGUK, smaller battery and lighter ERS cooling systems.

[Hoffman900]

... My personal hope is that they sacrifice some efficiency to get the cars to upshift at around 15000 RPM to get some noisier cars. This could be accomplished by tweaking the rev/fuel flow curves to only allow max fuel flow from 13500 onwards, similar to how it's currently 10500 RPM for max fuel flow.

the V6 engine (53 mm stroke & ferrous pistons) won't be useable to 15000 rpm for the 7 or 8 races required

Meh, maybe. NASCAR is getting about 2500 miles miles from an approx piston velocity average of 26m/s with a piston + pin + ring min weight of 400g.

F1 would have a much lighter piston seeing how they run a 80mm bore to NASCAR’s 106mm.

IndyCar is about the same mileage as well with similiar peak average piston velocity and a 95mm bore, ~64mm stroke, 12,000rpm. Indy Cars also spend much more time there than a F1 car ever would.

[Tommy Cookers]

piston acceleration

piston acceleration says Indycar would make 13200 rpm if scaled to 53mm stroke
(piston speed says 14500)

[Hoffman900]

:

piston acceleration

piston acceleration says Indycar would make 13200 rpm if scaled to 53mm stroke
(piston speed says 14500)

Indy is doing it with a heavier piston

NASCAR is seeing near 42m/s peak, with a 400g piston+pin+rings+locks (per rules), spending the majority of their time near there. 3-4 races on each motor, about 2500 miles or so, or about 5-6 F1 race weekends.

A current F1 dimmensions of 53mm stroke, 122mm c-c length, at 15,000 rpm would be 41m/s peak. Piston weight with these PU’s is probably in the 300g-ish range.

If the NASCAR boys can do it with a much heavier piston, the F1 gang can too. To quote my Hendricks contact:

They typically only gain .0-.2 cfm blowby, and are down in power less than most can accurately measure when they are "wore out".

That’s hard data / fact.

[Tommy Cookers]

it's a fact that fatigue life is driven by stresses proportional to piston acceleration - and so is hugely affected by rpm

race rules often limit rpm but never limit piston speed
the voiture legere & voiturette rules c.1910 first proved that piston acceleration was important and piston speed wasn't