**Important Note!** Production cars vs F1 cars: why are F1 cars more efficient? Especially considering my comments in the video about both being impressive, but operating under different rule sets. Several reasons for F1’s efficiency advantage: 1. Quantity - Formula 1 only needs to make a handful of engines for a season. This allows for an attention to detail that you won’t have when producing engine quantities in the millions for production cars. It’s easy to make one efficient engine. Mass production adds complications. 2. Cost - The cost per engine is vastly greater in Formula 1, allowing for opportunities that you don’t have when you’re selling an entire production car for $30,000. Materials, tolerances, difficult manufacturing designs, etc. Relatively speaking, production car engines are very cheap, which limits the design. 3. Reliability - F1 teams are allowed 3 engines per season without penalties, so an F1 engine only needs to last 7-8 races (plus practice & qualifying), meaning about 1,500 - 2000 miles. When your engine doesn’t need to last as long, you can run it closer to peak efficiency, where knock is more prevalent (think high spark advance, leaner air fuel mixtures). It’s worth sacrificing reliability for performance, because the goal isn’t an engine that lasts for 200,000 miles. 4. Rev-Range - F1 engines have a much more defined use case versus road cars. Road cars operate at many different RPM, in many different engine load scenarios. Trying to develop an engine that is efficient across this wide range of use-cases is very difficult. F1, on the other hand, has a much more narrow focus. Create power at full load as efficiently as possible. This means you can pick a region of the engine where it spends most of its time (say 11k RPM) to maximize efficiency.
"It’s easy to make one efficient engine." - i doubt it's really so easy)) Production engine with f1 combustion system and high CR would operate at 1500-3500 rpm mostly providing even greater efficiency due to less mechanical losses. Maybe its to early for saying goodby to oldg00d ICE ))
Thanks for that Carnac the Magnificent moment of predicting Max as this year's world champion. That boost level has to be on the higher end. Another good estimate would be at the maximum fuel rate allowed, how much boost could you safely create?
How the heck does this man make this hugely complicated topic not only supremely interesting, but also understandable. My hat is not just tipped to him in appreciation, but thrown high into the air. An absolutely excellent presentation. Thank you heaps mate.
This is the best explanation of the MGU-H and modern F1 engines I've seen. After nearly 10 years of commentators trying, they should just bring Jason on to do it.
Indeed. The so-called pundits on TV coverage often either are not good at explaining it, or they get cut off by the host who wants to move on to other topics...
@@Rob2 If you want technical info from the TV coverage just wait until they bring out Sam Collins. He does all their technical videos on their YT channel too.
Seriously. I'm a huge F1 fan and totally couldn't get the distinction between the two from Sam and the others. I've watched Jason for other great engineering breakdowns so this was a subject I was happy to see him tackle. I'd have a career in this stuff if he was my professor, of that I'm sure.
@@Skasaha_ He is better than most, but still he is restricted to making 1-minute segments about a general topic, and by the time het gets into some detail he has to pass back to the presenter who goes on about celebrities at the track or talks with a midfield driver who experienced an eventless race. I have never seen such basic explanations as "how much energy does an F1 car have to work with during a race" or even the mention of the many small rules that govern the engine design. Every time they start explaining the MGU-K and MGU-H but get stuck there. I would love to see Sam do a 10 or 15 minute segment similar to the video we see here, but I don't think it is ever going to happen...
What's extra amazing is it appears he did all the sections of this complicated explanation in one take, with no ums, ahs, etc. A masterpiece! So sharp, so impressive!
There's some 2 dozen video clips inserted. He can re-do any speech of entire sections cutting between sentences (or even phrases) when the two sentences fall into those clips. This leaves no _visible_ cuts, but here's a clearer example of editing. 7:09 .
I'll never cease to be impressed with how well you present such nuanced topics. I've talked to even car enthusiasts about this very thing and I've seen their eyes glaze over because of how technical and "nerdy" my presenations are. A few months ago I was doing so hardcore thermodynamic calculations and I realized that these engines must be running stupidly lean (my guess was about 2.0 lambda) in order to run the amounts of boost that they do, get anywhere near 1000 hp, and not exceed the max allowable fuel flow rate. I talked about that with some of my car buddies and they were like "there's no way a racecar runs lean. Max power is always rich". I felt vindicated when I saw you pull up that SAE study done by the Renault engineer. Anyways, well done! Keep up the good work!
I'm just trying to figure out what advantage you get by running lean. I get not running rich because that's wasting precious fuel, but why run so much boost when they could just run at stoichiometric with less boost? There seems to be so many downsides to running more boost.. Having to figure out how to run lean, adiabatic heating, other mechanical losses. The only thing I can figure is that they're somehow extracting mechanical power from the boost pressure alone... But the gains from that seem fleeting.
@@brianwright9514 When you are running less fuel through the engine with high Air fuel ratios you are getting less loss because there is less fuel overall thus there is less left over from incomplete combustion. there is still some fuel left over that doesn't get burnt as always but because the engine is running so lean there is much less, therfore the thermal efficiency is higher. hope this helps clear things up!
Jason, thank you for speaking to this F1 vs. Production engine debate. They are both amazing feats of engineering. Neither one is superior, and they both bring great things to the table that both studies improve from. It's not really an Engineers argument to say one is "better" engineering than the next as they have different problems to solve. Love the video!
AMG one enters the chat 😂 I think those F1 engines are awesome... but why is it that we never cant have everything. I want an AMG one with free valves and dua injectors that can run just as smoothly at lower rpms 😮
I prefer to stick with turbo direct injection or the old school NA engine. My bike compression ratio is 14.2 : 1 and I run it on RON100 ... don't know if that helps
@@geemy9675 Maybe because auto makers are busy trying to get heated+cooled cupholders/seats/steering wheels, programmable seating and pedal positions, wireless phone charging, and embedded tablets with GPS+internet installed and not break? I'm more of a simple man. I drive an old 96 Corvette. I already have a smart phone. I don't need another one in my car, especially if it requires its own service plan. I don't need heated seats. My a** heats it up just fine. 😁 All I want is something that's affordable, efficient, and fun to drive.
Seeing that F1 is currently discussing the new engine specifications for 2026, I think it would be awesome if you could talk about the technologies you would want to see implemented(or removed).
The main point of talk regarding the new regulations is removing the MGU-H, which is a very expensive part, and was also one of Porsche's requirements to join the fray. Another change is that they will run 100% sustainable synthetic fuels from 2026, and a bump in power for the MGU-K. There's an official FIA document stating all the changes somewhere on the internet or FIA site.
You have outdone yourself here, bravo! I believe I speak for all of the automobile community when I say that we are extremely fortunate that you happen to be this interested in all of this.
@@EngineeringExplained Even though I don't know enough calculus to follow all of your math, I still appreciate all that you do and find most of what you talk about very informative. I'm still ~10-20 years behind in vehicle manufacturing, but maybe someday I'll be able to enjoy some of the modern marvels in automotive engineering and be able to understand it better thanks to you. I just hope I can avoid the fake engine sound nonsense. 😄
Thanks for making such great and interesting videos! I’ve been watching you from the very beginning and it’s amazing how far you’ve come. I’m glad you are able to do something it looks like you really enjoy and are passionate about and be able to educate people in the process. We need more content creators like you!
@@EngineeringExplainedSir can you make a video how to remove and replace lash adjusters/lifters without removing timing cover and timing chain for i20 1.2 p 2011?
"Now, they actually state kW, which is a unit of power, not energy. But again, keep in mind this is a mid-pack team, let's cut 'em a little slack" 🤣 Another excellent video, Jason!
Absolutely funny. Jason's tongue in cheek statements are always spot on. But also, just a few seconds later, the calculation Jason puts on the board: 1240kWh/h makes it the 1240kW Mercedes states.
College calculus was a challenge for me and I was struggling to comprehend the basic concepts that was until I stopped using the latest and greatest textbooks we were required to buy. I purchased older, much older textbooks that had been abandoned because they were “outdated.” Same calculus but to legitimize the new books they had to come up with different ways to do the same thing and needlessly becoming more complicated. All this is done so the schools and publishers could bilk more money from students. This guy makes a complex subject understandable and fun to learn.
I remember reading about Honda's advanced stratified charge engine, the CVCC, back in the early 1970s in Motor Trend magazine. It employed the use of a smaller pre-combustion chamber with a rich mixture of gas and air to ignite the leaner mixture in the main combustion chamber. What you're describing with F1 sounds very similar to this concept. This made for an engine in the Civic, with its 12 inch wheels, which achieved 55 MPG; with a carburetor. Having lived through the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, I was very amazed that Honda was able to achieve that feat. The gas guzzling (truly) full-size cars from Detroit did well to achieve 15-17 MPG on the highway.
Imagine this same engine with modern, direct fuel injection, variable timing (VTEC in Honda speak) and a turbo charger. Considering Honda is back racing in F1 (and winning) some engineering team back Japan has to be developing this.
Been following F1 for over 30 years, and your 14 minute clip explained more to me than all my years of watching the races. Turbo chargers even make more sense now. Thanks.
Congrats to Max for 2023?!?!? 🤣😂 Love your videos but I still hope there's a good title fight for this year! Keep up the great work. It's always a pleasure learning from your explanations.
This was so good. I learned so much about formula 1 engines that I was not aware of. Thank you so much. I would love to see you do a comparison of say the old v10s or v12s compared to these new hybrid engines like you do with comparative Corvette engines or something like that. I still miss 20,000 RPMs out of a V12, that sound is just unbelievable. Keep up the excellent work
Infectious enthusiasm + clear depth and breadth of knowledge + very good speaking skills = the kind of Engineering professor who would turn out BRILLIANT students. Very good sir!
Another great video! I used to always tell customers who asked "how much boost can I run??" to remember that boost pressure is simply a measure of restriction. A motor with higher VE will make the same power at lower boost. High boost is not a bragging right in and of itself. The primary reason is one that I think is missing from your calculation - the heat generated through compressing air. More boost = more heat. Your calculation seems to assume the extra pressure comes at the same temperature. I.e. 2x pressure = 2x O2 content. But in reality, doubling the pressure adds significant heat, even after intercooling, and decreases charge density. So that "ideal 20psi" may actually require 25-30psi on the gauge to get that same calculated amount of O2 into the chamber. Or not, just a thought :)
You do get less out than the gauge reads due to compression heating the air and decompression cooling the air. The pressure on the needle implies more air is being stored than the actual air you get out in the end. But also it is better to reduce the pressure to increase the density, so cooling is great. So great, intercoolers reduce the pressure further to increase the air density, since the point is to give the cylinder more oxygen, not shove air into the intake until detonation. But yeah, it's kind of inaccurate to use the PSI value when it's all about air MASS, not air volume.
it would be so much easier to just sell customers a boost gauge with a really weak spring, so it'll always register high. Then you get bragging rights AND won't explode the engine!
The thing that matters is the density of air, which is the number of literal air molecules in a given space. Banks power has alot of cool videos talking about it and the ideal gas law.
Interesting fact is also that battery can deploy only 4 megajoules (MJ) / ~1.11 kWh per lap to the MGU-K. So since electric is kinda crucial to have "power advantage" in a race the team and driver have to make really good prediction when to use it⚡ It is more like Re-Volt game than classic race 😄
The MGUH can also send power directly to the MGUK, and that is unlimited. 4MJ is only for the transfer from the battery to the MGUK (for energy recovery it is 2MJ from MGUK to battery).
@PC_Modder OP edited his post.. Initially he said 1.1 kWh total, then he silently changed it to "per lap" after I corrected him. Or something along the lines, bad etiquette either way.
In US engineering we had to learn both, very annoying, metric is beautiful. In practice usually customers give us freedom units we convert to metric then back to freedom for presentation/submission/discussion to customer, very wasteful and annoying.
MGU-H is also used in a 4th way, as an electric supercharger. In qualifying mode, the battery is fully charged, and drives both the MGU-H and the MGU-K, and the wastegate is open for least amount of exhaust back pressure
Loved the vid btw, I've watched a lot of your video's and I really like how you actually break the info down and show your calculations. Makes everything a lot simpler to grasp and understand.
Honestly, one of three channels I look forward to the most in regards to automotive knowledge. Always look forward to your uploads, especially since youtube is littered with so much garbage info with people trying to get views. Was not disappointed!
God i like how you not only explain facts, and go through data, sources, and research, but you also walk us through your thought process, which is knowing the amount of knowledge you have is in and of itself a great source and also a way of making things more sensical as opposed to raw data, kudos!!
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS There is a scale factor coming into play here MAYDAY. The bigger the capacity - the less the bhp/liter. Because of the "cubed" capacity relationship. Too complicated to explain here. But the RR Merlin V12 was no slouch with its double supercharging! The American Air Racing fraternity hot rods theirs to 4,000+bhp in their P51's. Running on crazy boosts plus tons of nitrous oxide - and man - do they explode when they blow up! LOL
Honda used a form of the prechamber ignition called CVCC. Capturing exhaust pressure to generate electricity is an interesting concept. I've wondered how we could capture the residual pressure. You showed the Miller cycle once used by Mazda without calling it by name which is one way of doing it. In the era of steam engines they used several expansion stages to do it. Using the turbocharger is a way to do it but I wonder if it would be as efficient as building another expansion stage into our engines.
Thanks for presenting values in gallons, etc as well as the metric. I am 80 years old and “grew up” with feet and pounds so I appreciate not having to convert units. I am disappointed that the MGU-H unit is being dropped. The additional energy recovery from the exhaust must be problematic for continually varying loads.
That's the beauty of the metric system, it's like water, 1,6 litres = 1600 ccs, that's why America should be ashamed of the cars they made with 5, 6 litres and 120 hp, it's ridicule, no one in Europe did that!! poor engineering and pure arrogance!
@@jtiagosd They're very fond in the US of the saying "no replacement for displacement". Perhaps in the 50's but this video just goes to show that there is in fact a replacement for displacement and it's SO much better.
Wonderful to watch! You remind me of my biology teacher in high school (in the 90s). He was so good at making hand written summary pages / handouts with so much information, totally clear, condensing tons of book material. Simply brilliant. Same with notes on the chalk board, and explanations. Never experienced it since, so this is a nice reminder of what it was like.
Great video sir! If you are open to it .. I'd LOVE to see more formula engineering videos .. actually not just formula but racecar engineering specific videos altogether.. Also it would be very interesting to see a deep dive into some of the ingenious formula 1 engineering solutions that were banned because they were too advantageous or weren't in the so called "spirit of the rules" as they say.. Anyway great job, and thanks for the worthwhile and interesting content. Cheers!
Maybe a comparison between todays F1 engines and past engines like the mighty v10s. 19,000 rpm and still the best sounding engine to my nostalgia tinted ears. In those day they was no restrictions on engine per season. Hell they even had an era when they used special Qualifying engines and a separate race engine that was only meant to last one race.
@@Imthefake haha, no, but every engineer is a learner. I know mostly what the presenter is educating, what I learned was, how the mguk and the mguh works together with the engine and the battery. See, I work for a semiconductor company for many car manufacturers, producing brake sensors, throttle sensors, etc. We supply them. Alas, no matter how much I hate mercedes f1 team, as an engineer, I have to admire their engineering skills. They dominated most of the turbo hybrid era. But I got your sarcasm because they are not doing well at the moment 🤣
@@brianwright9514 there are many types of engineers, mechanical, automotive, mechanical - automotive, chemical, it really depends which course you graduated from and most importantly, is the course accredited by the Board of Engineers in your country. For example, I am from Malaysia and I studied in a Malaysian university that has been accredited by the Board of Engineers, which is a body from the Washington Accord. Upon graduation, I worked as an Automotive Engineer, and my specific job role is a Process Engineer. There are many certifications for engineering graduates. It all really depends. Hope that clarifies your curiosity.
How wonderful to see real engineering explained HONESTLY without any "gosh-wow-far-out this will solve all mankind's energy problems". Accompanied by 'dramatic' music and a 'breathless ' commentary. Hat tip to you Mr. Narrator!
In '79 I performed a major tune up on a Chrysler 318 Lean Burn engine. I followed the instructions carefully, it ran fine after test drive, returned to customer, who was preparing for a long trip. He returned from the trip raving about the economy. I think he said he got around 35mpg. I presumed that it was working well, and he probably eased up on it a bit to test the repairs. But it was rather high for a 318CI V8, automatic, 3 speed. Smokey Yunick built a number of engines and modified the 2.2 Dodge engine. They were rather impressive, and made 220? He made his "Adiabatic" engines and they were something. 75ci V twin, 150hp @7500, 100 at @ 2000? An inline 3, and a V4. The V4 had no cooling system. It made 340hp, and at that point it could run mid class trucks. It was that efficient. You could put your bare hand on the exhaust outlet. Intake temperature post turbo was 450degF. Ran on sour gas as well as avgas. Very fuel efficient, and considering the pressures(big oil), they were never developed. Corporate America is SATAN. There were a lot of other details, but maybe you will seek them out.
They were far less efficient, and just used tons of boost pressure combined with very extreme fuels with extreme fuel burn rate. Hence why they only had that power in qualification mode.
You forgot that air ingestion depends on compression ratio, not expansion ratio. So 1.6/(2*18/15) = 2/3 liters per revolution. Times 11,500 gives 7,667 litres per minute. If your assumptions about Miller cycle is correct, which is a pretty safe bet. Especially with an MGU-H to ensure regulate air flow into the cylinders.
Honda was an early adopter of this technology. Remember the CVCC Honda Civic? CVCC stands for "Controlled Vortex Compound Combustion". It was actually 2 combustion chambers for each cylinder. The CVCC chamber was alot smaller, it included a small thimble size chamber, it's own small valve and valve holder. It was incredibly efficient and those vehicles did not need a Cat converter due to a cleaner and more efficient cylinder burn. This technology is what is probably being used in the RED Bull Honda FI engine that is dominating the circuit right now. Too bad those early CVCC motors had alot of head-gasket problems.
1.4 bars of boost is still very very high to an 18:1 compression ratio engine. and you are right about f1 engines running extremely lean, to the point that the main chamber's mixture is too lean to be ignited with a sparkplug. the main chamber can only be ignited by the heat and shockwave from the combustion of pre-chamber. so realistically they are putting 2.X bars of boost into an 18:1 engine that shifts at 12,500 rpm & have 2 electric systems scavenging waste power. of course it will result in some staggering numbers.
@@gameonyolo1 They know how much power they are going to make, and engineer the bottom end of the engine to withstand all that power. The 15,000 red line sounds high, but older F1 engines used to actually red line at around 18,000.
@@gameonyolo1 Fair point, high compression ratio, plus high boost would normally result in knock. He mentioned something about closing the intake valve early to limit this issue.
They have more boost than 1,4bar. Scarbstech have talked about it, since the MGU-H will disappear 2026. And since they don't run with 14,7afr 1,4bar is not correct. I can check some sources.... Really funny you congratulated Max for the 2023 wc BTW 🤣👌
Jason, I love your channel. Wow, so great the way you present it. I'm 50, and have built many turbo charged cars. So many comments already i wish i knew how to search...., but the discussion isn't about boost pressure at all, it's about air volume being moved by the selected turbo charger compressor. 20 psi on a smaller turbo vs 20 psi on a large turbo is completely different airflow masses and thus horsepower. Most turbo manufacturers have detailed turbo lbs/hr graphs that show the amount of air these turbos move. It would be amazing to know the f1 turbo compressor lbs per hour (or kg per hour lol) details, and then boost pressure could be then calculated. Boost pressure is not the relevant data point, it's only relevant when crossed with the compressor specifications at that indicate what air mass is moved at that pressure level, to then deduce horsepower.
This was a fantastic explanation of the principles used to determine power output vs other variables. Four years ago in Dubai Renault stated over 45psi at times in qualifying
Turbo sizing also plays a huge role in overall boost pressure needed for power output. A bigger Turbo can flow more air, which means less boost pressure is needed to make the same power. Being that they use the mgu-h to help spool the Turbo, they can essentially get away with using a relatively large Turbo without any of the drawbacks. The less boost pressure used means the lower the intake air temperature, which in turn helps overall fuel efficiency since they don't have to run a richer air/fuel ratio to cool down the combustion chamber. F1 engines are great not because of technology used, but more so because of the engineering skills needed to make it all work in unison.
Love the content, seeing this inspires me more to pursue a degree in thermo dynamics and fluid dynamics to eventually work for a racing team. After seeing this it doesn’t seem as daunting and really fun, I can tell you love what you do
Great video. Over in bike land, the Ducati NA Desmosedici Stradale 90° V4 has a similar bore x stroke, a 14,000 rpm redline and runs a 14:1 compression ratio on premium pump gas. It makes peak torque at 11,000 rpm. In addition to being inefficient to run the F1 engine to max rpm, I'm guessing it slides off the torque curve around the same point as the bike engine.
Outstanding presentation. Perhaps you could reach out to a former F1 Engineer (now retired Ross Brawn) to see if your calculations are close to correct. I thoroughly enjoy watching F1, love the competition even if my favorite driver doesn't win. Agreed, congrats to Red Bull's VER & PER. They truly dominated last season. Hopefully it is a tighter battle this season.
Thank you for doing all this research and presenting these results. It would be interesting to see what could be done if we took the shackles off and set the engineers loose to find out what could be achieved. How far can efficiency be pushed? What's the limit to power per liter with existing material constraints?
Succinct and informative! Thank you, it’s interesting to note ambient temperature as an obvious factor, while not clearly defined in the calculations. It’s something that F1 engineers clearly have to contend with, not just in geography but also generated heat that must be managed. Really great content, I’m excited to see what’s next!
Very surprised that the required boost level is so low but it makes sense. I think the 1.5 liter turbo engines in the 90s were up to 5 or 6 bar but they did not have any fuel restrictions. Thanks for the remarks on the metric system and on Max Verstappen 😂. Greetings from a dutch guy in the US 👍.
They also never ran the 80's turbo engines at that level of boost for more than a couple of laps; just enough to get a monster qualifying time in before the engines blew up and were replaced for the race. The ones they'd use for the actual races were putting out maybe 2/3 the power they were capable of.
@@jimandrews1011 Yeah they pushed the engines to 1200 hp on qualifying, but on race, pulled it back to 1000... I remember the eyes of senna after a qualifying, like he was on acid, pupils magnified and legs trembly...!!
The interesting thing to me is you could adjust the boost purely digitally. If you were allowed a pito tube you can get ambient and static pressure and in theory you can use the electrified turbo to set the boost to be perfect for both the wind and weather conditions (or low pressure/high pressure)
There ARE pitot tubes on F1 cars and I'm pretty sure they are used for this exact reason. Fun fact, in the 90s traction control was banned in F1, but some teams actually used the indicated airspeed (from a pitot tube) in combination with the engine RPM to determine whether there was wheelspin and limit engine power as a result. So yeah, effectively it was traction control but hidden in a very smart way.
@@christophmayer3991 got it right there is certainly a pitot system involved but despite that some engines and teams have better high altitude performance. I assume trade offs in packaging and intake design are the cause.
@@christophmayer3991 fair I don't follow F1, but that would give you variable boost, and variable boost is effectively the same as variable valve timing. As it can allow you to directly control the fuel air mix.
This is what they do and essentially what most production cars do (obviously they don’t have a pitot tube but they also don’t have an intake with above ambient pressure)
Excellent explanation - as a F1 fan, I really appreciate. Notes: - Ferrari use 100 octane version of 1000 Shell V-power that you can buy at the pump... in Europe. So using the EPA figure is close but not accurate. - Toyota and Mazda have production engines with over 40% thermal efficiency with compression ratios over 14:1,.
Hey Jason, as an F1 fan loved the video. I honestly didn’t expect this big of a difference in thermal efficiency between production and F1 engines. This makes me wonder why production engines are not able to achieve such figures. It seems that fuel efficiency would be a top priority for most production engine manufacturers so why is it that production engines rarely reach greater than 35% thermal efficiency? Is it Cost? Reliability? Maybe I am misunderstanding but would love to know more…
A lot of that has to do with how reliable production car engines are expected to be, and how little fuel they're designed to use overall. Even with limits on power unit components, F1 engines still complete a fraction of the mileage a road car will over its lifetime, and spend far less time idling, start/stopping, etc. It's also important to note that fuel economy and thermal efficiency are not the same thing; an understressed 4-cylinder engine running at low RPM is going to suffer greater friction/pumping losse due to not running at full throttle, but it's still going to use a lot less fuel than a racing engine running at 10,000 RPM, even if that racing engine is burning a greater percentage of the fuel going into it. Does that make sense?
@@ronaldjones743 lol. If manufacturers could make their products more appealing to customers by consuming less gas they would. There is no reason for conspiracy theories to explain this
the older NA engines could produce high power as well, I believe the old BMW 3.0 V10 made over 800 at 17,500 RPM. Toyota apparently had a V10 that could do 19,000 RPM and made "closer to 1000 bhp" than most people imagined. Shame it didn't get them anywhere though! Also I would expect motorsport to have higher average efficiency than a road car because they will be running in peak efficiency areas most of the time, whereas when we're cruising the highway the efficiency isn't actually all that good (although the economy can look good, economy \= efficiency. You can use a little fuel badly and a lot of fuel efficiently). There are BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, g/kWH) sweetspots in all engines and they tend to be quite close to the max torque curve (or full load points)
1983 BMW M12/13 1.5-liter inline-4 FI engine. Unlimited boost. BMW engineers figured the engine produced around 1,400 hp at maximum boost. However, the BMW engine dynamometer could not go beyond 1,280 bhp.
Nope. Last year of V10 era brings out engines that produced 950hp (BMW). But the last and the most powerful one was Honda with its 968 crazy, japanese horses :)
important note: those N/A engines also had unlimited fuel flow and had practically 0 emphasis on reliability allowing teams to run full power switch engines every weekend. today's engines fall under more strict regulations.
at the end of the day, isnt thermal efficiency exactly what we want in production cars? why arent we using pre chamber ignition or a shortened intake stroke in road cars then? i dont see why this would significantly reduce reliability
8:17 And it's 11-12 AFR on WOT because the fuel actually "cool" the ignition chamber, and therfore limit knock (vs 14.7). It's the main reason E85 limit Knock even more than regular petrol based fuel, you need more ethanol than petrol to run an engine at correct lambda. BTW I have some pictures of used Ferrari 2018 to 2020 piston, and you can clearly see the "fire" pattern from prechamber. The color on those area suggest that they sustain more heat on those places.🔥
Also one of Honda ignition pattern shots became public witch was quite different. Looked quite "ringish" seems that flame front traveled around outer walls. Quite simple "diesel" tech used in gasoline.
Excellent video that demonstrates how complex F1 team strategies are in reality. Those strategies must be formulated race by race based on track conditions, and you were only talking about the engine. It would be fun to expand upon this and discuss tire wear and aerodynamics that are equally important/complicated.
I was a Porsche tech in the mid-70s when the 930's came out. I attended all of the new tech training for these systems. I marveled at the engineering then, but this pales in comparison. I often modified the waste gates for some "special customers" to give them about 1.1 bar. The factory set was .7 bar. Road testing these after a full service was the best part of my day. 😎
@@msk3905 It was the Bosch CIS injection system then, when they first came out. (No computers) That system's fuel delivery rate was dictated by the lift of the sensor plate and as the engine needed more air it would go higher, faster. No modifications were apparently needed, at least in "normal" driving conditions. I'm sure putting this on a dyno probably would have noticed some decrease in the power curve. With these, being street cars, the customer was more than happy with the results. I usually tried to dial in about 1.0 bar as these weren't really designed to have that much more additional crankcase pressure. I did have to ground the limiting switch wire so the fuel pumps wouldn't shut of by an overboost signal.
A friend made me watch the recent F1 race in Lost Wages. One thing I noticed was the frequency of the exhaust seemed much lower than I remembered back when I was watching all racing. So, not only did I find out they are now V6s (they were V12s when I used to watch), but they are now hybrids. I have been watching Formula E and WEC (due to the hybrids), but was unaware of hybrids of F1. In researching them I stumbled on you nifty explanation of how it is all tied together. I thought I had seen all your vidios already, so was surprised to find one I hadn't seen. ;)
As an avid F1 watcher for many years I tried to understand the difference between the mgu-k and mgu-h for a long time, this is the first real clear explanation that really makes it stick for me.
Remember that boost pressure is a number of back pressure as well I.E. air flow. The more efficient the less or lower the number. Not knowing what the exhaust pressure is makes this a hard equation to pin point. They both work hand in hand with one another. Great video.
Great video Jason, I'm very pleased you've taken a look at F1 stuff. Over a year ago (I think) I commented that I thought you'd find it very interesting, I doubt my comment had anything to do with you looking though, that's probably more to do with the popularity of F1 increasing in America, most likely because of Drive to Survive. I've been blown away by the stuff the F1 engineers have come up with over the years, some of it is quite baffling to me. They change the rules, normally aero ones, to stop/limit them doing something but engineers can't forget what they learnt, so they look for another way to get the same result. It's fascinating to watch. 😃
Great content. I believe the intake valve closure is late rather than early to reduce dynamic CR. This is called Miller cycle to achive better expansion work and reduce compression work.
It really shows the difference between road cars and race cars. Road cars are optimised for low load efficiency, while race cars are optimised for high load efficiency. It reminds me of the SPCCI Mazda uses in terms of lean mixture and rich pre-ignition.
That point on why they make so much power on very little boost is exactly what I thought when I saw a great video on an Indy Buick V6 engine here in Aus, it was making around 400kw on 4.5 psi of boost on 3.3L displacement. They too rev very high.
Great video, Fenske!👌👌 Let's consider the cylinder pressure required to create the torque necessary for that horsepower at say 11k rpm. Now, assume lean combustion up to 15k rpm running the higher lambda and advanced pre ignition timing. 😉. Torque may plummets but power stays up. The trade off is that cylinder and exhaust temps rise to the point of accelerated fatigue as the cylinder pressure ratio gets quite elevated.
Technically highly meaningful analysis presented in a simple to understand and pleasant way. Very much appreciated! One can explain complex things in a simple manner only when one has full understanding and clarity!
I know nothing of F1, but I wonder: why so many rules on car and engine specs? Why not let each team build to the best of their ability without restrictions and limitations?
**Important Note!** Production cars vs F1 cars: why are F1 cars more efficient? Especially considering my comments in the video about both being impressive, but operating under different rule sets. Several reasons for F1’s efficiency advantage:
1. Quantity - Formula 1 only needs to make a handful of engines for a season. This allows for an attention to detail that you won’t have when producing engine quantities in the millions for production cars. It’s easy to make one efficient engine. Mass production adds complications.
2. Cost - The cost per engine is vastly greater in Formula 1, allowing for opportunities that you don’t have when you’re selling an entire production car for $30,000. Materials, tolerances, difficult manufacturing designs, etc. Relatively speaking, production car engines are very cheap, which limits the design.
3. Reliability - F1 teams are allowed 3 engines per season without penalties, so an F1 engine only needs to last 7-8 races (plus practice & qualifying), meaning about 1,500 - 2000 miles. When your engine doesn’t need to last as long, you can run it closer to peak efficiency, where knock is more prevalent (think high spark advance, leaner air fuel mixtures). It’s worth sacrificing reliability for performance, because the goal isn’t an engine that lasts for 200,000 miles.
4. Rev-Range - F1 engines have a much more defined use case versus road cars. Road cars operate at many different RPM, in many different engine load scenarios. Trying to develop an engine that is efficient across this wide range of use-cases is very difficult. F1, on the other hand, has a much more narrow focus. Create power at full load as efficiently as possible. This means you can pick a region of the engine where it spends most of its time (say 11k RPM) to maximize efficiency.
Thank you so much for this summary. I'm at work and cant listen to the entire video so reading all of the reasons was great for me!
A motorcycle or motorbike engine limited to 15k rpm which is the same as a F1 car
Low torque engines
"It’s easy to make one efficient engine." - i doubt it's really so easy))
Production engine with f1 combustion system and high CR would operate at 1500-3500 rpm mostly providing even greater efficiency due to less mechanical losses.
Maybe its to early for saying goodby to oldg00d ICE ))
Thanks for that Carnac the Magnificent moment of predicting Max as this year's world champion.
That boost level has to be on the higher end. Another good estimate would be at the maximum fuel rate allowed, how much boost could you safely create?
Imagine if all university lecturers/lectures were this engaging and interesting
Makes you think people become trainers because they can't do the thing they teach and it's all they know
I know right? Imagine getting more than you paid for versus the way it is.
Only losers go to lecture
Right! Instead its about 80 percent woke BS there teaching now days
They are if you choose the right major
How the heck does this man make this hugely complicated topic not only supremely interesting, but also understandable. My hat is not just tipped to him in appreciation, but thrown high into the air. An absolutely excellent presentation. Thank you heaps mate.
With white boards just like your college professors
And the right orientation of intent.
He knows what's involved in the particular engine and the elements it calls upon then simplifies it for both ear and brain.
Well said, spot on
@@jimsteinway695 exactly! White board (or black board) teaching is best
This is the best explanation of the MGU-H and modern F1 engines I've seen. After nearly 10 years of commentators trying, they should just bring Jason on to do it.
Indeed. The so-called pundits on TV coverage often either are not good at explaining it, or they get cut off by the host who wants to move on to other topics...
@@Rob2 If you want technical info from the TV coverage just wait until they bring out Sam Collins. He does all their technical videos on their YT channel too.
Seriously. I'm a huge F1 fan and totally couldn't get the distinction between the two from Sam and the others. I've watched Jason for other great engineering breakdowns so this was a subject I was happy to see him tackle. I'd have a career in this stuff if he was my professor, of that I'm sure.
@@Skasaha_ He is better than most, but still he is restricted to making 1-minute segments about a general topic, and by the time het gets into some detail he has to pass back to the presenter who goes on about celebrities at the track or talks with a midfield driver who experienced an eventless race.
I have never seen such basic explanations as "how much energy does an F1 car have to work with during a race" or even the mention of the many small rules that govern the engine design.
Every time they start explaining the MGU-K and MGU-H but get stuck there.
I would love to see Sam do a 10 or 15 minute segment similar to the video we see here, but I don't think it is ever going to happen...
I've seen the full series on engines that Mercedes made. They weren't as easy to understand as this one was. Just saying.
What's extra amazing is it appears he did all the sections of this complicated explanation in one take, with no ums, ahs, etc. A masterpiece! So sharp, so impressive!
There's some 2 dozen video clips inserted. He can re-do any speech of entire sections cutting between sentences (or even phrases) when the two sentences fall into those clips. This leaves no _visible_ cuts, but here's a clearer example of editing. 7:09 .
editing it can be done to look seamless. jeez this is 2023 you guys need to watch less videos read more books
You are a great educator, breaking down these complex matters so that even us non-engineers can grasp it.
I'll never cease to be impressed with how well you present such nuanced topics. I've talked to even car enthusiasts about this very thing and I've seen their eyes glaze over because of how technical and "nerdy" my presenations are. A few months ago I was doing so hardcore thermodynamic calculations and I realized that these engines must be running stupidly lean (my guess was about 2.0 lambda) in order to run the amounts of boost that they do, get anywhere near 1000 hp, and not exceed the max allowable fuel flow rate. I talked about that with some of my car buddies and they were like "there's no way a racecar runs lean. Max power is always rich". I felt vindicated when I saw you pull up that SAE study done by the Renault engineer. Anyways, well done! Keep up the good work!
Appreciate the kind words; thanks for taking the time to leave this note!
I'm just trying to figure out what advantage you get by running lean. I get not running rich because that's wasting precious fuel, but why run so much boost when they could just run at stoichiometric with less boost? There seems to be so many downsides to running more boost.. Having to figure out how to run lean, adiabatic heating, other mechanical losses.
The only thing I can figure is that they're somehow extracting mechanical power from the boost pressure alone... But the gains from that seem fleeting.
@@brianwright9514 To get to close to 50% efficiency, its in the video.
@@rappit4 that is stated as the goal in the video, but it's not explained how running lean achieves that goal.
@@brianwright9514 When you are running less fuel through the engine with high Air fuel ratios you are getting less loss because there is less fuel overall thus there is less left over from incomplete combustion. there is still some fuel left over that doesn't get burnt as always but because the engine is running so lean there is much less, therfore the thermal efficiency is higher. hope this helps clear things up!
Jason, thank you for speaking to this F1 vs. Production engine debate. They are both amazing feats of engineering. Neither one is superior, and they both bring great things to the table that both studies improve from. It's not really an Engineers argument to say one is "better" engineering than the next as they have different problems to solve. Love the video!
AMG one enters the chat 😂 I think those F1 engines are awesome... but why is it that we never cant have everything. I want an AMG one with free valves and dua injectors that can run just as smoothly at lower rpms 😮
@geemy if you put your mind (time blood, tears, and life savings) to it it may not be as impossible as you think
I prefer to stick with turbo direct injection or the old school NA engine.
My bike compression ratio is 14.2 : 1 and I run it on RON100 ... don't know if that helps
@@geemy9675 If u got enuff cash , u can even date them AMG 1 engineers and fcuk them after u wine and dine them😜
@@geemy9675 Maybe because auto makers are busy trying to get heated+cooled cupholders/seats/steering wheels, programmable seating and pedal positions, wireless phone charging, and embedded tablets with GPS+internet installed and not break?
I'm more of a simple man. I drive an old 96 Corvette. I already have a smart phone. I don't need another one in my car, especially if it requires its own service plan. I don't need heated seats. My a** heats it up just fine. 😁 All I want is something that's affordable, efficient, and fun to drive.
Seeing that F1 is currently discussing the new engine specifications for 2026, I think it would be awesome if you could talk about the technologies you would want to see implemented(or removed).
The main point of talk regarding the new regulations is removing the MGU-H, which is a very expensive part, and was also one of Porsche's requirements to join the fray.
Another change is that they will run 100% sustainable synthetic fuels from 2026, and a bump in power for the MGU-K.
There's an official FIA document stating all the changes somewhere on the internet or FIA site.
This!!
Take the current number of cylinders, multiply them by 2 😂
Yes this would be good
Why, cost is insane, electric is the answer.
You have an amazing ability to deliver enthusiasm in engineering. Really wish you had been my professor back in the day.
You have outdone yourself here, bravo!
I believe I speak for all of the automobile community when I say that we are extremely fortunate that you happen to be this interested in all of this.
So very kind of you to say, thank you!! 🙏
@@EngineeringExplained Even though I don't know enough calculus to follow all of your math, I still appreciate all that you do and find most of what you talk about very informative. I'm still ~10-20 years behind in vehicle manufacturing, but maybe someday I'll be able to enjoy some of the modern marvels in automotive engineering and be able to understand it better thanks to you. I just hope I can avoid the fake engine sound nonsense. 😄
Thanks for making such great and interesting videos! I’ve been watching you from the very beginning and it’s amazing how far you’ve come. I’m glad you are able to do something it looks like you really enjoy and are passionate about and be able to educate people in the process. We need more content creators like you!
Thank you thank you, really appreciate the kind words!!
@@EngineeringExplainedSir can you make a video how to remove and replace lash adjusters/lifters without removing timing cover and timing chain for i20 1.2 p 2011?
@@tnamen1307 lol😆
@@alanwarda5064 I'm from India, and you?
@@EngineeringExplained it's a shame most of your maths is wrong...
"Now, they actually state kW, which is a unit of power, not energy. But again, keep in mind this is a mid-pack team, let's cut 'em a little slack" 🤣
Another excellent video, Jason!
This got me rollin'
Ouch!!!
Absolutely funny. Jason's tongue in cheek statements are always spot on.
But also, just a few seconds later, the calculation Jason puts on the board: 1240kWh/h makes it the 1240kW Mercedes states.
Kick m while they're down
Congratulating Max on his 2023 title win was pretty funny too ;)
College calculus was a challenge for me and I was struggling to comprehend the basic concepts that was until I stopped using the latest and greatest textbooks we were required to buy. I purchased older, much older textbooks that had been abandoned because they were “outdated.” Same calculus but to legitimize the new books they had to come up with different ways to do the same thing and needlessly becoming more complicated. All this is done so the schools and publishers could bilk more money from students. This guy makes a complex subject understandable and fun to learn.
I remember reading about Honda's advanced stratified charge engine, the CVCC, back in the early 1970s in Motor Trend magazine. It employed the use of a smaller pre-combustion chamber with a rich mixture of gas and air to ignite the leaner mixture in the main combustion chamber. What you're describing with F1 sounds very similar to this concept. This made for an engine in the Civic, with its 12 inch wheels, which achieved 55 MPG; with a carburetor. Having lived through the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, I was very amazed that Honda was able to achieve that feat. The gas guzzling (truly) full-size cars from Detroit did well to achieve 15-17 MPG on the highway.
Imagine this same engine with modern, direct fuel injection, variable timing (VTEC in Honda speak) and a turbo charger. Considering Honda is back racing in F1 (and winning) some engineering team back Japan has to be developing this.
Perfect start into the new season with learning new things about the engines.
Been following F1 for over 30 years, and your 14 minute clip explained more to me than all my years of watching the races. Turbo chargers even make more sense now. Thanks.
Congrats to Max for 2023?!?!? 🤣😂
Love your videos but I still hope there's a good title fight for this year! Keep up the great work. It's always a pleasure learning from your explanations.
He is just trying to jinx it :D
Here it is! lol surprised I had to scroll down a bit 🤣
Congrats to Alonso of taking his third.
Insert Mad Max meme about that being bait.....
Is he about to change the name of the channel to Time Traveling explained? I sure hope so.
This was so good. I learned so much about formula 1 engines that I was not aware of. Thank you so much. I would love to see you do a comparison of say the old v10s or v12s compared to these new hybrid engines like you do with comparative Corvette engines or something like that. I still miss 20,000 RPMs out of a V12, that sound is just unbelievable. Keep up the excellent work
Infectious enthusiasm + clear depth and breadth of knowledge + very good speaking skills = the kind of Engineering professor who would turn out BRILLIANT students. Very good sir!
Another great video! I used to always tell customers who asked "how much boost can I run??" to remember that boost pressure is simply a measure of restriction. A motor with higher VE will make the same power at lower boost. High boost is not a bragging right in and of itself. The primary reason is one that I think is missing from your calculation - the heat generated through compressing air. More boost = more heat. Your calculation seems to assume the extra pressure comes at the same temperature. I.e. 2x pressure = 2x O2 content. But in reality, doubling the pressure adds significant heat, even after intercooling, and decreases charge density. So that "ideal 20psi" may actually require 25-30psi on the gauge to get that same calculated amount of O2 into the chamber. Or not, just a thought :)
Iirc Motor Trend did this with a Chevy SBC and an industrial air compressor.
You do get less out than the gauge reads due to compression heating the air and decompression cooling the air. The pressure on the needle implies more air is being stored than the actual air you get out in the end.
But also it is better to reduce the pressure to increase the density, so cooling is great. So great, intercoolers reduce the pressure further to increase the air density, since the point is to give the cylinder more oxygen, not shove air into the intake until detonation.
But yeah, it's kind of inaccurate to use the PSI value when it's all about air MASS, not air volume.
it would be so much easier to just sell customers a boost gauge with a really weak spring, so it'll always register high. Then you get bragging rights AND won't explode the engine!
Guy says high boost is not a bragging right with the name HiBoostSupra 🤔
The thing that matters is the density of air, which is the number of literal air molecules in a given space. Banks power has alot of cool videos talking about it and the ideal gas law.
Awesome video and investigative work. You can see the time and passion you put into your work. Keep it up.
Appreciate it, thanks for watching!
This is a must watch for all F1 fans. Excellent stuff. Thanks for this!
It's amazing how someone smart enough can teach you so much in just under 20 minutes. Great video, keep it up!
14:22 Is it only me or is Jason cracking that Sharpie marker more satisfying than any turbo spool ever heard
Interesting fact is also that battery can deploy only 4 megajoules (MJ) / ~1.11 kWh per lap to the MGU-K.
So since electric is kinda crucial to have "power advantage" in a race the team and driver have to make really good prediction when to use it⚡
It is more like Re-Volt game than classic race 😄
Considering a sub 2 min lap time, 1.1kWh is 30+ kWh per lap though, so a significant amount, or in EV terms - over 200 km in distance.
You mentioned the first game I ever modded. Nostalgia ahah
The MGUH can also send power directly to the MGUK, and that is unlimited. 4MJ is only for the transfer from the battery to the MGUK (for energy recovery it is 2MJ from MGUK to battery).
@pino'cleen All race distances are approximately 300 km except Monaco which is shortened a bit due to its short length.
@PC_Modder OP edited his post.. Initially he said 1.1 kWh total, then he silently changed it to "per lap" after I corrected him. Or something along the lines, bad etiquette either way.
"Because the metric system is beautiful…” 😂😂😂
Freedom units have been challenged 😂
@@ericratynski Are you questioning every American’s right to measure things in king’s feet? 🤔
In US engineering we had to learn both, very annoying, metric is beautiful. In practice usually customers give us freedom units we convert to metric then back to freedom for presentation/submission/discussion to customer, very wasteful and annoying.
Absolutely 😁
MGU-H is also used in a 4th way, as an electric supercharger.
In qualifying mode, the battery is fully charged, and drives both the MGU-H and the MGU-K, and the wastegate is open for least amount of exhaust back pressure
That "party mode" is no longer permited. Altough mguh stil might supportl compresor
Very interesting video, as are they all. That precombustion chamber seems very similar to Honda's CVCC technology from the '70's.
Please make this a series breaking down all things F1 like aero, tyres, brakes, diffusers etc
Really enjoyed this, sir!
jaw dropped at "keep in mind this is a mid pack team"😂
I mean...the video came out 6 days ago so it is accurate for this season.
@@benkoehler7397 crazy how Merc is written in off by everyone 1 race into the season
Loved the vid btw, I've watched a lot of your video's and I really like how you actually break the info down and show your calculations. Makes everything a lot simpler to grasp and understand.
Honestly, one of three channels I look forward to the most in regards to automotive knowledge. Always look forward to your uploads, especially since youtube is littered with so much garbage info with people trying to get views. Was not disappointed!
Appreciate that, thanks for watching!
Which are the other two?
The other two ?
There's such quality content elsewhere 🤔
@@mohamadhadi2267 Driving 4 answers is great. He doesn't post that often anymore, but some quality content
God i like how you not only explain facts, and go through data, sources, and research, but you also walk us through your thought process, which is knowing the amount of knowledge you have is in and of itself a great source and also a way of making things more sensical as opposed to raw data, kudos!!
At first i was amazed by the fact that jason replied to me, then i read the name 😢
This video has made my windy, cold and rain soaked day quite educational, but mostly just simply a fun day. Thanks, Jason!
For reference a wwii merlin made around 1700 hp at 18lbs boost and around 3k rpm but the engine was the size of a formula 1 car at 27 liters😄
Merlin = 63bhp/liter.... pffft. The 1983 BMW F1 1.5-liter was 933bhp/liter!
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp ya pretty amazing what 40yrs of tech can deliver
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS There is a scale factor coming into play here MAYDAY.
The bigger the capacity - the less the bhp/liter. Because of the "cubed" capacity relationship.
Too complicated to explain here.
But the RR Merlin V12 was no slouch with its double supercharging! The American Air Racing fraternity hot rods theirs to 4,000+bhp in their P51's. Running on crazy boosts plus tons of nitrous oxide - and man - do they explode when they blow up! LOL
Honda used a form of the prechamber ignition called CVCC. Capturing exhaust pressure to generate electricity is an interesting concept. I've wondered how we could capture the residual pressure. You showed the Miller cycle once used by Mazda without calling it by name which is one way of doing it. In the era of steam engines they used several expansion stages to do it. Using the turbocharger is a way to do it but I wonder if it would be as efficient as building another expansion stage into our engines.
Thanks for presenting values in gallons, etc as well as the metric. I am 80 years old and “grew up” with feet and pounds so I appreciate not having to convert units. I am disappointed that the MGU-H unit is being dropped. The additional energy recovery from the exhaust must be problematic for continually varying loads.
That's the beauty of the metric system, it's like water, 1,6 litres = 1600 ccs, that's why America should be ashamed of the cars they made with 5, 6 litres and 120 hp, it's ridicule, no one in Europe did that!! poor engineering and pure arrogance!
@@jtiagosd They're very fond in the US of the saying "no replacement for displacement". Perhaps in the 50's but this video just goes to show that there is in fact a replacement for displacement and it's SO much better.
Wow!! Just like my IC Engines professor teach 💯👏🏼.. Amazing Lecture 💯🔥
Wonderful to watch! You remind me of my biology teacher in high school (in the 90s). He was so good at making hand written summary pages / handouts with so much information, totally clear, condensing tons of book material. Simply brilliant. Same with notes on the chalk board, and explanations. Never experienced it since, so this is a nice reminder of what it was like.
Great video sir! If you are open to it .. I'd LOVE to see more formula engineering videos .. actually not just formula but racecar engineering specific videos altogether..
Also it would be very interesting to see a deep dive into some of the ingenious formula 1 engineering solutions that were banned because they were too advantageous or weren't in the so called "spirit of the rules" as they say..
Anyway great job, and thanks for the worthwhile and interesting content. Cheers!
Maybe a comparison between todays F1 engines and past engines like the mighty v10s. 19,000 rpm and still the best sounding engine to my nostalgia tinted ears. In those day they was no restrictions on engine per season. Hell they even had an era when they used special Qualifying engines and a separate race engine that was only meant to last one race.
Top fuel dragster have that much in one cylinder.
As a Certified Automotive Engineer, you sir, have just made it so simple for us to understand. Thank you!
do you work at the mercedes f1 team that you had to learn this from a youtube video?
@@Imthefake haha, no, but every engineer is a learner. I know mostly what the presenter is educating, what I learned was, how the mguk and the mguh works together with the engine and the battery. See, I work for a semiconductor company for many car manufacturers, producing brake sensors, throttle sensors, etc. We supply them. Alas, no matter how much I hate mercedes f1 team, as an engineer, I have to admire their engineering skills. They dominated most of the turbo hybrid era. But I got your sarcasm because they are not doing well at the moment 🤣
First time I've ever heard of a Certified Automotive Engineer.
@@brianwright9514 there are many types of engineers, mechanical, automotive, mechanical - automotive, chemical, it really depends which course you graduated from and most importantly, is the course accredited by the Board of Engineers in your country. For example, I am from Malaysia and I studied in a Malaysian university that has been accredited by the Board of Engineers, which is a body from the Washington Accord. Upon graduation, I worked as an Automotive Engineer, and my specific job role is a Process Engineer. There are many certifications for engineering graduates. It all really depends. Hope that clarifies your curiosity.
We run the same pre-chambers on big diesel ships but they go by precumchambers for short
How wonderful to see real engineering explained HONESTLY without any "gosh-wow-far-out this will solve all mankind's energy problems". Accompanied by 'dramatic' music and a 'breathless ' commentary.
Hat tip to you Mr. Narrator!
great video as always, concise and well explained. great visual aid too, makes it easier to digest the numbers going on.
In '79 I performed a major tune up on a Chrysler 318 Lean Burn engine. I followed the instructions carefully, it ran fine after test drive, returned to customer, who was preparing for a long trip. He returned from the trip raving about the economy. I think he said he got around 35mpg. I presumed that it was working well, and he probably eased up on it a bit to test the repairs. But it was rather high for a 318CI V8, automatic, 3 speed. Smokey Yunick built a number of engines and modified the 2.2 Dodge engine. They were rather impressive, and made 220? He made his "Adiabatic" engines and they were something.
75ci V twin, 150hp @7500, 100 at @ 2000? An inline 3, and a V4. The V4 had no cooling system. It made 340hp, and at that point it could run mid class trucks. It was that efficient. You could put your bare hand on the exhaust outlet. Intake temperature post turbo was 450degF. Ran on sour gas as well as avgas. Very fuel efficient, and considering the pressures(big oil), they were never developed. Corporate America is SATAN. There were a lot of other details, but maybe you will seek them out.
Exactly corporate America has always kept the working man barely out of the poor house.
J.O.B. Just Over Broke
Love the vid - they were doing this in the early-mid 1980s with 1.5 litre V6 engines without electric motors. Renault EF could push out over 1,200 hp
Yep, 👍👍
Yes! Though wildly different strategy; high RPM, and boatloads of fuel (low efficiency).
They were far less efficient, and just used tons of boost pressure combined with very extreme fuels with extreme fuel burn rate. Hence why they only had that power in qualification mode.
Those cars were insane. Barely driveable.
@@malmsey1541 That is the definition of a mans engine, none of the airy fairy electric nonsense.
You forgot that air ingestion depends on compression ratio, not expansion ratio. So 1.6/(2*18/15) = 2/3 liters per revolution. Times 11,500 gives 7,667 litres per minute. If your assumptions about Miller cycle is correct, which is a pretty safe bet. Especially with an MGU-H to ensure regulate air flow into the cylinders.
Thank You Jason.
That's amazing that these little V6 engines achieve 1000 hp.
Honda was an early adopter of this technology. Remember the CVCC Honda Civic? CVCC stands for "Controlled Vortex Compound Combustion". It was actually 2 combustion chambers for each cylinder. The CVCC chamber was alot smaller, it included a small thimble size chamber, it's own small valve and valve holder. It was incredibly efficient and those vehicles did not need a Cat converter due to a cleaner and more efficient cylinder burn. This technology is what is probably being used in the RED Bull Honda FI engine that is dominating the circuit right now. Too bad those early CVCC motors had alot of head-gasket problems.
In which manufacturing year they were using it in the Engine
@@sharanpreet5559 Mid 70s, I think.
1.4 bars of boost is still very very high to an 18:1 compression ratio engine. and you are right about f1 engines running extremely lean, to the point that the main chamber's mixture is too lean to be ignited with a sparkplug. the main chamber can only be ignited by the heat and shockwave from the combustion of pre-chamber. so realistically they are putting 2.X bars of boost into an 18:1 engine that shifts at 12,500 rpm & have 2 electric systems scavenging waste power. of course it will result in some staggering numbers.
Yes, I think the wonder is more in how it's not blowing up. If this where done in any street engine that would blow up.
@@gameonyolo1 They know how much power they are going to make, and engineer the bottom end of the engine to withstand all that power. The 15,000 red line sounds high, but older F1 engines used to actually red line at around 18,000.
@@carljaekle I meant more in the sense of knock, yes I understand how it's done but still impressive
@@gameonyolo1 Fair point, high compression ratio, plus high boost would normally result in knock. He mentioned something about closing the intake valve early to limit this issue.
They have more boost than 1,4bar. Scarbstech have talked about it, since the MGU-H will disappear 2026.
And since they don't run with 14,7afr 1,4bar is not correct.
I can check some sources....
Really funny you congratulated Max for the 2023 wc BTW 🤣👌
Jason, I love your channel. Wow, so great the way you present it.
I'm 50, and have built many turbo charged cars. So many comments already i wish i knew how to search...., but the discussion isn't about boost pressure at all, it's about air volume being moved by the selected turbo charger compressor.
20 psi on a smaller turbo vs 20 psi on a large turbo is completely different airflow masses and thus horsepower. Most turbo manufacturers have detailed turbo lbs/hr graphs that show the amount of air these turbos move.
It would be amazing to know the f1 turbo compressor lbs per hour (or kg per hour lol) details, and then boost pressure could be then calculated.
Boost pressure is not the relevant data point, it's only relevant when crossed with the compressor specifications at that indicate what air mass is moved at that pressure level, to then deduce horsepower.
Having the engine displacement and its RPMs wont allow you to calculate it?
This was a fantastic explanation of the principles used to determine power output vs other variables. Four years ago in Dubai Renault stated over 45psi at times in qualifying
Turbo sizing also plays a huge role in overall boost pressure needed for power output. A bigger Turbo can flow more air, which means less boost pressure is needed to make the same power. Being that they use the mgu-h to help spool the Turbo, they can essentially get away with using a relatively large Turbo without any of the drawbacks. The less boost pressure used means the lower the intake air temperature, which in turn helps overall fuel efficiency since they don't have to run a richer air/fuel ratio to cool down the combustion chamber. F1 engines are great not because of technology used, but more so because of the engineering skills needed to make it all work in unison.
Both the deep research into the team's technical data and engineers, as well as the trolling, is absolutely spectacular. Great video.
Love the content, seeing this inspires me more to pursue a degree in thermo dynamics and fluid dynamics to eventually work for a racing team. After seeing this it doesn’t seem as daunting and really fun, I can tell you love what you do
Man, that sounds like the dream. Best of luck and dont give up!
he makes it look easy. calculus is not easy.
@@slec-wz1dbif you want to specialize in thermo and fluids calculus would be the easy part
Great video. Over in bike land, the Ducati NA Desmosedici Stradale 90° V4 has a similar bore x stroke, a 14,000 rpm redline and runs a 14:1 compression ratio on premium pump gas. It makes peak torque at 11,000 rpm. In addition to being inefficient to run the F1 engine to max rpm, I'm guessing it slides off the torque curve around the same point as the bike engine.
The racing version of the Desmosedici 90° V4 revs to 19,000rpm!
But a bike is about as advanced as my lawnmower compared to F1
@@peanuts2105 You must have some lawnmower!
I huge skill to a, understand this, and b, be able to explain it to normal people in an understandable, interesting and enthusiastic way. Genius
OMG. How the heck does this man make this hugely complicated topic not only supremely interesting, but also understandable.He is a genius
Outstanding presentation. Perhaps you could reach out to a former F1 Engineer (now retired Ross Brawn) to see if your calculations are close to correct.
I thoroughly enjoy watching F1, love the competition even if my favorite driver doesn't win.
Agreed, congrats to Red Bull's VER & PER. They truly dominated last season. Hopefully it is a tighter battle this season.
The person that said "Hey, what if we use the turbo to charge up the battery"... Pinnacle of their career so far!
It was an Italian during WWII.
@@gordonn4915 I don't know that. Who was he?
Some engineer at Mercedes ca 2005-2008. Hence why Mercedes pushed so hard for the MGU-H
Thank you for doing all this research and presenting these results. It would be interesting to see what could be done if we took the shackles off and set the engineers loose to find out what could be achieved. How far can efficiency be pushed? What's the limit to power per liter with existing material constraints?
Yeah I was thinking the same.. Why put all these restrictions..? Imagine what could be achieved if you were allowed to go totally free.
Amazing video. Please bring more F1 videos, curiosity and explanations.
Succinct and informative! Thank you, it’s interesting to note ambient temperature as an obvious factor, while not clearly defined in the calculations. It’s something that F1 engineers clearly have to contend with, not just in geography but also generated heat that must be managed. Really great content, I’m excited to see what’s next!
Like how there’s no final chicane on your drawing of Barcelona 😜
They dropped it for '23! :)
@@EngineeringExplained I know!! I liked that you knew that and I’m _so_ happy they did.
Very surprised that the required boost level is so low but it makes sense. I think the 1.5 liter turbo engines in the 90s were up to 5 or 6 bar but they did not have any fuel restrictions. Thanks for the remarks on the metric system and on Max Verstappen 😂. Greetings from a dutch guy in the US 👍.
They also never ran the 80's turbo engines at that level of boost for more than a couple of laps; just enough to get a monster qualifying time in before the engines blew up and were replaced for the race. The ones they'd use for the actual races were putting out maybe 2/3 the power they were capable of.
@@jazzbassrocker Ah, the good old days of qualifying cars.
@@jimandrews1011 Yeah they pushed the engines to 1200 hp on qualifying, but on race, pulled it back to 1000... I remember the eyes of senna after a qualifying, like he was on acid, pupils magnified and legs trembly...!!
@@jtiagosd They were closer to 800-900 HP in the races.
The interesting thing to me is you could adjust the boost purely digitally. If you were allowed a pito tube you can get ambient and static pressure and in theory you can use the electrified turbo to set the boost to be perfect for both the wind and weather conditions (or low pressure/high pressure)
There ARE pitot tubes on F1 cars and I'm pretty sure they are used for this exact reason.
Fun fact, in the 90s traction control was banned in F1, but some teams actually used the indicated airspeed (from a pitot tube) in combination with the engine RPM to determine whether there was wheelspin and limit engine power as a result. So yeah, effectively it was traction control but hidden in a very smart way.
@@christophmayer3991 got it right there is certainly a pitot system involved but despite that some engines and teams have better high altitude performance. I assume trade offs in packaging and intake design are the cause.
@@christophmayer3991 fair I don't follow F1, but that would give you variable boost, and variable boost is effectively the same as variable valve timing. As it can allow you to directly control the fuel air mix.
Benneton with Schumi in 94 were suspected I believe
This is what they do and essentially what most production cars do (obviously they don’t have a pitot tube but they also don’t have an intake with above ambient pressure)
I literally barely understand basic engine knowledge , yet you made this make absolutely perfect sense in my newbie brain. Amazing stuff man
Excellent explanation - as a F1 fan, I really appreciate.
Notes:
- Ferrari use 100 octane version of 1000 Shell V-power that you can buy at the pump... in Europe. So using the EPA figure is close but not accurate.
- Toyota and Mazda have production engines with over 40% thermal efficiency with compression ratios over 14:1,.
Hey Jason, as an F1 fan loved the video. I honestly didn’t expect this big of a difference in thermal efficiency between production and F1 engines. This makes me wonder why production engines are not able to achieve such figures. It seems that fuel efficiency would be a top priority for most production engine manufacturers so why is it that production engines rarely reach greater than 35% thermal efficiency? Is it Cost? Reliability? Maybe I am misunderstanding but would love to know more…
A lot of that has to do with how reliable production car engines are expected to be, and how little fuel they're designed to use overall. Even with limits on power unit components, F1 engines still complete a fraction of the mileage a road car will over its lifetime, and spend far less time idling, start/stopping, etc. It's also important to note that fuel economy and thermal efficiency are not the same thing; an understressed 4-cylinder engine running at low RPM is going to suffer greater friction/pumping losse due to not running at full throttle, but it's still going to use a lot less fuel than a racing engine running at 10,000 RPM, even if that racing engine is burning a greater percentage of the fuel going into it. Does that make sense?
@@jazzbassrocker Yeah, makes a lot of sense actually. Thanks for the reply Adam
2 words BIG OIL
@@ronaldjones743 lol. If manufacturers could make their products more appealing to customers by consuming less gas they would. There is no reason for conspiracy theories to explain this
the older NA engines could produce high power as well, I believe the old BMW 3.0 V10 made over 800 at 17,500 RPM. Toyota apparently had a V10 that could do 19,000 RPM and made "closer to 1000 bhp" than most people imagined. Shame it didn't get them anywhere though! Also I would expect motorsport to have higher average efficiency than a road car because they will be running in peak efficiency areas most of the time, whereas when we're cruising the highway the efficiency isn't actually all that good (although the economy can look good, economy \= efficiency. You can use a little fuel badly and a lot of fuel efficiently). There are BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, g/kWH) sweetspots in all engines and they tend to be quite close to the max torque curve (or full load points)
1983 BMW M12/13 1.5-liter inline-4 FI engine. Unlimited boost.
BMW engineers figured the engine produced around 1,400 hp at maximum boost.
However, the BMW engine dynamometer could not go beyond 1,280 bhp.
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp yeah those were mad days. I think that engine only lasts for qualifying right? 😅
@@0tispunkm3y3r only 1,000bhp in race tune! LOL
Nope. Last year of V10 era brings out engines that produced 950hp (BMW). But the last and the most powerful one was Honda with its 968 crazy, japanese horses :)
important note: those N/A engines also had unlimited fuel flow and had practically 0 emphasis on reliability allowing teams to run full power switch engines every weekend. today's engines fall under more strict regulations.
Why did you have to throw gallons and pounds into the mix here? There was no need!
Gotta keep viewers frustrated about units; a good life lesson. 😂
@@EngineeringExplained It worked!
Greatest teacher! That boost still seems low for over 800hp and only a tiny engine, despite 10k rpm. Crazy how much efficiency they can make.
How is this guy not already f1 engineer so well explained bravo
at the end of the day, isnt thermal efficiency exactly what we want in production cars? why arent we using pre chamber ignition or a shortened intake stroke in road cars then? i dont see why this would significantly reduce reliability
8:17 And it's 11-12 AFR on WOT because the fuel actually "cool" the ignition chamber, and therfore limit knock (vs 14.7).
It's the main reason E85 limit Knock even more than regular petrol based fuel, you need more ethanol than petrol to run an engine at correct lambda.
BTW I have some pictures of used Ferrari 2018 to 2020 piston, and you can clearly see the "fire" pattern from prechamber. The color on those area suggest that they sustain more heat on those places.🔥
Also one of Honda ignition pattern shots became public witch was quite different. Looked quite "ringish" seems that flame front traveled around outer walls. Quite simple "diesel" tech used in gasoline.
My 83 Honda Prelude has pre-combustion chambers! Crazy how they revert to old school tech to fix modern problems sometimes.
It was nice seeing you in line yesterday - what a pleasant surprise!
This is one of the best explained videos i've seen. bravo
Excellent video that demonstrates how complex F1 team strategies are in reality. Those strategies must be formulated race by race based on track conditions, and you were only talking about the engine. It would be fun to expand upon this and discuss tire wear and aerodynamics that are equally important/complicated.
I was a Porsche tech in the mid-70s when the 930's came out. I attended all of the new tech training for these systems. I marveled at the engineering then, but this pales in comparison. I often modified the waste gates for some "special customers" to give them about 1.1 bar. The factory set was .7 bar. Road testing these after a full service was the best part of my day. 😎
Did you modify tune as well or did computer handle that and you nearly doubled the boost so could injectors supply enough fuel at these boost levels?
@@msk3905 It was the Bosch CIS injection system then, when they first came out. (No computers) That system's fuel delivery rate was dictated by the lift of the sensor plate and as the engine needed more air it would go higher, faster. No modifications were apparently needed, at least in "normal" driving conditions. I'm sure putting this on a dyno probably would have noticed some decrease in the power curve. With these, being street cars, the customer was more than happy with the results. I usually tried to dial in about 1.0 bar as these weren't really designed to have that much more additional crankcase pressure. I did have to ground the limiting switch wire so the fuel pumps wouldn't shut of by an overboost signal.
A friend made me watch the recent F1 race in Lost Wages. One thing I noticed was the frequency of the exhaust seemed much lower than I remembered back when I was watching all racing. So, not only did I find out they are now V6s (they were V12s when I used to watch), but they are now hybrids. I have been watching Formula E and WEC (due to the hybrids), but was unaware of hybrids of F1. In researching them I stumbled on you nifty explanation of how it is all tied together. I thought I had seen all your vidios already, so was surprised to find one I hadn't seen. ;)
That might be the best one yet, thanks for all!
As an avid F1 watcher for many years I tried to understand the difference between the mgu-k and mgu-h for a long time, this is the first real clear explanation that really makes it stick for me.
I love and appreciate how simple you made this extremely complex discussion sound. Great video 👍
one of the mostinteresnting and well explained lectures i've witnessed. Congrats!!!
I love the detailed explanation in you videos and the fact you back it up with the math. Very informative
Remember that boost pressure is a number of back pressure as well I.E. air flow. The more efficient the less or lower the number. Not knowing what the exhaust pressure is makes this a hard equation to pin point. They both work hand in hand with one another. Great video.
“But this is just a mid-pack team let’s cut em a little slack”
I knew I liked you 😂
Great video Jason, I'm very pleased you've taken a look at F1 stuff.
Over a year ago (I think) I commented that I thought you'd find it very interesting, I doubt my comment had anything to do with you looking though, that's probably more to do with the popularity of F1 increasing in America, most likely because of Drive to Survive. I've been blown away by the stuff the F1 engineers have come up with over the years, some of it is quite baffling to me. They change the rules, normally aero ones, to stop/limit them doing something but engineers can't forget what they learnt, so they look for another way to get the same result. It's fascinating to watch. 😃
Great content. I believe the intake valve closure is late rather than early to reduce dynamic CR. This is called Miller cycle to achive better expansion work and reduce compression work.
I could watch his explanations forever. I think i will
That whiteboard explanation and graphs would be a nice poster 🙂 nice work, enjoyed the vid
It really shows the difference between road cars and race cars. Road cars are optimised for low load efficiency, while race cars are optimised for high load efficiency.
It reminds me of the SPCCI Mazda uses in terms of lean mixture and rich pre-ignition.
That point on why they make so much power on very little boost is exactly what I thought when I saw a great video on an Indy Buick V6 engine here in Aus, it was making around 400kw on 4.5 psi of boost on 3.3L displacement. They too rev very high.
Great video, Fenske!👌👌 Let's consider the cylinder pressure required to create the torque necessary for that horsepower at say 11k rpm. Now, assume lean combustion up to 15k rpm running the higher lambda and advanced pre ignition timing. 😉. Torque may plummets but power stays up. The trade off is that cylinder and exhaust temps rise to the point of accelerated fatigue as the cylinder pressure ratio gets quite elevated.
"Max winning the '23 championship"...ouch! But I have to agree with you, especially after the first race.
Technically highly meaningful analysis presented in a simple to understand and pleasant way. Very much appreciated! One can explain complex things in a simple manner only when one has full understanding and clarity!
I know nothing of F1, but I wonder: why so many rules on car and engine specs? Why not let each team build to the best of their ability without restrictions and limitations?
Great presentation. You just filled in a few blanks for me. Much appreciated.