If you haven't yet seen it, my previous F1 Engine video makes for a great intro to today's video! th-cam.com/video/KjrNcuc89Pc/w-d-xo.html Also I'd like to thank my graphic at 9:00 for helping to secure Leclerc's pole position today once again in Baku - congrats!
Yea I hate sprint weekends because my self imposed "Social Media Ban" must go into effect Friday morning rather than Saturday in order to avoid spoilers. Good thing I just finished watching the Qualifying replay a few minutes ago.
My car gets the same mileage on my city as the new Corvette gets on the average american city because my city is so poorly designed. Guess I've also gotta thank the mayor for making it seem like I have a supercar. xD
Meanwhile NASCAR is making all the noise and speed at LeMans.. lol. We used to joke about it compared to F1, but now it seems as if the better and faster vehicles are the next gen over at NASCAR. I stil have no idea why F1 is hell-bent on racing to the bottom.
You and me both. With the advancements of aerodynamics the cars will be really fast through the corners now. Monaco will be really exciting with the cars getting so close to each other
What annoys me is the hybrid era is in the name of reduced emissions. If they really wanted to reduce F1 emissions, they'd have fewer races in the season! By far the biggest polution in F1 comes from shipping the whole circus from country to country. We could have kept the V10s and knocked a few races off the calendar and had a greener, more exciting sport overall.
Even changing the order of races would improve things massively in that regard. It won't even matter when the switch to synthetic fuel, so I don't understand why they wouldn't just make them sound good by allowing 3 litre NA V12s at that point.
That is a good point. If that were the case though, the engineers wouldnt be pushed to limits of extracting as much as possible from the available technology. I think that would result in the teams not learning as much, which is not a great motive for the manufacturers. That is besides the prestige of course.
@@EMPower91 I do love the technical development side of F1 ( even though sometimes I'd like to see all the drivers compete in the same car, just to see ). I think we are kidding ourselves if we think F1 tech actually translates to road cars in the long run.
@@LupinYonderboy there are examples for F1-developed tech that is used in street cars like active suspension and KERS, just to name a couple and there is probably many more
True, but doing that reduces the revenues and profits. More races = more $ revenues/profits. So they want to maximize races AND improve the emissions factor at the same time.
@@AkiraHartono After that its going a be the F1 teaming pushing a driver in a Little Tikes Cozy Coup style car with his little F1 driver legs running Fred Flintstone style and the team is going to promote being powered by vegan burritos.
I really think active aero is coming because the level of aerodynamic drag we have now with reduced full power as a function of the increased power still with 4MJ swing... I'm very unexcited about '26. Great explanation!
No, there won't be active aero in f1. The sport has always had the mission of developing new technology to introduce into regular cars later down the line. Aero isn't practical for regular cars because they're too slow to generate it. Active suspension is the next thing they'll allow. Especially with them moving towards ground effect aero, active suspension would benefit these cars a lot more than active aero, and developing new suspension technology can and will be useful for regular cars, especially given how heavy they'll be getting with all those batteries.
Maybe it would make a comeback eventually but in the short term I think we'd see the teams focus on reducing drag as much as possible. I could see there being a tradeoff point where it's faster to have more straight line speed, coast longer (thus recharging the batteries more), than higher cornering speed. Which is really backwards to think about because normally faster corner speed = quicker lap times, but we're talking about an edge case here. Kinda like the hybrid LMP1 cars, where at Le Mans they were slower at the end of the straights than the non-hybrid LMP1 and they had less downforce. But they made up for it by being able to deploy the electric boost early on the straights. Much like a drag race where if you launch hard enough off the line, you can get to the finish line first even if your opponent has a higher trap speed.
@@Mike23443 That depends how you define aero. I'm pretty sure he is referring to optimizing drag rather than downforce - which in that case ties into fuel efficiency rather than aero grip.
@@Mike23443 disagree completely. We're talking about the sport that has DRS which has no relevance for road cars. The main issue with the 26 regulations is a reduction in possible output and reducing drag via movable surfaces is far superior to active ride height control. They WILL need a way to reduce drag.
@@EngineeringExplained If I had to guess it might be to make sure teams aren't pushing extra air through the exhaust (maybe with fuel injection every other 4 stroke cycle or something) for aerodynamic advantages like they used to do with blown diffusers, coanda exhausts, etc.
@@jamespingel8730 Yeah, something like this - these rules don't tend to get introduced unless it's been found someone has been abusing the lack of control there.
My only F1 race in person was in 1989 Montreal. I heard the Ferrari 3500 NA V12 before seeing it visually as it took to the back straight after the hairpin. Still makes the hairs on my neck stand up thinking obout that sound and seeing Berger suspension sparking off the surface of the track. The sound experience is unforgettable. The old days of F1 ahh
I was lucky enough to hear the v12s during the historic gp at COTA in 2022. I swear you can feel the ground shaking as they go past. Luckily I was there for the v8 runs with Mario andretti as well. I just feel so lucky to have seen those beautiful pieces of history racing
@@tango_uniform the thing is car tech is changing. F1 is intended to be at the forefront of car tech - every year, an increasing number of consumer cars are BEVs and hybrids, so it makes sense that F1 is further electrifying itself and relying less on the gasoline engine. I would personally love if every car in Chicago were electric, because then I could walk along the lakefront without smelling any emissions from Lakeshore Drive. I think it’s a net good if F1 helps lead automobile electrification
@@spencerwong1993 If every car was electric you'd be getting emissons from the power plants of coal going like crazy to supply the whole of chicago with EV's. EV's are only best currently if kept in small numbers(Not even talking about the catastrophical amount of resources needed to make a whole city have electrical chargers for EV's), unless in the next 10-30 years we move to something more efficient like nuclear power plants or another new method of energy power plants are discovered and become wildly available. And not just that, there's about 1.44 thousand million ICE powered vehicles currently in the world, that's about 18% percent of the world's human population! That 18% ain't going any where! since ICE cars have a longer life span (If properly maintained) than EV's, batteries don't last no way near what an ICE platform does. ICE will not entirely die, it will have to transform, adapt to the current needs, EV's aren't the future even car manofacturers knows this. Hybrid is the best as of now, the best options for medium and perhaps long term is synthetic fuels.
I feel like we all know this but nobody seems to have written it. They're making the cars more "green" for two reasons in my opinion: 1) To improve brand image, ultimately for profit. 2) F1 is often a playground for new technology development for road cars. These new cars might have technologies which benefit traditional cars, although unlikely. I also agree that it's pointless really in the grand scheme of things.
I think the min air temp and max pressure is to try and close some loopholes someone discovered. Maybe using the turbo pressure as a simple air pump that can be used to run the engine briefly on no fuel. The air temp may be for preventing teams from using cryogenic air to super cool the inter coolers in the pits before going on track, especially for qualifying. Some rules are to prevent edge cases and loopholes that F1 engineers are famous for finding
No. Cooling the intercooler with a cryo gas prior to qualifying would do basically nothing as an advantage. It takes laps for the car to get up to speed and start the timer, and ANY cooling effect "sprayed" onto the intercooler in the pits would be LONG gone by then
The Intake cooler is an air/water intercooler. Switching on the pumps for the hot lap, could reduce the temperature for the inlet air to below that 10 K limit. And depending on what interval the 3 GJ/h is measured, you could get more power out of the engine than intended. The pressure limit is basically there to reduce development and engine costs. Else you could make the motor far smaller for the same power, which would be a huge weight saving.
13:46 : the engines may very well be running around λ~3. The pre-chamber allows them to do so with a closer-to-stoichiometry mixture inside it and a much leaner mixture in the main cylinder, way beyond the flammability limits for gasoline/E20, as you already indicated, which can however ignite this time due to the jets bursting out of that pre-chamber. The beauty of TJI it is! 😊
Yes, discussed in my previous video. Studies indicated λ~2 possible with active pre-chambers (something F1 isn't using, only passive). So it's not nearly as simple with limited control. More here: th-cam.com/video/KjrNcuc89Pc/w-d-xo.html
@@EngineeringExplained I had already watched that. Beautifully elaborated on! In the MC20 one as well, even though the configurations are quite different of course. My point was that limits, currently possible in latest F1 engines, are way beyond λ~2, as the whiteboard alluded to! Controlling combustion is of course the key here. Mixture preparation is really crucial, which is important to capture very accurately using CFD simulations. Stratification levels inside the pre-chamber are extremely high, due to the shape of body and orifices, which ultimately dictates the λ levels close to the electrodes. Source: seeing real geometries and CFD post-pro on screen daily due to my profession (amongst which motorsport and high performance ICE OEMs). Thanks again for your work 💪
Another thing to take into account is the trapping efficiency of the engine. With Miller valve timings it can be significantly reduced, resulting in a charge cooling effect at the cost of higher boost pressure needed for a given massflow.
My guess for why all of these rules exist (not just the air but everything together) is to really put a limit on exactly how much can be thrown into the engine; we know teams are chasing power gains, and by putting hard ceilings on fuel AND air, it almost requires engineers to put work into thermal efficiency gains and electric power gains, which i'm guessing is what Liberty wants from F1
And lets not forget that they are trying to keep it interesting to watch, if they get limited by electric energy now then the drivers choice of when to use the energy to attack or defend a position will come in to play. It could get really interesting, at least in theory.
And at the same time they're banning the electric motor on the turbocharger and arbitrarily limiting the battery capacity (bigger batteries are heavier so that's a natural deterrent) and engine displacement.
Unfortunately that is not the case either, because they're basically keeping the current engines for 2026 but getting rid of a lot of the stuff that made them so advanced. They are also standardizing more engine parts for 2026 and are placing tighter regulations everywhere else on the engine.
Excellent explanation of the upcoming rules for F1 power unit. Many give the changes point by point, but are unable to explain, quantify, and compare. Thank you.
Former F1 design engineer here... great video. Done tons of these calcs over the years... all looked good to me. Years ago (probably 2016) we had a working group to think of ideas around the energy flow diagram, to a) see if we could figure out what Ferrari was doing cleverly and b) try to come up with various nefarious ways to do similar or worse. Mercedes was quite risk-averse, but we really had nothing left to unturn at that moment... we looked at hybridization of ancillaries, various battery layouts etc... but most of the efficiencies found in these rule sets are in combustion/lean-limit optimizations (through fuel formulations, atomization strategies, air injection, mixing etc...) and MGUH strategies. Since the latter is gone, you will see a lot of time spent on fuel... Could you make a fuel which has a lhv at one temp and another as it raises? Or one that has the same attributes at different pressures? Those things will be tried. I am confident you will see another step change in BTE, which will bring these back to 50%. It will just be a matter of time. Interesting frontier. Ill check out your other vids.
@@MC-re9zj Speculated yes, possibly that they were altering the fuel flow rates out of phase with the fuel flow meter. Meaning that the fuel flow meter checks the rate in pulses rather than continuously, so if you can raise the rate in between check pulses you can get an advantage. Also rumors that they were deliberately allowing thin engine oil to either leak past the cylinder into the chamber, or into the intake via a deliberate leak in the turbo charger. Thereby using engine oil as a fuel booster. The evidence was the limits placed on engine oil burning shortly after. There's also been rumors of pre-chamber fuel tanks in the engine, with the idea being that fuel flow can be increased at times when the engine is reving low to fill a tank on the engine side of the fuel flow meter. That way you can increase fuel flow into the engine when needed but still comply with the sensor. This one was the crackpot theories of how the Mercedes Party Mode supposedly worked, but it was later revealed that the engine was just functionally 2 years ahead of development of everyone else so they had power to spare early in the Turbo hybrid era and were turning the engines down to save mileage. One of the Mercedes engines was apparently cracked open by the FIA to confirm they weren't doing that... they weren't
Well… maybe I should make a video on how I got my job 🤔. Also all your crackpot theories were correct, Ferrari was very clever but they weren’t clever enough to hide the performance gradually over the season. The FFM tricking was real and Red Bull ratted them with a brilliant document. I don’t think it’s public.
Interesting video! You should make a video about engine sound in general, like, what gives each engine its characteristic sound (four, five, six, eight, ten, etc. pot engines) and the components that contribute to engine/exhaust notes. Please 😉
@@Senorbarnez I'm the same. A cross plane V8 for my daily driver but there is something about a shrieking V10/V12 that is spine tingling. If you never got to experience a Grand Prix back in the day in the flesh, it's a shame but you've really missed out.
@@gottliebdee263Yes, it's that shrieking 18,000rpm that can't be matched today. I never went back in the day, but did go to Silverstone last year for the F1 , was really looking forward to hearing an F1 engine in real life, but came away highly unimpressed with the sound of today's engines. When watching the onboard view on TV I feel those V6 turbos, even at full chat, sound like mopeds strangely.
your ability to talk on versus drone on at length about highly complicated math which then results in more complication is amazing and requires so many separate talents . Your mastery of engineering is just the first of many of them. Thank you for this!
I wish there were not so many rules, have basic limitations to engine capacity and types of fuel and fuel useage. Freedom to choose engine type, configuration, layout etc. Likewise for suspension, aero etc. It would be more exciting to watch and understand.
I wonder how much this will affect the brake sizes / cooling ducts, with all that energy recovery it will be interesting to see where teams go with this.
@@bradweinberger6907you can pre heat the tires with tires blankets and then bring them to temperature just from the tires doing their job. once the tires are up to Reno having less heat from the brakes is an advantage
No F1 is about advancing combustion technology. By making combustion engines more efficient and having synthetic fuels, we can make engines stick around alongside electric cars. Are they going to be the high revving NA engines of the past? No, but at least we're still getting an engine.
@@456MrPeople First, no, the Formula one was never about technological advancement, it was about manufacturers pride, like pretty much every other sport. The technological advancement thing came about with the political views turning towards solving climate change. Second, don't be confused, the combustion engine will die out and it will come faster than you think, especially in such a political circus like Formula 1.
Very good video. My only issue is with the section at 8:33 . Although the max battery usage calculations are correct AFAIK (I'm not gonna check your math, mine is usually bad), it only takes into account one straight, not the whole lap. Since the current regs only allow 4MJ of energy deployment per lap instead of the theoretical 6 (4 in the Energy store, 2 recovered at some pointt) and the new regs removed that limitation completly, you might be limited in the very long straights like you mentioned in Baku, but you have far more available energy deployment per lap (max 13MJ, 4 ES + 9 recovered). I couldn't find figures for how much MGU-H is deploying to K in a current F1 car so it could account for those extra 9MJ but I doubt it.
F1 is the pinnacle of automotive engineering. I think the point of having them play around with green tech is getting those engineers developing technologies that could one day go into your fuel efficient car. You could allow bigger engines with big turbos but is that relevant anymore.
Exactly, most these people in comments don't understand. F1 is about engineering. If they want loud noise, and inefficiency with minimum engineering: Funny car drag racing is their thing.
It's a spectator sport. It's about entertainment. The engineers will do their thing whatever the regulations are. These regulations have given us a formula where it is too expensive for new teams to enter, the cars sound like hoovers and the rules are static year after year because the development costs are so high. Still could be worse, there was the year when all the cars had phallic appendages on the nose-cones…
I think those IAT and charge air pressure limitations are aimed at preventing F1 teams from adapting some sort of crazy charge air regulator system on the engine intakes. They could theoretically run insanely highly charge air pressures (15+ bar) air through the intercooler and then run that high pressure/near ambient temperature charge air through a high flow rate regulator to reduce the pressure to a more reasonable useful manifold pressure while drastically cooling the charge air in the process due to adiabatic expansion. This could get IATs far below ambient at the regulation intake pressure (possibly even to freezing temperatures depending on the expansion ratio), greatly increasing intake air density, and also improving combustion stability. I tried to design something like this for a regular turbo car, but it wasn't feasible for a regular car/engine setup. It was far too complex, cumbersome, expensive, difficult to manufacture by hand, and would have required a crazy tuning solution because of the additional sensory/feedback inputs to compensate for variable ambient temperatures and available boost/turbo lag. The returns were also diminishing on a regular vehicle setup and theoretical benefits were mostly only in the super high rev range (IE even more turbo lag). F1 teams wouldn't have the same limitations, and they are chasing milliseconds so they could pull it off, and possibly consider it as a valuable proposition.
That intake pressure limit got me thinking....Just a shot in the dark but it occurs to me you might be able to "replace" the mgu-h with a kind of hyper-egr which in stead of cooling and diluting the charge could heat up and pressurize it to increase MEP or even be used to control compression ignition.....
@@jakubstaniszewski477 Doesn't that only work for inefficient fuel burn? You want denser cool air which carries more Oxygen to burn all of the fuel, not hotter air with more CO2 from previous fuel burn
15:00 I think the airflow limit is to prevent the engine departments from pursuing aero gains through exhaust gas velocity tuning exiting the rear for downforce. An engine is just a fancy air pump...
As for the ultra lean A/F ratios, that could be in part to the limit of air allowed in for non-combustible events. They are going to limit engine braking, among another options of allowing air into the combustion chamber with no combustion to also cool it. Provided they use a higher ethanol fuel source, spraying in fuel they never combust will greatly reduce cylinder temperatures.
Engine braking? We're not descending a mountain in a truck here. The brakes brake the car - engine braking seems irrelevant to a properly built race car.
@jafooli flying military planes overhead doesnt increase fuel use or pollution. All military pilots need to log a certain amount of hours flying to keep proficient. Flyovers are part of that time.
Maybe the A/F ratio limiting lean is to avoid teams continuing to run the cars engine at at high revs at low speeds and using the air through exhausts to aid airflow, aka last decade’s blown diffusers ?
Well I mean that's the point. This is the "Formula" in Formula 1 that engineers have to work with. The restrictions are what makes the engineering competition aspect of the sport so interesting. They have to get creative to work around roadblocks and obstacles set for them.
@@MoptopTofer I get that but the rules risk conflicting with each other and stifling innovation and the excitement of the sport as races will be settled by a bunch of specialist engineers and lawyers in a court room rather than on the track with drivers they should set some basic parameters and let the engineers engineer and the drivers drive.
@YUNG CHLOROFORM But is this supposed to be the craziest fastest most vuscious cars that only the best can wrangle round a track or is it 'make the most of it with these extra 100 restrictions because we like to please the green agenda and Lewis.' It's absurd. The entire F1 calendar puts out 1/180th of the Carbon than 1 container ship does. Why can't F1 be the best cars on the planet and everything else takes up some slack? The cars today are slower than 20 years ago , check the lap times (and when you do , remember they weren't running on slicks). They sound shite and the drivers are all the same.
@@realMaverickBuckley absolutely spot on! F1 is a clown show of european elites promoting agendas and fostering the ultimate hubris of modern society and control hungry politicians, by constantly adding more regulations supposedly in the name of more exciting racing, when in effect they've created a monstrosity of nearly zero relevance to the sporting aspects of F1 and relevant technological excellence (by not increasing costs exponentially)
Maybe teams will be using the Miller cycle or something similar to increase thermal efficiency at the expense of volumetric efficiency. Boost limits would effectively put a cap on how far they can go with that strategy.
The Miller cycle works best with a roots-type supercharger so it’d be interesting to see FiA probably allowing twincharge systems. It would make for a heck of a launch when the light turns green.
Superchargers aren't even restricted with current or future engine regulations. But you can't use an MGU-H with a supercharger. So maybe supercharging will make a comeback.
@@gkinghsmith9352not sure about the tight balancing act. seems like the more rules you introduce the less balancing you have to do, and the more the rules dictate your choices. for instance if there is no power limit you might not want to have the most power because more power is less drivable, less reliable, wears tires quicker and uses more fuel ( more weight) now if you have a pretty "low" fuel flow limit like current and incoming rules, power is limited and you want to have all of this limited power other wise you'll get passed on the straights... same for fuel, if you have a high minimum amount of oxygen that reduces fuel energy density, you might want to use the least amount allowed to get the best energy density. makes it easier for everyone to optimize the parameters, you reduce the research costs and make teams more equal regardless of the budgets. seems like it's where they're heading probably trying to make F1 more exciting to watch...the tight balancing act is there, trying to create healthy competition without going too far and transforming F1 into racing series where all cars are identical
I think they are keeping the battery size the same will make energy management an even more important strategy for teams & drivers. Hopefully making it more entertaining for us fans
@@mrvwbug4423 and then instantly use it. So the more they can recover and reuse the energy, the more horse power they will have. rather than using it just to boost on the longer straights, it will mean they can keep firing at any opportunity they get. The only thing I don't know about the regulations is if it has to be under driver control, or it can be automatically triggered by the engine management system
Great explanation dude! Thank you for breaking it down like this. I am old AF and have been watching F1 since the 70's. It has been amazing to watch the transformation of both the sport and the cars during the last 40 years. While I do miss the turbo era greatly (and the the engines screaming out 18K RPMS), I also have tremendous respect for the amount of power the engineers can pull out of these engines with relatively tiny displacement. Just incredible. As for understanding the third change...it's F1. Need I say more. ;-)
30 years ago was this same tiny displacement and this level of power, or even more power. The bigger difence is that today they use halt of the fuel at that era.
Me too. Let's be honest, F1 has been taken over Elitest Green buffoons and by hyper marketing to 16 Yr old children. The current cars are significantly slower than the 2004 cars. 20 years and we've done is go backwards. It's boring.
I miss the days of unlimited power where they were making 1500+ HP BUT! I understand why they’ve made changes over the decades, some of them are pointless, some take away excitement, but other rules increase the competition on the engine building side, the sport has to evolve. They should still have a secondary sport called F-Zero that is unlimited like the days of old.
to counter this octane limit, you could flip the entire table and make a compression ignition engine (a diesel) that uses completely bio diesel (made from plant oils), diesel has a verry low octane but weirdly it needs high compression to ignite, thus making it more efficient, there are diesels out there running compression ratio's of 30isch to 1 WITH a turbo producing way more boost than a gasoline engine, in a gasoline engine you'll never see more than 5 bars boost, while a factory diesel can run up to nearly 7,5 bars (heavy industry) and a purpuse made race car could probable have even more, the engine is a bit heavier though and the revs are limited, but with some F1 engineering there's probably a way around the weight of the engine so it can rev higher
I hate that they are limiting the cars so much. I would love to see the innovation within their cost cap and the use of a hybrid system. For example if one team decides to have an EV powertrain then let them. Limit the battery and engine size and maximum gas but not the way power is used. Everybody has the same amount of potential power... now figure it out.
No team would go down the EV route in that case, it's all down to energy density. Gasoline is far too dense compared to any battery technology, and anyway there is already Formula-E
@@answeris4217 batteries are very heavy compared to fuel. Current cars are 200 kilograms fatter than just 10 years ago. Weight has borderline unbelievable consequences for everything in racing: acceleration, braking, cornering speeds, tyre wear - all suffer with every kilogram. iirc Adrian Sutil many years ago was preaching for bigger minimum driver weight limit, because he was taller than most and couldn't lose as much, to the point he was experimenting with carrying less 'drink' in the car and trying to minimize it as long as his performance didn't drop. All that ridiculous effort to save probably less than a kilogram!
The changes should result in a lot of battery power used at acceleration then tapering off. What if they added a variable mass (or variable geometry) flywheel for better energy management? You could get off the line faster and store energy in the flywheel in addition to the battery storage.
Great vid as always!!! At the end of your video, I think the reason for the A/F limit is because some teams have learned from the current rules and are very close to the new A/F rule. IMO I think some teams are running extreme lean conditions and also a controlled detonating? Honda being one of them. The controlled detonation is giving a very high cylinder pressure without the aid of using the conventional fuel amount to get normal amount of cylinder pressure.
At lambda 2.5? If you watch my previous video, there's a paper by a previous F1 powertrain engineer that says you need an active chamber for lambda 2 (F1 uses passive). So it's a big jump, and using worse tech. It's difficult to believe they're running that lean!
@@03_Frank +1 - @EE don't mix manifold pressure with air pressure in the chamber. Secondly there is bounce back from the Miller cycle at intake, need to account for that spike. Thirdly of course you can have below 10C over ambient, you can have below ambient simply by cooling compressed air then iso-baric expand to the intake plenum - but only factory teams tend to have air-to-water intercoolers powerful enough to cool the air so close to ambient before expansion (it's in the team-area, of responsability not the PU area, funnily enough) - the 10C over ambient in meant to close the gap between the factory and customer team actual available power. The world of F1 engines is an amazing place, congrats for bringing a bit of light on how amazing those engines actually are (which I could praise in the same way any TV comentary team since 2014 onwards)
@@EngineeringExplained IMHO I believe Mercedes, Ferrari and Honda have their PC in the piston crown now. Its a much larger PC and got rid of the heat issues with the PC in the head. This PC in the piston crown makes a rapid combustion, spark assisted TJI, HCCI-like combustion that could light off extreme lean conditions of 2.0> lambda even before the spark plug fires. Hondas video shows this happening in a public video. A ilmor engineer has referred to these engines as "controlled detonation". So now they're getting the lean burn results of an active PC with a passive PC. Also, I believe this is why there is a new intake temperature rule.
I was a bit confused, how wouldn't you be able to reduce your charge air temp to 10 degrees above intake temperature. I do that all the time. Then I remembered I work with marine diesels. and our air cooler doesnt do air to air. it does air to seawater, which is usually way cooler then the air in the engineroom what the engine is taking in. usually we have it set to 45 C as charge air temp, regardless of the intake temperature. Keeping everything constant is most important for those big diesels. About F1 I wish they'd give the teams more freedom in the engine design and development. even the choosing of the number of cylinders, from a I4 to a v12, what ever you like. only limit: fuel, supplied by the organiser, in a known quantity. here you have 50L, and the lights are off and goo.
I would like more flexibility too, however it’s so expensive to develop engines now that it would give too much of an advantage to the successful design until everyone copies it. F1 is going to become more and more a spec series with cost caps and everything, which in the end might give us a better show.
So, 1 hour of fuel @ full tilt on board for a (maximum) 2 hour race. Combustion engine power cut to 66%-ish, plus a loss in thermal efficiëncy by losing the MGU-H. Electric boost tripled in power, but no change in battery capacity. As an F1 engine builder, you would have to optimize recovering kinetic and braking energy. If you can put more energy back into that battery, recharging it faster/better, then you get more use of that boost. And you would have to optimize the thermal efficiëncy of the combustion engine. Like what Mazda has been doing with their newest Skyactiv-X engine. Maybe angling the cilinders to elongate the power stroke and reduce piston rocking (I assume they've already got this covered). Optimizing the exhaust stroke, now that the MGU-H has gone (the exhaust stroke deliveres some power too). I'm sure the F1 engineers are several steps ahead of the things I'm mentioning here. My point is, there are still improvements to be made to the old combustion engine. And they're going to have to make these improvements if they want to be winning.
There is actually one more technique that could be applied. The air budget is way oversized, as you've shown. You could, during the power stroke, moments after the initial combustion, inject more air. This cold air is introduced into the engine's cylinder, while it's full with high pressure superheated gasses. And the injected cold air will rapidly expand because of it. The f1 car will need to have an air tank and a compressor on board (else you would introduce energy from outside of the energy budget). Injecting cold air into the cylinder after combustion will basicly convert heat energy into rotational force at the crankshaft. It will increase the thermal efficiëncy of the engine. The tricky part is making it work. But that's what F1 is all about.
With the higher capacity electric motor, you could do.some crazy stuff where you do cylinder deactivation and rapidly cool the cylinder while not in need of full power. (is water injection legal?) This could explain the double limit. Limit fuel for power output, limit air (and air temp) to control overall flow through the engine, and limit cooling potential. I have no idea if cylinder deactivation is worthwhile in a formula 1 context, but that was where my head went upon you posing the question.
I wonder if these changes will be making the 2026 cars quite a chunk slower. Of course we have no idea about the potential new aero, but history has shown they haven't ever been changed for better. A lesser time of electric deployment, a lesser amount of power from the ICE with a possible torque output delay, not changing the RPM of the engine (although as I am aware, and I might be wrong as well, there are provisions to take it up to 15K, as it is right now). I wonder what the difference would be like in a case like this, where about 3-times the e-motor power gets delivered in 1/3rd of the time; how would that pan out in the time it takes to cover a certain distance on a track. The math could be worth a shot. I had done a deep dive into the new regs myself previously but didn't run the numbers, and boy am I shocked now! I am of the opinion that with the extremely painful elimination of the MGU-H, the engines will now sound better, even more so if the supposed exhaust system tweaks are brought into place.
Hello Jason! Just one thought on that rule… what if teams were allowed to use different fuels for each race? Going from E10-20 to E30-35 would increase O2 intake, wouldn’t it? That would make this rule a good way to cap overall power. Also, some races (Mexico City) are more than 2k m asl. Wouldn’t more ethanol help engines here? As always, awesome videos. Thanks!
@@EngineeringExplained Oh, now I get it. I thought the only restriction will be a minimum, but if it's going to be capped, it's a no go. Thanks for taking the time to answer!
The engine can be used as an air pump to enhance performance of other aerodynamic surfaces; see 'blown diffuser'. This may be to limit that so the exhaust outlet can be moved in future.
I believe it is about forcing F1 back to being a testbed for car innovation. Consumer fuel moved from E5 to E10 and this is a way to drive the move to E20. Also, controlling the air/fuel ratio will make them develop new alloys to support leaner running. It makes the sport a but greener but when it ripples down to consumer cars the impact will be huge. Great video btw.
I don't think the intention is to limit the air mass flow rate. I'd guess that they are separately limiting (a) boost pressure, to stop teams cranking the boost WAY up - possibly for safety/reliability reasons? - and (b) intercooler performance - probably to try to head off an arms race of bigger/more complex cooling systems for marginal gains in charge air density. Now yes, those two together do impose a de facto limit on mass flow rate at the intake, but as you say that limit would give very lean combustion, and no-one's likely to hit it.
yea cause if they can get away with super lean running engine then they will crank the boost of to as much as they can get away with. Try to limit max power to keep things some what level cause teams with unlimited would def explore an engine that can take a lot of boost and almost no fuel.
Granted, the switch to e-fuel is partially a green-washing & marketing effort. However, with Audi & Ford (and Honda sticking around) becoming engine suppliers because of this switch, they're effectively using F1 to fund cutting edge R&D for engine development that will make road car engines more efficient sooner. So, big picture, the eco gains could really be huge.
The time invested to put this together and the care factor to make it digestible given the content is incredibly impressive. What you’ve managed to highlight is that even under the current rule set for this year, “Formula 1” (or the pinnacle of motorsport) is so obsessed with arbitrary rule sets that it has actually broken the premise for which it exists in the first place. Sustainability, safety, practicality, precision, all need to be at the heart of F1 but so does the wonder and excitement created by feats of brilliance of talented people. When questionable outcomes from opaque racing regulations become the overriding conversation topic to casual observers the “sporting” nature of the motorsport is questioned. When highly specialised and technical engineering regulations in conjunction with punitive cost controls restrict creativity such that all the cars are the same but they’re actually not then you’re no longer the pinnacle. It’s easy to criticise and F1 is still a great spectacle. But it is more spectacle than sport.
My best guess is that they're putting an air limit on as a way to prevent any tricks the teams find to get higher fuel flow into the engine by tying the rules into knots
Sure Leclerc took 22 seconds to complete the main straight at Baku, but you’re forgetting a crucial variable that is DRS. That alone lasts about a third of that main straight.
So some math based off of Leclerc's 20 straight, assuming they come out of 16 at 100kph, it'll take ~8.5s to hit 300kph, allowing that 350kw then they will have another ~6s of battery left at 150kw. The last 5s of the straight away, the cars will be slowing down immensely even with DRS. So the idea of these hard on the break lunges will disappear on straightes like that.
I know a lot of F1 fans get upset at tighter engine regulations, but the way I see it is that the engineers need new challenges every couple years because F1 isn't about making the fastest car ever, it's about competing with other manufacturers within the regulations. As Jason explained, it's not even about lowering emissions because the teams are constantly flying and shipping things around the world. The cars are just a tiny fraction of the emissions. It's about creating engineering challenges.
@@wyskass861 But is not the main reason big car manufacturers join the F1 or why there's multimillion sponsorships for it. They want the exposition to that audience.
Great content Jason I’m not going to pretend to understand it all but in answer to your last question as to why - surely the answer is the 15:12 need to remain relevant to the quest for sustainable ice based engines which is key to attracting and engaging the likes of Porche to the show!
About the absolute pressure limit, my interpretation would be along these lines: you made your calculation with the airflow generated at 10500 rpm, and most likely running that boost pressure at those rpm would be useless because the mixture would be too lean as you pointed out… but at lower rpm the airflow would be lower and maybe you could then use a higher MAP in the low rpm region to flatten out the power curve and have close to max power at all rpms? Would you consider this a possibility?
I don't think so, because at lower RPM the fuel flow limit is also lower. For example at 8000 RPM you can't use as much fuel as you can at 10,500+ RPM, so if you already have quite a lot more air than you need at 10.5k, there's no benefit to having that much air at 8000 RPM with less fuel. You'll be even more lean than you'd be at max fuel flow, making it even further from optimal.
Is there any way to use an electric motor connected to a vertical pole with a pickup strip at the top. The track could be metal with a negative charge & the vertical pole could pick up from an overhead mesh with a positive connection. I seem to remember this setup at out local town fair. Thoughts?
Love the bumper car idea. Many F1 fans may be too young to get it. Ah, the smell of ozone in the air. And besides, the drivers already play bumper cars at all of the starts.
I'm sure I remember a day when they just said "3-litre maximum, that's it, no more engine rules" (well there were a few others but not many). I can see the day coming when F1 disappears up the backside of its own pompous addiction to complication.
Yep, that would be fun. "1.6 liter. Do whatever but you are limited to *kg of fuel on board / per race* and the max car weight". Let em even make diesels. That would be fun.
That was 1966 - a time where turbo racing cars were still on the horizon. Mechanical fuel injection was about the limit of tech used, and by 1967 it resulted in glorious V12s, a few V8s, and a bonkers H16, all revving in excess of 9000RPM (some getting to 10 and 11k!).
My thought on the air flow limitation is to discourage the previous practice of blowing hot/cold exhaust air through the diffuser. I know there is a definitive rule against such a thing, but maybe an extra way to prevent a different area being blown.
Wait, air flow limitation is for the intake to the engine, this video does not discuss anything about the exhaust flow limit, unless they waste energy by cooling the air and exhausting it back out through the diffuser..?!
Williams did that a number of years ago. It was insane, and undriveable. Literally the driver wouldn't be able to cope with the forces on his/her body. Given further advancements now, I've no idea what it would be. But removing the rules is pointless, the racing is about comparable cars. Hence the name "Formula 1". this is racing of cars in that category.
@@tedferkin Formula one is notorious for neutering the cars. So many innovations get stymied. I want formula unlimited. The drivers know very well what they would be signing up for. Lets see 500 kph
F1 has been reducing progress aceleration for a while, but now it looks they want to go backwards. At this pace F1 won't be the fastest motorsport on a track anymore.
@@Johnnycdrums Idk, I will never understand the FIA obsession of messing up F1 and other motorsports. But ofc neither engineering progress nor spectators enjoyment are on their priority list.
@@Johnnycdrumsthey have to balance the “sport part of F1” (teams winning by being the best) and the “show part of F1” (we don’t want to see boring races without overtakes) while also making it attractive for teams to participate (not as expensive as 20 or 30 years ago, and also relevant for car makers [like the invention of disk brakes in F1 and then trickling down to street legal cars]) and also safe (we are in 2023, drivers dying on track is not something we like to see anymore) and also appear greener (a huge V12 May be cool and fast, but it gives a bad image when we are trying to solve global warming).
You really don't know F1. The engine is getting less power because there will be more electric power. Plus the cars are so advanced, the cars get faster every year
It’s for lower rpm, at lower rpm they can push more fuel and air per stroke of the engine into the engine and then as RPMs climb they will how to actually bleed off the air pressure as they begin to be limited by fuel volume. In a way, this will help with turbo lag but also a lot of low end torque with the batteries and no traction control could make for very interesting passing attempts and spinning out of corners
If it were possible to run strippers (CAT's) in the intake / charge cooler to increase O2 density then it could make sense to limit air intake volume which could also explain how F1 can apparently run so lean
So basically teams have to create even more efficient engines (as if 50% wasn't high enough) to have more power. It seems that these limits are in place to promote exactly that.
There will still be a lever to pull in terms of energy density in the form of weight savings. A short lever, but none too short for the pinnacle of motorsport. Edit: posted literally the moment before you said this 🤦🏼♂️
Clear explanation! I really don't understand why they kept the max deployment limit of 4 MJ per lap. That means and actual drop of average propelling power. Without an significant weight reduction this will lead to slower laptimes.
The reason air flow (pressure) is limited is costs. Going too much higher than that requires a lot more tech (such as desmodromic inlet valves) to implement. Edit: The MGU-H was removed for cost reasons (it was a requirement of Porsche joining F1 as a constructor - then they declined anyway!). So the FIA aren't going to remove one money-sink only to replace it with another. They currently use pneumatic valve 'springs' but if they're having to resist much higher plenum pressure then... cost.
Could the airflow limit stop teams from making power much lower in the rev range? For example, if the engine is only spinning at 5000rpm at times then the airflow limit will stop them from going leaner than 1.4 or even 1.2 with the higher air temps you mentioned and that does seem like a limit teams might bump into.
They're already limited to less energy flow rate of fuel at lower rpms as per the purple graph in the video so I don't think that's it either, good idea tho
The discussion of battery deployment time assumes the driver only uses electrical power to accelerate down straights but it is also used in a series of small bursts to defend against a closing car. Having a third of the deployment time may be another effort by the FIA to increase overtaking.
With the MGU-H gone would there be an incentive to bank as much boost pressure as possible in the intake manifold for antilag? If so I could see the max boost rule existing to head that off.
Jason, a couple of points. The fuel energy density must be between 38.0 and 41.0 MJ/kg, so that would help you with your air:fuel ratio calculation. The fuel flow will be between 73.2kg/h and 78.9kg/h. There is also a rule that limits the speed at which the power output of the PU can be reduced while the driver has maximum torque demand. That is, the output can reduce up to 100kW per second, and the maximum reduction in output is 450kW. So the driver can have 750kW when he gets to full throttle at the start of a straight and be down to 300kW by the end, while having his foot to the floor. It means that the MGUK could be harvesting up to 100kW by the end of the straight - and it is probably the only way they will get anywhere near the 9MJ recovery. The current PUs have a maximum geometric compression ratio of 18:1, the 2026 has changed the 16:1. The 2026 power units will have less power on average over a lap, but they will weigh the same, more or less.
"The 2026 power units will have less power on average over a lap, but they will weigh the same, more or less." yay....so they'll be slower....and then have turbo lag because shoving the car down the road on electric won't be making the exhaust gases needed to spool up the turbo..
@@waynec3563 yes indeed. The power vector of the ICE will be a static graph, but I suspect the Power vector/graph would be variable for the battery. And this could be similar to the lift and coast we have at the moment, which will disappear under the new regs. You will have the drivers running flat out, but have different power graphs on their steering wheel during the race to control moments, like the engine mapping setting. They will also be able to control the drive-ability of their car, in terms of how much power is given to them on acceleration. So it could be interesting, and will help a lot during wet races as drivers will be playing around with this setting to prevent wheel spin
@@IrocZIV and what tech would that be? I can’t think of a single thing that NASA has developed that has entered the wider marketplace. Same with race cars, usually the innovations go from street cars to race cars, not the other way (a few exceptions come to mind: rear-view mirrors, seat belts, active suspension; some innovations like disc brakes were popularized by motorsport, but were in fact invented for non-race applications)
@@jpe1 As far as race cars, I didn't say anything did trickle down, I just like the idea that it would. It could give it a point. If you are going to push the tech so much to fit into these arbitrary rules, why not make the rules push innovation towards something that can help society in general. As far as NASA is concerned, not sure specifically what they directly have done, but I heard they do a lot with aeronautics that has helped improve passenger jets and such, not to mention any material research
I think is not only related to marketing, but more properly about the future realty of oil exhaustion. At a certain point the value of the barrels will start to sky high price and F1 starts from now to be more sustanable and more adherent to future scenarios.
Should allow up to double battery size, but not mandate it. That adds variable on pack size for race... but keep the allotment the same. Just really make it about reliability and weight vs raw power.
Great analysis. I was surprised that there was no mention of the wild discharge and charge rates of the battery, relative to its capacity. Can the battery really do that, or is the 350 kW limit rule effectively irrelevant (at least for more than a second or two) due to the physical limitations of the battery?
They use an ignition chamber that is rich to generate fire from the spark plug so that they can run the main combustion chamber super lean. Also we know from Reno that the ICE is making at least 1000hp at the crank, because they bragged about it and the other teams looked at them like they were sad for them.
I would rather see a racing class where you are forced a certain mpg with a max weight, (for batteries). See if and how manufacturers go about getting the most speed out of much less fuel with certain ways of adding battery power to the equation, or stay lighter with none and really see what manufacturers can do with limits.
Man, I keep fighting to watch this sport. Been a fan since the 90's and it gets more and more difficult every year. Great video of course, but all this stuff doesn't translate to people watching the races on TV. Fans don't care, understand or actually see the effects this tech has while watching on their living room TV set. I used to watch all the practices, qually and the race without fail every weekend. Now I probably miss about 20% of the races each year and you know what, I'm not missing it. I did have some hope with the talk of 2-stroke engines making a possible comeback, but I heard that was shelved. Unless something drastically great happens, with the tech I think I'm bout done after the next 2 seasons 😢
I'm not watching electric racecars, and that's where these clowns keep pushing this stuff. I don't know, maybe other people will watch. But zoomers don't seem to care much about cars, so while F1 is alienating existing fans there aren't new ones filling in for the people who don't care anymore. F1 wont be around for much longer.
It's so sad when they take such a great racing class, the ultimate class, and completely screw it up. They want to make it into a lab for improving cars. Well, pretty soon, that's what they'll have- a lab with no spectators.
If you haven't yet seen it, my previous F1 Engine video makes for a great intro to today's video! th-cam.com/video/KjrNcuc89Pc/w-d-xo.html
Also I'd like to thank my graphic at 9:00 for helping to secure Leclerc's pole position today once again in Baku - congrats!
Spoiler alert!
Thanx, I didn't catch that, you were overworking my brain ..
Yea I hate sprint weekends because my self imposed "Social Media Ban" must go into effect Friday morning rather than Saturday in order to avoid spoilers. Good thing I just finished watching the Qualifying replay a few minutes ago.
Superb video as always, thank you! I think you need a job in F1! Best regards
0:26 you don't say anything about engine rules in WEC championship cars??
Each year my car gets closer and closer to an F1 car, and I've spent $0 on upgrades! Thanks, FIA!
At this rate, soon you'll only need 50hp to reach F1 status lmao
My car gets the same mileage on my city as the new Corvette gets on the average american city because my city is so poorly designed. Guess I've also gotta thank the mayor for making it seem like I have a supercar. xD
Meanwhile NASCAR is making all the noise and speed at LeMans.. lol.
We used to joke about it compared to F1, but now it seems as if the better and faster vehicles are the next gen over at NASCAR.
I stil have no idea why F1 is hell-bent on racing to the bottom.
well if you ignore the MGU-K which provides literally half the power.
it doesnt. Just the balance shifts more towards the Electric motor. Its still just as powerfull in 2026
Cant wait for the 800cc inline 3 200hp season in 2030
😅😅😅🤣
😂😂
You and me both. With the advancements of aerodynamics the cars will be really fast through the corners now. Monaco will be really exciting with the cars getting so close to each other
😂😂😂 slowly the 2 stroke are coming back 👌🏼
They'll be electric by then I'm sure.
What annoys me is the hybrid era is in the name of reduced emissions. If they really wanted to reduce F1 emissions, they'd have fewer races in the season! By far the biggest polution in F1 comes from shipping the whole circus from country to country. We could have kept the V10s and knocked a few races off the calendar and had a greener, more exciting sport overall.
Even changing the order of races would improve things massively in that regard.
It won't even matter when the switch to synthetic fuel, so I don't understand why they wouldn't just make them sound good by allowing 3 litre NA V12s at that point.
That is a good point. If that were the case though, the engineers wouldnt be pushed to limits of extracting as much as possible from the available technology. I think that would result in the teams not learning as much, which is not a great motive for the manufacturers. That is besides the prestige of course.
@@EMPower91 I do love the technical development side of F1 ( even though sometimes I'd like to see all the drivers compete in the same car, just to see ). I think we are kidding ourselves if we think F1 tech actually translates to road cars in the long run.
@@LupinYonderboy there are examples for F1-developed tech that is used in street cars like active suspension and KERS, just to name a couple and there is probably many more
True, but doing that reduces the revenues and profits. More races = more $ revenues/profits. So they want to maximize races AND improve the emissions factor at the same time.
Soon they’ll be mandated to just play 50cc Mario kart with a sticky controller.
They all talk crap about emissions, sustainability and ecology but they hinder you from repairing your car....
Formula Peel P50
@@AkiraHartono After that its going a be the F1 teaming pushing a driver in a Little Tikes Cozy Coup style car with his little F1 driver legs running Fred Flintstone style and the team is going to promote being powered by vegan burritos.
Too improve racing, each driver gets to use 2 bananas and 1 turtle
Why even race? Just have a bingo or lottery set up and pull ping pong balls out of a tumbler. Think of the excitement!
I really think active aero is coming because the level of aerodynamic drag we have now with reduced full power as a function of the increased power still with 4MJ swing... I'm very unexcited about '26. Great explanation!
No, there won't be active aero in f1. The sport has always had the mission of developing new technology to introduce into regular cars later down the line. Aero isn't practical for regular cars because they're too slow to generate it.
Active suspension is the next thing they'll allow. Especially with them moving towards ground effect aero, active suspension would benefit these cars a lot more than active aero, and developing new suspension technology can and will be useful for regular cars, especially given how heavy they'll be getting with all those batteries.
Maybe it would make a comeback eventually but in the short term I think we'd see the teams focus on reducing drag as much as possible. I could see there being a tradeoff point where it's faster to have more straight line speed, coast longer (thus recharging the batteries more), than higher cornering speed. Which is really backwards to think about because normally faster corner speed = quicker lap times, but we're talking about an edge case here. Kinda like the hybrid LMP1 cars, where at Le Mans they were slower at the end of the straights than the non-hybrid LMP1 and they had less downforce. But they made up for it by being able to deploy the electric boost early on the straights. Much like a drag race where if you launch hard enough off the line, you can get to the finish line first even if your opponent has a higher trap speed.
@@Mike23443 that's not exactly true. Hell even pickup trucks have had (for a decade now) active grille shutters to reduce drag at highway speeds.
@@Mike23443 That depends how you define aero. I'm pretty sure he is referring to optimizing drag rather than downforce - which in that case ties into fuel efficiency rather than aero grip.
@@Mike23443 disagree completely. We're talking about the sport that has DRS which has no relevance for road cars. The main issue with the 26 regulations is a reduction in possible output and reducing drag via movable surfaces is far superior to active ride height control. They WILL need a way to reduce drag.
I like a conclusion like that. When you're using real data and actual science sometimes the results aren't a great soundbite.
Haha, glad you enjoyed, curious to learn more about why that rule exists!
@@EngineeringExplained If I had to guess it might be to make sure teams aren't pushing extra air through the exhaust (maybe with fuel injection every other 4 stroke cycle or something) for aerodynamic advantages like they used to do with blown diffusers, coanda exhausts, etc.
@@jamespingel8730 Yeah, something like this - these rules don't tend to get introduced unless it's been found someone has been abusing the lack of control there.
I don’t know. I think you burnt a few of my brain cells.
@@f2cmadmaxxis not abusing something. It is just about smart engineering if something isn't specifically disallowed in the rules.
My only F1 race in person was in 1989 Montreal. I heard the Ferrari 3500 NA V12 before seeing it visually as it took to the back straight after the hairpin.
Still makes the hairs on my neck stand up thinking obout that sound and seeing Berger suspension sparking off the surface of the track.
The sound experience is unforgettable. The old days of F1 ahh
youre a lucky man!
I was lucky enough to hear the v12s during the historic gp at COTA in 2022. I swear you can feel the ground shaking as they go past. Luckily I was there for the v8 runs with Mario andretti as well. I just feel so lucky to have seen those beautiful pieces of history racing
@Fishing With Aiden where were you sitting?
@@jacksonh3034 general admission at turn 1
Modern F1 is not F1
I just cannot imagine how the future of F1 will look like after that. Seeing Crazy Aero Jets running on the tracks with scooter engines
Next power plant, Flinstone foot power.
Electric? Isn’t that obvious?
@@TheSteinbitt So, basically slot cars.
@@tango_uniform the thing is car tech is changing. F1 is intended to be at the forefront of car tech - every year, an increasing number of consumer cars are BEVs and hybrids, so it makes sense that F1 is further electrifying itself and relying less on the gasoline engine. I would personally love if every car in Chicago were electric, because then I could walk along the lakefront without smelling any emissions from Lakeshore Drive. I think it’s a net good if F1 helps lead automobile electrification
@@spencerwong1993 If every car was electric you'd be getting emissons from the power plants of coal going like crazy to supply the whole of chicago with EV's.
EV's are only best currently if kept in small numbers(Not even talking about the catastrophical amount of resources needed to make a whole city have electrical chargers for EV's), unless in the next 10-30 years we move to something more efficient like nuclear power plants or another new method of energy power plants are discovered and become wildly available.
And not just that, there's about 1.44 thousand million ICE powered vehicles currently in the world, that's about 18% percent of the world's human population!
That 18% ain't going any where! since ICE cars have a longer life span (If properly maintained) than EV's, batteries don't last no way near what an ICE platform does.
ICE will not entirely die, it will have to transform, adapt to the current needs, EV's aren't the future even car manofacturers knows this.
Hybrid is the best as of now, the best options for medium and perhaps long term is synthetic fuels.
I feel like we all know this but nobody seems to have written it. They're making the cars more "green" for two reasons in my opinion:
1) To improve brand image, ultimately for profit.
2) F1 is often a playground for new technology development for road cars. These new cars might have technologies which benefit traditional cars, although unlikely.
I also agree that it's pointless really in the grand scheme of things.
I dare you to name a single F1 technology that made it into a traditional car.
@@DenDoddeRegen braking
@@omgawesomeomg You mean the one the Prius had back in 07, 7 years before the modern hybrids?
@@DenDoddecarbon fiber, engine and transmission oil manufacturers probably getting good data, maybe their brakes too?
@@DenDoddeactive/adaptive suspension, and buttons on the steering wheel
I think the min air temp and max pressure is to try and close some loopholes someone discovered. Maybe using the turbo pressure as a simple air pump that can be used to run the engine briefly on no fuel. The air temp may be for preventing teams from using cryogenic air to super cool the inter coolers in the pits before going on track, especially for qualifying. Some rules are to prevent edge cases and loopholes that F1 engineers are famous for finding
No. Cooling the intercooler with a cryo gas prior to qualifying would do basically nothing as an advantage. It takes laps for the car to get up to speed and start the timer, and ANY cooling effect "sprayed" onto the intercooler in the pits would be LONG gone by then
The Intake cooler is an air/water intercooler. Switching on the pumps for the hot lap, could reduce the temperature for the inlet air to below that 10 K limit. And depending on what interval the 3 GJ/h is measured, you could get more power out of the engine than intended.
The pressure limit is basically there to reduce development and engine costs. Else you could make the motor far smaller for the same power, which would be a huge weight saving.
So FIA will soon be the only engineers allowed at this point. Msy they go to hell for such heresy.
This is what great content looks like. Thanks, Jason! Love to see science presented in an interesting yet accurate way like you do.
bonus for using the metric system
13:46 : the engines may very well be running around λ~3. The pre-chamber allows them to do so with a closer-to-stoichiometry mixture inside it and a much leaner mixture in the main cylinder, way beyond the flammability limits for gasoline/E20, as you already indicated, which can however ignite this time due to the jets bursting out of that pre-chamber. The beauty of TJI it is! 😊
Yes, discussed in my previous video. Studies indicated λ~2 possible with active pre-chambers (something F1 isn't using, only passive). So it's not nearly as simple with limited control. More here: th-cam.com/video/KjrNcuc89Pc/w-d-xo.html
@@EngineeringExplained I had already watched that. Beautifully elaborated on! In the MC20 one as well, even though the configurations are quite different of course. My point was that limits, currently possible in latest F1 engines, are way beyond λ~2, as the whiteboard alluded to! Controlling combustion is of course the key here. Mixture preparation is really crucial, which is important to capture very accurately using CFD simulations. Stratification levels inside the pre-chamber are extremely high, due to the shape of body and orifices, which ultimately dictates the λ levels close to the electrodes. Source: seeing real geometries and CFD post-pro on screen daily due to my profession (amongst which motorsport and high performance ICE OEMs). Thanks again for your work 💪
🤓
@@candeyhab 🤡
Another thing to take into account is the trapping efficiency of the engine. With Miller valve timings it can be significantly reduced, resulting in a charge cooling effect at the cost of higher boost pressure needed for a given massflow.
My guess for why all of these rules exist (not just the air but everything together) is to really put a limit on exactly how much can be thrown into the engine; we know teams are chasing power gains, and by putting hard ceilings on fuel AND air, it almost requires engineers to put work into thermal efficiency gains and electric power gains, which i'm guessing is what Liberty wants from F1
A lot of new invention for aerodynamic came out from these reason.
And lets not forget that they are trying to keep it interesting to watch, if they get limited by electric energy now then the drivers choice of when to use the energy to attack or defend a position will come in to play. It could get really interesting, at least in theory.
And at the same time they're banning the electric motor on the turbocharger and arbitrarily limiting the battery capacity (bigger batteries are heavier so that's a natural deterrent) and engine displacement.
@@aimless3827 no, most major advancements in F1 aerodynamics came from a time when the rules were less restrictive about what the teams can do.
Unfortunately that is not the case either, because they're basically keeping the current engines for 2026 but getting rid of a lot of the stuff that made them so advanced. They are also standardizing more engine parts for 2026 and are placing tighter regulations everywhere else on the engine.
Engineering Explained.
Has to be in the top 5 of TH-cam channels.
Well done Jason.
Excellent explanation of the upcoming rules for F1 power unit. Many give the changes point by point, but are unable to explain, quantify, and compare. Thank you.
I miss the 3L V10... 😞
Everyone who cares about the sport does.
I'll never forget that sound
ahhh yes....the screaming good ol' days
even if they were turbo v10 hybrid
@@tturi2 F1 V10 were NA and no hybrid. They did start with 3.5L, then after the Imola accidents downsized to 3L.
Former F1 design engineer here... great video. Done tons of these calcs over the years... all looked good to me.
Years ago (probably 2016) we had a working group to think of ideas around the energy flow diagram, to a) see if we could figure out what Ferrari was doing cleverly and b) try to come up with various nefarious ways to do similar or worse. Mercedes was quite risk-averse, but we really had nothing left to unturn at that moment... we looked at hybridization of ancillaries, various battery layouts etc... but most of the efficiencies found in these rule sets are in combustion/lean-limit optimizations (through fuel formulations, atomization strategies, air injection, mixing etc...) and MGUH strategies. Since the latter is gone, you will see a lot of time spent on fuel...
Could you make a fuel which has a lhv at one temp and another as it raises? Or one that has the same attributes at different pressures? Those things will be tried. I am confident you will see another step change in BTE, which will bring these back to 50%. It will just be a matter of time. Interesting frontier.
Ill check out your other vids.
How did you get your job bro
Wasn't it speculated that Ferrari were running pulsed electrical interference on the FIA fuel flow meter?
@@MC-re9zj Speculated yes, possibly that they were altering the fuel flow rates out of phase with the fuel flow meter. Meaning that the fuel flow meter checks the rate in pulses rather than continuously, so if you can raise the rate in between check pulses you can get an advantage.
Also rumors that they were deliberately allowing thin engine oil to either leak past the cylinder into the chamber, or into the intake via a deliberate leak in the turbo charger. Thereby using engine oil as a fuel booster. The evidence was the limits placed on engine oil burning shortly after.
There's also been rumors of pre-chamber fuel tanks in the engine, with the idea being that fuel flow can be increased at times when the engine is reving low to fill a tank on the engine side of the fuel flow meter. That way you can increase fuel flow into the engine when needed but still comply with the sensor. This one was the crackpot theories of how the Mercedes Party Mode supposedly worked, but it was later revealed that the engine was just functionally 2 years ahead of development of everyone else so they had power to spare early in the Turbo hybrid era and were turning the engines down to save mileage. One of the Mercedes engines was apparently cracked open by the FIA to confirm they weren't doing that... they weren't
Well… maybe I should make a video on how I got my job 🤔.
Also all your crackpot theories were correct, Ferrari was very clever but they weren’t clever enough to hide the performance gradually over the season. The FFM tricking was real and Red Bull ratted them with a brilliant document. I don’t think it’s public.
@@gabednconfused I’d love to see that video!
Interesting video!
You should make a video about engine sound in general, like, what gives each engine its characteristic sound (four, five, six, eight, ten, etc. pot engines) and the components that contribute to engine/exhaust notes.
Please 😉
I’m not religious but I can assure you, the sound of a good V8 comes from the vocal cords God himself.
@@gottliebdee263love V8s myself, but for F1 of I'd say the best sounding engines were the V10s and V12. And V10s of around 2000 era sounded immense.
@@Senorbarnez I'm the same. A cross plane V8 for my daily driver but there is something about a shrieking V10/V12 that is spine tingling.
If you never got to experience a Grand Prix back in the day in the flesh, it's a shame but you've really missed out.
@@gottliebdee263Yes, it's that shrieking 18,000rpm that can't be matched today. I never went back in the day, but did go to Silverstone last year for the F1 , was really looking forward to hearing an F1 engine in real life, but came away highly unimpressed with the sound of today's engines. When watching the onboard view on TV I feel those V6 turbos, even at full chat, sound like mopeds strangely.
@@Senorbarnez lol. Who knows maybe they'll bring them back.
Silverstone is a great spectator track, (apart from the food prices).
your ability to talk on versus drone on at length about highly complicated math which then results in more complication is amazing and requires so many separate talents . Your mastery of engineering is just the first of many of them.
Thank you for this!
LOL highly complicated 10 grade math. Yes much talent.
I wish there were not so many rules, have basic limitations to engine capacity and types of fuel and fuel useage. Freedom to choose engine type, configuration, layout etc. Likewise for suspension, aero etc. It would be more exciting to watch and understand.
I wonder how much this will affect the brake sizes / cooling ducts, with all that energy recovery it will be interesting to see where teams go with this.
Probably not much since they use the hot brakes to help heat up the tires.
Is the energy recovery only on the rear wheels? If yes, these cars are going to be terrible to drive.
@@gkinghsmith9352 I'm sure they can figure out brake balance
You might see a modest reduction in brake size to shed unsprung weight
@@bradweinberger6907you can pre heat the tires with tires blankets and then bring them to temperature just from the tires doing their job. once the tires are up to Reno having less heat from the brakes is an advantage
F1 rules often feel arbitrary and confusing, I think they just like to mess with us.
they gotta be smoking something wacky to come up with all of this
@@enolopanr9820 I'm calling ketamine.
They don't care about the sport, it's all a circus to push EVs.
No F1 is about advancing combustion technology. By making combustion engines more efficient and having synthetic fuels, we can make engines stick around alongside electric cars. Are they going to be the high revving NA engines of the past? No, but at least we're still getting an engine.
@@456MrPeople
First, no, the Formula one was never about technological advancement, it was about manufacturers pride, like pretty much every other sport. The technological advancement thing came about with the political views turning towards solving climate change.
Second, don't be confused, the combustion engine will die out and it will come faster than you think, especially in such a political circus like Formula 1.
Very good video. My only issue is with the section at 8:33 . Although the max battery usage calculations are correct AFAIK (I'm not gonna check your math, mine is usually bad), it only takes into account one straight, not the whole lap. Since the current regs only allow 4MJ of energy deployment per lap instead of the theoretical 6 (4 in the Energy store, 2 recovered at some pointt) and the new regs removed that limitation completly, you might be limited in the very long straights like you mentioned in Baku, but you have far more available energy deployment per lap (max 13MJ, 4 ES + 9 recovered). I couldn't find figures for how much MGU-H is deploying to K in a current F1 car so it could account for those extra 9MJ but I doubt it.
Your point is so true. Cars will have the same battery capacity but charge / discharge rates should be different.
F1 is the pinnacle of automotive engineering. I think the point of having them play around with green tech is getting those engineers developing technologies that could one day go into your fuel efficient car. You could allow bigger engines with big turbos but is that relevant anymore.
Exactly, most these people in comments don't understand. F1 is about engineering. If they want loud noise, and inefficiency with minimum engineering: Funny car drag racing is their thing.
It's a spectator sport. It's about entertainment. The engineers will do their thing whatever the regulations are. These regulations have given us a formula where it is too expensive for new teams to enter, the cars sound like hoovers and the rules are static year after year because the development costs are so high. Still could be worse, there was the year when all the cars had phallic appendages on the nose-cones…
Hybrids are better in every way to ICE - power, braking, fuel efficiency
I think those IAT and charge air pressure limitations are aimed at preventing F1 teams from adapting some sort of crazy charge air regulator system on the engine intakes. They could theoretically run insanely highly charge air pressures (15+ bar) air through the intercooler and then run that high pressure/near ambient temperature charge air through a high flow rate regulator to reduce the pressure to a more reasonable useful manifold pressure while drastically cooling the charge air in the process due to adiabatic expansion. This could get IATs far below ambient at the regulation intake pressure (possibly even to freezing temperatures depending on the expansion ratio), greatly increasing intake air density, and also improving combustion stability. I tried to design something like this for a regular turbo car, but it wasn't feasible for a regular car/engine setup. It was far too complex, cumbersome, expensive, difficult to manufacture by hand, and would have required a crazy tuning solution because of the additional sensory/feedback inputs to compensate for variable ambient temperatures and available boost/turbo lag. The returns were also diminishing on a regular vehicle setup and theoretical benefits were mostly only in the super high rev range (IE even more turbo lag). F1 teams wouldn't have the same limitations, and they are chasing milliseconds so they could pull it off, and possibly consider it as a valuable proposition.
That intake pressure limit got me thinking....Just a shot in the dark but it occurs to me you might be able to "replace" the mgu-h with a kind of hyper-egr which in stead of cooling and diluting the charge could heat up and pressurize it to increase MEP or even be used to control compression ignition.....
bro what does this mean in simpleton english
Recovery of exhaust gas energy by taking them back into the cylinders at certain times for increased efficiency
@@jakubstaniszewski477 Doesn't that only work for inefficient fuel burn? You want denser cool air which carries more Oxygen to burn all of the fuel, not hotter air with more CO2 from previous fuel burn
@@uncleelias unless you have 140-170% excess air in your charge
That's another great point
15:00
I think the airflow limit is to prevent the engine departments from pursuing aero gains through exhaust gas velocity tuning exiting the rear for downforce.
An engine is just a fancy air pump...
Could blown diffusers be coming back?
Can't enjoy more your explanations, thank you very much 4 your content.
As for the ultra lean A/F ratios, that could be in part to the limit of air allowed in for non-combustible events. They are going to limit engine braking, among another options of allowing air into the combustion chamber with no combustion to also cool it. Provided they use a higher ethanol fuel source, spraying in fuel they never combust will greatly reduce cylinder temperatures.
Engine braking? We're not descending a mountain in a truck here. The brakes brake the car - engine braking seems irrelevant to a properly built race car.
Why are they so concerned about fuel efficiency when they fly military planes over before each Grand Prix
The Climate Change Circus🤡
That's has nothing to do with the FIA
@jafooli flying military planes overhead doesnt increase fuel use or pollution. All military pilots need to log a certain amount of hours flying to keep proficient. Flyovers are part of that time.
Maybe the A/F ratio limiting lean is to avoid teams continuing to run the cars engine at at high revs at low speeds and using the air through exhausts to aid airflow, aka last decade’s blown diffusers ?
i did always wonder if there's enough exhaust pressure to produce thrust
Great video as always. I think F1 is tying themselves in knots with such a complex set of multi factorial restrictions.
Well I mean that's the point. This is the "Formula" in Formula 1 that engineers have to work with. The restrictions are what makes the engineering competition aspect of the sport so interesting. They have to get creative to work around roadblocks and obstacles set for them.
@@MoptopTofer I get that but the rules risk conflicting with each other and stifling innovation and the excitement of the sport as races will be settled by a bunch of specialist engineers and lawyers in a court room rather than on the track with drivers they should set some basic parameters and let the engineers engineer and the drivers drive.
@YUNG CHLOROFORM But is this supposed to be the craziest fastest most vuscious cars that only the best can wrangle round a track or is it 'make the most of it with these extra 100 restrictions because we like to please the green agenda and Lewis.'
It's absurd. The entire F1 calendar puts out 1/180th of the Carbon than 1 container ship does. Why can't F1 be the best cars on the planet and everything else takes up some slack?
The cars today are slower than 20 years ago , check the lap times (and when you do , remember they weren't running on slicks). They sound shite and the drivers are all the same.
@@realMaverickBuckley absolutely spot on! F1 is a clown show of european elites promoting agendas and fostering the ultimate hubris of modern society and control hungry politicians, by constantly adding more regulations supposedly in the name of more exciting racing, when in effect they've created a monstrosity of nearly zero relevance to the sporting aspects of F1 and relevant technological excellence (by not increasing costs exponentially)
@@realMaverickBuckley Bollocks. Catalunya 2007 : Pole Position 1'21.421" , 2020 : Pole Position 1'15.584". Same track layout.
All of these comments are still forgetting that the most powerful engine in F1 history was a 4 cylinder.
At this rate we will have them riding solar powered bicycles by 2050
Even then they gonna limit god given sun rays absorption rate by rewriting the bible
Maybe teams will be using the Miller cycle or something similar to increase thermal efficiency at the expense of volumetric efficiency. Boost limits would effectively put a cap on how far they can go with that strategy.
The Miller cycle works best with a roots-type supercharger so it’d be interesting to see FiA probably allowing twincharge systems. It would make for a heck of a launch when the light turns green.
@@Nafeels "it’d be interesting to see FiA probably allowing twincharge systems"
There's the problem. It would require the FIA to allow something...
Superchargers aren't even restricted with current or future engine regulations. But you can't use an MGU-H with a supercharger. So maybe supercharging will make a comeback.
@@456MrPeoplethat would be interesting, but superchargers are less thermally efficient.
Loved the carbon footprint pyramid and explanation of the hypocricy, thank you.
Just take me back to F1 2004, the cars used to look better as well
My thoughts exactly.
back to the time when cars were considerably slower?
@@sailor_seller you do realize some of the old V10s still hold lap records, and that's on grooved tyres.
@@sailor_seller yes, and considerably more entertaining
@SL they were slower not because of the engine it was the cars, put the old engines in the new cars and f1 will return to glory
Good job, man!
Beautiful break down instant subscribed
4.8 bar is insane! I won't be surprised if teams aren't going to be running much more ethanol, especially with the new joule based flow rate.
It’s in the video. It’s increasing from 10% to 20%.
But theres's also a limit on how much fuel you can carry, so it's a tight balancing act.
So if I have investments in ethanol I should be happy about this? I can also get kickbacks for fighting climate change right?
@@gkinghsmith9352not sure about the tight balancing act. seems like the more rules you introduce the less balancing you have to do, and the more the rules dictate your choices. for instance if there is no power limit you might not want to have the most power because more power is less drivable, less reliable, wears tires quicker and uses more fuel ( more weight) now if you have a pretty "low" fuel flow limit like current and incoming rules, power is limited and you want to have all of this limited power other wise you'll get passed on the straights... same for fuel, if you have a high minimum amount of oxygen that reduces fuel energy density, you might want to use the least amount allowed to get the best energy density. makes it easier for everyone to optimize the parameters, you reduce the research costs and make teams more equal regardless of the budgets. seems like it's where they're heading probably trying to make F1 more exciting to watch...the tight balancing act is there, trying to create healthy competition without going too far and transforming F1 into racing series where all cars are identical
4.8 bar of boost is a lotta pressure. They must have some crazy piston design
I think they are keeping the battery size the same will make energy management an even more important strategy for teams & drivers. Hopefully making it more entertaining for us fans
Will be good for overtaking as well, for shorter burst of more torque or coming out of corners
Indeed. It should promote passing manoeuvres and defence. It’s a great idea. I don’t know if they are getting rid of drs in the new regs?
@@sephiros9883 I never liked the DRS, which seemed too contrived, and hope they will get rid of it eventually.
Higher regenerative rate means they will refill that battery quicker between straights
@@mrvwbug4423 and then instantly use it. So the more they can recover and reuse the energy, the more horse power they will have. rather than using it just to boost on the longer straights, it will mean they can keep firing at any opportunity they get. The only thing I don't know about the regulations is if it has to be under driver control, or it can be automatically triggered by the engine management system
Great explanation dude! Thank you for breaking it down like this.
I am old AF and have been watching F1 since the 70's. It has been amazing to watch the transformation of both the sport and the cars during the last 40 years.
While I do miss the turbo era greatly (and the the engines screaming out 18K RPMS), I also have tremendous respect for the amount of power the engineers can pull out of these engines with relatively tiny displacement. Just incredible.
As for understanding the third change...it's F1. Need I say more. ;-)
30 years ago was this same tiny displacement and this level of power, or even more power. The bigger difence is that today they use halt of the fuel at that era.
Me too. Let's be honest, F1 has been taken over Elitest Green buffoons and by hyper marketing to 16 Yr old children.
The current cars are significantly slower than the 2004 cars. 20 years and we've done is go backwards.
It's boring.
@@realMaverickBuckley except they're both faster and more efficeint then the 2004 cars...and the 2020/2021 cars where faster than these...
the 80s turbos didn't hit 18k rpm, that was mid 2000s NA engines.
I miss the days of unlimited power where they were making 1500+ HP BUT! I understand why they’ve made changes over the decades, some of them are pointless, some take away excitement, but other rules increase the competition on the engine building side, the sport has to evolve. They should still have a secondary sport called F-Zero that is unlimited like the days of old.
to counter this octane limit, you could flip the entire table and make a compression ignition engine (a diesel) that uses completely bio diesel (made from plant oils), diesel has a verry low octane but weirdly it needs high compression to ignite, thus making it more efficient, there are diesels out there running compression ratio's of 30isch to 1 WITH a turbo producing way more boost than a gasoline engine, in a gasoline engine you'll never see more than 5 bars boost, while a factory diesel can run up to nearly 7,5 bars (heavy industry) and a purpuse made race car could probable have even more, the engine is a bit heavier though and the revs are limited, but with some F1 engineering there's probably a way around the weight of the engine so it can rev higher
I hate that they are limiting the cars so much. I would love to see the innovation within their cost cap and the use of a hybrid system.
For example if one team decides to have an EV powertrain then let them. Limit the battery and engine size and maximum gas but not the way power is used.
Everybody has the same amount of potential power... now figure it out.
No team would go down the EV route in that case, it's all down to energy density. Gasoline is far too dense compared to any battery technology, and anyway there is already Formula-E
@@tedferkin why not. You would have engines still but running at their uptimum rpm. The most efficient rpm all the time.
@@answeris4217 batteries are very heavy compared to fuel. Current cars are 200 kilograms fatter than just 10 years ago. Weight has borderline unbelievable consequences for everything in racing: acceleration, braking, cornering speeds, tyre wear - all suffer with every kilogram. iirc Adrian Sutil many years ago was preaching for bigger minimum driver weight limit, because he was taller than most and couldn't lose as much, to the point he was experimenting with carrying less 'drink' in the car and trying to minimize it as long as his performance didn't drop. All that ridiculous effort to save probably less than a kilogram!
@@de_oScar if everybody has the same battery but not limited on how or what can power the drivetrain
@@answeris4217 Formal E has an exclusivity contract on EV racing with the FIA.
Can't wait for the all EV F1 with playing cards in the wheel spokes.
Yo but legit our bikes as kids sounded great.
Formula E is already proving that EVs work for racing.
@@ChadWilson I get the exact opposite impression
@@EngineeringExplained Your mom get pissed off when all the clothes pins went missing?
Moto GP is where it's at. Speed, SOUND, talent, 5-6 engine manufacturers, etc.
I think this video and its conclusion perfectly encapsulates the state of F1 currently.
Thank you for this explanation! Really enjoyed it
The changes should result in a lot of battery power used at acceleration then tapering off. What if they added a variable mass (or variable geometry) flywheel for better energy management? You could get off the line faster and store energy in the flywheel in addition to the battery storage.
Great vid as always!!! At the end of your video, I think the reason for the A/F limit is because some teams have learned from the current rules and are very close to the new A/F rule. IMO I think some teams are running extreme lean conditions and also a controlled detonating? Honda being one of them. The controlled detonation is giving a very high cylinder pressure without the aid of using the conventional fuel amount to get normal amount of cylinder pressure.
At lambda 2.5? If you watch my previous video, there's a paper by a previous F1 powertrain engineer that says you need an active chamber for lambda 2 (F1 uses passive). So it's a big jump, and using worse tech. It's difficult to believe they're running that lean!
Controlled detonation may also be for keeping the turbo spooled.
@@EngineeringExplained f1 engines run with lambda
@@03_Frank +1 - @EE don't mix manifold pressure with air pressure in the chamber. Secondly there is bounce back from the Miller cycle at intake, need to account for that spike. Thirdly of course you can have below 10C over ambient, you can have below ambient simply by cooling compressed air then iso-baric expand to the intake plenum - but only factory teams tend to have air-to-water intercoolers powerful enough to cool the air so close to ambient before expansion (it's in the team-area, of responsability not the PU area, funnily enough) - the 10C over ambient in meant to close the gap between the factory and customer team actual available power.
The world of F1 engines is an amazing place, congrats for bringing a bit of light on how amazing those engines actually are (which I could praise in the same way any TV comentary team since 2014 onwards)
@@EngineeringExplained IMHO I believe Mercedes, Ferrari and Honda have their PC in the piston crown now. Its a much larger PC and got rid of the heat issues with the PC in the head. This PC in the piston crown makes a rapid combustion, spark assisted TJI, HCCI-like combustion that could light off extreme lean conditions of 2.0> lambda even before the spark plug fires. Hondas video shows this happening in a public video. A ilmor engineer has referred to these engines as "controlled detonation". So now they're getting the lean burn results of an active PC with a passive PC. Also, I believe this is why there is a new intake temperature rule.
I was a bit confused, how wouldn't you be able to reduce your charge air temp to 10 degrees above intake temperature. I do that all the time. Then I remembered I work with marine diesels. and our air cooler doesnt do air to air. it does air to seawater, which is usually way cooler then the air in the engineroom what the engine is taking in.
usually we have it set to 45 C as charge air temp, regardless of the intake temperature. Keeping everything constant is most important for those big diesels.
About F1 I wish they'd give the teams more freedom in the engine design and development. even the choosing of the number of cylinders, from a I4 to a v12, what ever you like.
only limit: fuel, supplied by the organiser, in a known quantity.
here you have 50L, and the lights are off and goo.
I'm with you on opening up engine flexibility. It'd be fun to see different strategies there, and just limit teams to fuel flow.
I would like more flexibility too, however it’s so expensive to develop engines now that it would give too much of an advantage to the successful design until everyone copies it. F1 is going to become more and more a spec series with cost caps and everything, which in the end might give us a better show.
So, 1 hour of fuel @ full tilt on board for a (maximum) 2 hour race. Combustion engine power cut to 66%-ish, plus a loss in thermal efficiëncy by losing the MGU-H. Electric boost tripled in power, but no change in battery capacity. As an F1 engine builder, you would have to optimize recovering kinetic and braking energy. If you can put more energy back into that battery, recharging it faster/better, then you get more use of that boost. And you would have to optimize the thermal efficiëncy of the combustion engine. Like what Mazda has been doing with their newest Skyactiv-X engine. Maybe angling the cilinders to elongate the power stroke and reduce piston rocking (I assume they've already got this covered). Optimizing the exhaust stroke, now that the MGU-H has gone (the exhaust stroke deliveres some power too). I'm sure the F1 engineers are several steps ahead of the things I'm mentioning here. My point is, there are still improvements to be made to the old combustion engine. And they're going to have to make these improvements if they want to be winning.
There is actually one more technique that could be applied. The air budget is way oversized, as you've shown. You could, during the power stroke, moments after the initial combustion, inject more air. This cold air is introduced into the engine's cylinder, while it's full with high pressure superheated gasses. And the injected cold air will rapidly expand because of it. The f1 car will need to have an air tank and a compressor on board (else you would introduce energy from outside of the energy budget). Injecting cold air into the cylinder after combustion will basicly convert heat energy into rotational force at the crankshaft. It will increase the thermal efficiëncy of the engine. The tricky part is making it work. But that's what F1 is all about.
With the higher capacity electric motor, you could do.some crazy stuff where you do cylinder deactivation and rapidly cool the cylinder while not in need of full power. (is water injection legal?)
This could explain the double limit. Limit fuel for power output, limit air (and air temp) to control overall flow through the engine, and limit cooling potential.
I have no idea if cylinder deactivation is worthwhile in a formula 1 context, but that was where my head went upon you posing the question.
They used to cool engine with extra gasoline but it was banned. So I am guessing water is banned as well
I wonder if these changes will be making the 2026 cars quite a chunk slower. Of course we have no idea about the potential new aero, but history has shown they haven't ever been changed for better. A lesser time of electric deployment, a lesser amount of power from the ICE with a possible torque output delay, not changing the RPM of the engine (although as I am aware, and I might be wrong as well, there are provisions to take it up to 15K, as it is right now). I wonder what the difference would be like in a case like this, where about 3-times the e-motor power gets delivered in 1/3rd of the time; how would that pan out in the time it takes to cover a certain distance on a track. The math could be worth a shot.
I had done a deep dive into the new regs myself previously but didn't run the numbers, and boy am I shocked now! I am of the opinion that with the extremely painful elimination of the MGU-H, the engines will now sound better, even more so if the supposed exhaust system tweaks are brought into place.
The more power from electrick motors can actually make acceleration much better and so the lap times can actually go better.
But lets see!
@@haukikannelsure, until they run out of battery and then slow to a crawl since they have zero ICE power.
Hello Jason! Just one thought on that rule… what if teams were allowed to use different fuels for each race? Going from E10-20 to E30-35 would increase O2 intake, wouldn’t it? That would make this rule a good way to cap overall power.
Also, some races (Mexico City) are more than 2k m asl. Wouldn’t more ethanol help engines here?
As always, awesome videos. Thanks!
Fuel oxygen levels are set (as shown in video), so you can't go from E20 to E30.
@@EngineeringExplained Oh, now I get it. I thought the only restriction will be a minimum, but if it's going to be capped, it's a no go. Thanks for taking the time to answer!
Teams only get a handful of fuels per year, iirc. I think Mercedes might've done a video on those.
The engine can be used as an air pump to enhance performance of other aerodynamic surfaces; see 'blown diffuser'. This may be to limit that so the exhaust outlet can be moved in future.
Compound turbo charging, ultimately led to gas turbines, and jet engines.
I believe it is about forcing F1 back to being a testbed for car innovation. Consumer fuel moved from E5 to E10 and this is a way to drive the move to E20. Also, controlling the air/fuel ratio will make them develop new alloys to support leaner running. It makes the sport a but greener but when it ripples down to consumer cars the impact will be huge. Great video btw.
very competent technical explanation
I don't think the intention is to limit the air mass flow rate. I'd guess that they are separately limiting (a) boost pressure, to stop teams cranking the boost WAY up - possibly for safety/reliability reasons? - and (b) intercooler performance - probably to try to head off an arms race of bigger/more complex cooling systems for marginal gains in charge air density. Now yes, those two together do impose a de facto limit on mass flow rate at the intake, but as you say that limit would give very lean combustion, and no-one's likely to hit it.
I came looking for this.
I definitely think that they are supposed to be separate constraints.
yea cause if they can get away with super lean running engine then they will crank the boost of to as much as they can get away with. Try to limit max power to keep things some what level cause teams with unlimited would def explore an engine that can take a lot of boost and almost no fuel.
That exceeded my recommended daily allowance of math by a factor of 4 😝
I like the conclusion and await your journey trying to figure it out!
Granted, the switch to e-fuel is partially a green-washing & marketing effort. However, with Audi & Ford (and Honda sticking around) becoming engine suppliers because of this switch, they're effectively using F1 to fund cutting edge R&D for engine development that will make road car engines more efficient sooner. So, big picture, the eco gains could really be huge.
The time invested to put this together and the care factor to make it digestible given the content is incredibly impressive.
What you’ve managed to highlight is that even under the current rule set for this year, “Formula 1” (or the pinnacle of motorsport) is so obsessed with arbitrary rule sets that it has actually broken the premise for which it exists in the first place.
Sustainability, safety, practicality, precision, all need to be at the heart of F1 but so does the wonder and excitement created by feats of brilliance of talented people.
When questionable outcomes from opaque racing regulations become the overriding conversation topic to casual observers the “sporting” nature of the motorsport is questioned.
When highly specialised and technical engineering regulations in conjunction with punitive cost controls restrict creativity such that all the cars are the same but they’re actually not then you’re no longer the pinnacle.
It’s easy to criticise and F1 is still a great spectacle. But it is more spectacle than sport.
My best guess is that they're putting an air limit on as a way to prevent any tricks the teams find to get higher fuel flow into the engine by tying the rules into knots
*Looks at Ferrari*
Sure Leclerc took 22 seconds to complete the main straight at Baku, but you’re forgetting a crucial variable that is DRS. That alone lasts about a third of that main straight.
So some math based off of Leclerc's 20 straight, assuming they come out of 16 at 100kph, it'll take ~8.5s to hit 300kph, allowing that 350kw then they will have another ~6s of battery left at 150kw. The last 5s of the straight away, the cars will be slowing down immensely even with DRS. So the idea of these hard on the break lunges will disappear on straightes like that.
I know a lot of F1 fans get upset at tighter engine regulations, but the way I see it is that the engineers need new challenges every couple years because F1 isn't about making the fastest car ever, it's about competing with other manufacturers within the regulations. As Jason explained, it's not even about lowering emissions because the teams are constantly flying and shipping things around the world. The cars are just a tiny fraction of the emissions. It's about creating engineering challenges.
But that doesn't matter for the huge majority of the audience that pays for it.
@@MuitoDaora No, but much of the research trickles down to street cars, and they do try to make systems more relevant in that regard.
@@wyskass861 But is not the main reason big car manufacturers join the F1 or why there's multimillion sponsorships for it. They want the exposition to that audience.
@@MuitoDaora agree
Historically the regulations have been based on safety, now they are all about "climate" politics
Great content Jason I’m not going to pretend to understand it all but in answer to your last question as to why - surely the answer is the 15:12 need to remain relevant to the quest for sustainable ice based engines which is key to attracting and engaging the likes of Porche to the show!
Very good technical info👍
About the absolute pressure limit, my interpretation would be along these lines: you made your calculation with the airflow generated at 10500 rpm, and most likely running that boost pressure at those rpm would be useless because the mixture would be too lean as you pointed out… but at lower rpm the airflow would be lower and maybe you could then use a higher MAP in the low rpm region to flatten out the power curve and have close to max power at all rpms?
Would you consider this a possibility?
I don't think so, because at lower RPM the fuel flow limit is also lower. For example at 8000 RPM you can't use as much fuel as you can at 10,500+ RPM, so if you already have quite a lot more air than you need at 10.5k, there's no benefit to having that much air at 8000 RPM with less fuel. You'll be even more lean than you'd be at max fuel flow, making it even further from optimal.
Why would the fuel flow limit be lower at lower RPMs? @@Ninja98x
Is there any way to use an electric motor connected to a vertical pole with a pickup strip at the top. The track could be metal with a negative charge & the vertical pole could pick up from an overhead mesh with a positive connection.
I seem to remember this setup at out local town fair. Thoughts?
lol
Sounds more like a train
Love the bumper car idea. Many F1 fans may be too young to get it. Ah, the smell of ozone in the air. And besides, the drivers already play bumper cars at all of the starts.
Electric induction coils in the operating surface to supply electrical power to vehicles would be more suitable, both for bumper cars and F1.
I'm sure I remember a day when they just said "3-litre maximum, that's it, no more engine rules" (well there were a few others but not many). I can see the day coming when F1 disappears up the backside of its own pompous addiction to complication.
Yep, that would be fun. "1.6 liter. Do whatever but you are limited to *kg of fuel on board / per race* and the max car weight". Let em even make diesels. That would be fun.
That was 1966 - a time where turbo racing cars were still on the horizon. Mechanical fuel injection was about the limit of tech used, and by 1967 it resulted in glorious V12s, a few V8s, and a bonkers H16, all revving in excess of 9000RPM (some getting to 10 and 11k!).
My thought on the air flow limitation is to discourage the previous practice of blowing hot/cold exhaust air through the diffuser. I know there is a definitive rule against such a thing, but maybe an extra way to prevent a different area being blown.
Wait, air flow limitation is for the intake to the engine, this video does not discuss anything about the exhaust flow limit, unless they waste energy by cooling the air and exhausting it back out through the diffuser..?!
Let me just blow your mind. Nice one, Jason. As usual.
I want to see what’s possible with no limits. Just perhaps size and weight.
Williams did that a number of years ago. It was insane, and undriveable. Literally the driver wouldn't be able to cope with the forces on his/her body. Given further advancements now, I've no idea what it would be.
But removing the rules is pointless, the racing is about comparable cars. Hence the name "Formula 1". this is racing of cars in that category.
RedBull X car in Gran Turismo is this
@@tedferkin Formula one is notorious for neutering the cars. So many innovations get stymied. I want formula unlimited. The drivers know very well what they would be signing up for. Lets see 500 kph
What's possible is drivers more often losing grip and slamming into walls.
@@tedferkin Then allow teams to make the cars autonomous.
F1 has been reducing progress aceleration for a while, but now it looks they want to go backwards. At this pace F1 won't be the fastest motorsport on a track anymore.
Why are they doing it?
Not really because FIA is turning everyone into twinks, they are all slowing down
@@Johnnycdrums Idk, I will never understand the FIA obsession of messing up F1 and other motorsports. But ofc neither engineering progress nor spectators enjoyment are on their priority list.
@@Johnnycdrumsthey have to balance the “sport part of F1” (teams winning by being the best) and the “show part of F1” (we don’t want to see boring races without overtakes) while also making it attractive for teams to participate (not as expensive as 20 or 30 years ago, and also relevant for car makers [like the invention of disk brakes in F1 and then trickling down to street legal cars]) and also safe (we are in 2023, drivers dying on track is not something we like to see anymore) and also appear greener (a huge V12 May be cool and fast, but it gives a bad image when we are trying to solve global warming).
You really don't know F1. The engine is getting less power because there will be more electric power. Plus the cars are so advanced, the cars get faster every year
Will you ever make a video abour Omega 1 engine? Sounds like a cool idea.
Thanks for the videos, I love them!
It’s for lower rpm, at lower rpm they can push more fuel and air per stroke of the engine into the engine and then as RPMs climb they will how to actually bleed off the air pressure as they begin to be limited by fuel volume. In a way, this will help with turbo lag but also a lot of low end torque with the batteries and no traction control could make for very interesting passing attempts and spinning out of corners
If it were possible to run strippers (CAT's) in the intake / charge cooler to increase O2 density then it could make sense to limit air intake volume which could also explain how F1 can apparently run so lean
So basically teams have to create even more efficient engines (as if 50% wasn't high enough) to have more power. It seems that these limits are in place to promote exactly that.
Without the MGU H that will not be easy at all. That thing could recover as much energy as physics allowed from the exhaust.
@@srinitaaigaura I mean, i'm sure there are other ways to improve efficiency.
they're wasting billions of dollars just for getting extra 1 % of efficiency that doesn't matter.
When they start using synthetic fuel I hope they get rid of the electric bits and turbos.
@@C.I...
They could/ should end the era of combustion engines totally and go towards pure electrisity aka formula e…
bring back v10 or v12 that noise cant be beaten
In person on track the V6 turbos are very loud, not as loud a s V8 or V10 though, but no where near as bad as people make out that watch it on tv.
You;'d think synth fuel would allow this, but they don't want to look like they're going back on their word.
@@v4skunk739 it's not about the loudness
There will still be a lever to pull in terms of energy density in the form of weight savings. A short lever, but none too short for the pinnacle of motorsport.
Edit: posted literally the moment before you said this 🤦🏼♂️
Clear explanation! I really don't understand why they kept the max deployment limit of 4 MJ per lap. That means and actual drop of average propelling power. Without an significant weight reduction this will lead to slower laptimes.
The reason air flow (pressure) is limited is costs. Going too much higher than that requires a lot more tech (such as desmodromic inlet valves) to implement.
Edit: The MGU-H was removed for cost reasons (it was a requirement of Porsche joining F1 as a constructor - then they declined anyway!). So the FIA aren't going to remove one money-sink only to replace it with another. They currently use pneumatic valve 'springs' but if they're having to resist much higher plenum pressure then... cost.
So, F1 uses Freevalve? But they still have quad cam engines with front end timing gears!
@@kevinburke6743 No, not freevalve. Cam-actuated valves working against a gas pressure 'spring' rather than a coil spring.
What'd be the advantage of even higher air pressures?
@@FiveFiveZeroTwo More air pressure means more oxygen (and fuel) can get into the cylinders which means more power!
@@Shaun.Stephens But they are already running very lean and fuel flow is limited. No more power.
Could the airflow limit stop teams from making power much lower in the rev range? For example, if the engine is only spinning at 5000rpm at times then the airflow limit will stop them from going leaner than 1.4 or even 1.2 with the higher air temps you mentioned and that does seem like a limit teams might bump into.
They're already limited to less energy flow rate of fuel at lower rpms as per the purple graph in the video so I don't think that's it either, good idea tho
i start to lose my interest to F1, feels like they are more into show than engineering and sporting
I mean it's a show, so... I think the engineering remains as relevant as ever!
The discussion of battery deployment time assumes the driver only uses electrical power to accelerate down straights but it is also used in a series of small bursts to defend against a closing car. Having a third of the deployment time may be another effort by the FIA to increase overtaking.
Great video!
With the MGU-H gone would there be an incentive to bank as much boost pressure as possible in the intake manifold for antilag? If so I could see the max boost rule existing to head that off.
Jason, a couple of points.
The fuel energy density must be between 38.0 and 41.0 MJ/kg, so that would help you with your air:fuel ratio calculation. The fuel flow will be between 73.2kg/h and 78.9kg/h.
There is also a rule that limits the speed at which the power output of the PU can be reduced while the driver has maximum torque demand. That is, the output can reduce up to 100kW per second, and the maximum reduction in output is 450kW. So the driver can have 750kW when he gets to full throttle at the start of a straight and be down to 300kW by the end, while having his foot to the floor. It means that the MGUK could be harvesting up to 100kW by the end of the straight - and it is probably the only way they will get anywhere near the 9MJ recovery.
The current PUs have a maximum geometric compression ratio of 18:1, the 2026 has changed the 16:1.
The 2026 power units will have less power on average over a lap, but they will weigh the same, more or less.
"The 2026 power units will have less power on average over a lap, but they will weigh the same, more or less."
yay....so they'll be slower....and then have turbo lag because shoving the car down the road on electric won't be making the exhaust gases needed to spool up the turbo..
@@JohnLawley24v I suspect the main use of the MGUK will be to help propel the car out of the corner where turbo lag is a big issue.
@@waynec3563 yes indeed. The power vector of the ICE will be a static graph, but I suspect the Power vector/graph would be variable for the battery. And this could be similar to the lift and coast we have at the moment, which will disappear under the new regs. You will have the drivers running flat out, but have different power graphs on their steering wheel during the race to control moments, like the engine mapping setting. They will also be able to control the drive-ability of their car, in terms of how much power is given to them on acceleration. So it could be interesting, and will help a lot during wet races as drivers will be playing around with this setting to prevent wheel spin
I've always like the idea of race cars testing tech that will eventually move onto road cars.
They should just start racing electric CUVs then.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Ha, I was thinking more like how tech NASA comes up with trickles down.
@@IrocZIV and what tech would that be? I can’t think of a single thing that NASA has developed that has entered the wider marketplace. Same with race cars, usually the innovations go from street cars to race cars, not the other way (a few exceptions come to mind: rear-view mirrors, seat belts, active suspension; some innovations like disc brakes were popularized by motorsport, but were in fact invented for non-race applications)
@@jpe1 As far as race cars, I didn't say anything did trickle down, I just like the idea that it would. It could give it a point. If you are going to push the tech so much to fit into these arbitrary rules, why not make the rules push innovation towards something that can help society in general.
As far as NASA is concerned, not sure specifically what they directly have done, but I heard they do a lot with aeronautics that has helped improve passenger jets and such, not to mention any material research
@@jpe1
Ball point pens…
I think is not only related to marketing, but more properly about the future realty of oil exhaustion. At a certain point the value of the barrels will start to sky high price and F1 starts from now to be more sustanable and more adherent to future scenarios.
Should allow up to double battery size, but not mandate it. That adds variable on pack size for race... but keep the allotment the same. Just really make it about reliability and weight vs raw power.
Everybody coming here after the qualy is over
If I wanted to watch Formula E… I’d watch Formula E.
Great analysis. I was surprised that there was no mention of the wild discharge and charge rates of the battery, relative to its capacity. Can the battery really do that, or is the 350 kW limit rule effectively irrelevant (at least for more than a second or two) due to the physical limitations of the battery?
They use an ignition chamber that is rich to generate fire from the spark plug so that they can run the main combustion chamber super lean. Also we know from Reno that the ICE is making at least 1000hp at the crank, because they bragged about it and the other teams looked at them like they were sad for them.
850hp to 650hp at 2026...tf
F1 cars are over 1000bhp with hybrid.
I would rather see a racing class where you are forced a certain mpg with a max weight, (for batteries). See if and how manufacturers go about getting the most speed out of much less fuel with certain ways of adding battery power to the equation, or stay lighter with none and really see what manufacturers can do with limits.
Formula e
Man, I keep fighting to watch this sport. Been a fan since the 90's and it gets more and more difficult every year. Great video of course, but all this stuff doesn't translate to people watching the races on TV. Fans don't care, understand or actually see the effects this tech has while watching on their living room TV set. I used to watch all the practices, qually and the race without fail every weekend. Now I probably miss about 20% of the races each year and you know what, I'm not missing it. I did have some hope with the talk of 2-stroke engines making a possible comeback, but I heard that was shelved. Unless something drastically great happens, with the tech I think I'm bout done after the next 2 seasons 😢
I'm not watching electric racecars, and that's where these clowns keep pushing this stuff. I don't know, maybe other people will watch. But zoomers don't seem to care much about cars, so while F1 is alienating existing fans there aren't new ones filling in for the people who don't care anymore. F1 wont be around for much longer.
It's so sad when they take such a great racing class, the ultimate class, and completely screw it up. They want to make it into a lab for improving cars. Well, pretty soon, that's what they'll have- a lab with no spectators.
F1 has a massive following, cultural impact and mainstream media exposure so it needs to go along with the green washing ideology.