yea, if theyre limiting 1) Fuel tank Size, 2) Emissions, 3) the physical dimensions of the engine, why does the cylinder count matter? if it can only use 150L of fuel over a lap, why force it to be a 6 cyl instead of an 8, or a 2. theyre not 2-stronkes or wankels that burn a bunch of oil oil and thus get more energy from it effectively getting more than 150L to play with, so why not.
@@garchompy_1561 Everyone will choose a 800cc V-twin with a turbo (or whatever) as it's most efficient, but is having motorcycle engines like that (and not the high-revving NA kind with silly amounts of cylinders like Honda used to make) what FOM or FIA are going for? [I assume that's a typo and you meant 1.5L per lap not 150L per lap!]
I think the idea of using the ICE to energise the ERS in 2026 can be summed up by this Jeremy Clarkson quote: "Using conspicuous consumption to solve the global problem of conspicuous consumption is muddle-headed and foolish"
Building a 600 plus HP engine, governing it down to 500 by using the excess to charge batteries and calling it "green" is exactly what wrong with the sport today' It's just a traveling marketing gimmick.
@@johnjones928 because by using 100 of the horses of the ICE engine to charge up the batteries, you can deploy an extra short burst of 500hp at the beginning of the next straight, is a lot faster than just running the 600hp. The math checks out. It's faster because you use less fuel, means you also need to carry less fuel, which means a lighter car, which means a faster car. BUT. It's terribly boring for normal folks who don't get it. I think it's an extra element of overtaking and strategy. However, I agree there's nothing green about it. the flights, the traveling, the whole circus, nothing of that is green, even if you save 50kg of fuel for the race.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Not really. It's just that manufacturers know there's time limit before they go bye bye. Like there's limit of investment they're willing to do.
Ford RBPT and Audi won't be able to compete in 2026 without the new engine (and subsequently low drag chassis) rules though as they don't have a current generation engine.
what?? because of audi they didnt want front ev...man..that is incredible sad and wow..1st time hearing of recovery system in 98 mclaren..thx👍 quality content!
Was (distantly) hoping the 50% split would be at current power levels, or that they’d raise the fuel flow limit to utilize the full 15,000rpm the V6 is supposedly capable of. I think they’re also wary of the front motors being capable of extremely precise traction control (which also could mean ABS). Seeing what WRC Rally1 is going through right now, they really need to come to a decision quickly about what they want F1 to be…
@@SlyGuyJay Rally1 category is abit of a failure manufacturer wise, and they’ve been testing updated Rally2 cars, even considering the current top class with no hybrid system. Seems like even the standard hybrid components are still quite expensive, and having 2.5 manufacturers (msport runs the puma basically as their own car) is not drawing any new blood.
@@axelode45 F1 used to have TC (not ABS though) in the 90s and 2000s. They were wanting to get rid of it but they were scared that it would start a development war in differentials instead so they decided TC was tacitly allowed since it's cheaper. But yeah, having TC and ABS would not ruin the excitement of F1.
Transitioning to electric power just to have it's energy generated by combustion from the engine, that seems redundant af. And it's only because teams do not want Audi to have an advantage if they rely on front electric motors......what a damn shame. As you mentioned, if we're going to 100% sustainable fuels, might as well go back to 3L V10s 😄. I'm most interested in having multiple cylinder counts available though, that sounds like fun, and could give each power unit a very unique character, especially sounds wise. Now I wonder if we can combine front electric motors with a V10 though 🤔
These regulations are mostly to appease Audi and the VW group to get them into F1. They wanted more electrification because its their brand strategy for road cars. Same goes for Alpine and Mercedes. It's all about marketing for their brands regardless of how irrelevant and stupid that is. I reckon if it wasn't for F1 trying to get Audi in, we wouldn't have these stupid 50/50 mandates and power unit rules for 2026. The reality is just deregulating the engines allowing for a mixed cylinder count, having 100% sustainable fuels, deregulating the fuels and having front axle regeneration would be perfect for the sport and everyone involved. Manufacturers can make and use the engines and fuel they want and we get more interesting cars and better sounds. We already had KERS with V8 engines from 2009 - 2012. There's no reason why we can't have an improved version of that now.
To me all the issues with power train regulations is that it was meant to level the playing field somewhat. Mate, nowadays we have the cost cap. IMO the next regulations should be like "under the cost cap anything goes". Do you want more exotic materials? You can use them if it fits your budget. Developing mass dampener? If it fits your budget go for it. Torque vectoring? 20 cylinders? Turbo or NA? All your choice. Of course it couldn't be literally this simple, you have to regulate emissions, what fuel to use, prohibit refuelling - all of it of course impact power train development, but cut back on all you can and let the engineers engineer their solutions...
9 out of 10 comments on here complain that rule change will spread the field again. What you propose would do the same but turbocharge that. And once the golden goose has been found, everyone would copy it. So, okay, you get 1 season in which somebody who found the new double diffusor runs away with it and then another in which all cars are the same again. It's not like I don't think there should be some scope to open up the rules, but I doubt it'd do much positive for the sport.
Perhaps they could just remember that F1 was supposedly the pinnacle of performance? not an endurance class? And do away with fuel flow/capacity limits, Bore/stroke/cylinder limits and a swathe of other items that just make the cars heavier and less wieldy?
NeT ZeRo meanwhile the jets there flying all over the world are putting out far more co2 than these f1 cars the engines are so efficient there hardly producing that much co2 for the power they make
Road relevance for F1 engines is the worst possible excuse I've heard. Like the current F1 engines were taken out of a road car and needed no development whatsoever lol
The manufacturers care about road relevance because they want to be able to say "this car has f1 tech" for marketing, that's the entire reason they're in the sport
@@defnotatroll I see, but the need to change F1 to get more " views and likes " is exactly what's ruining it. Plus, if they focus on the sustainable fuels it would be much better imo
I think their reasoning is the other way around. They argue that technologies and knowledge from F1 could be used in road cars. But I'm also sceptical about how relevant this really is for the current road cars. AMG one is the only example I know with direct relevance.
@@andionn5575 True, but they can improve combustion engine technology and apply it to road cars, just chopp some cylinders and you have a "road engine" XD It's not because it has more cylinders that it is less relevant
An electric motor at the front doesn't sound that bad if the weight can be kept under control. But I would like for it to only be used for generation, RWD cars are just more exciting to watch.
They would have to enforce it under braking too, even if the motors weren’t used for ABS, I could see a version of the third brake pedal, they don’t wanna let the old genie out of those bottles because teams aren’t 50-100 guys anymore.
4:41 Thought the FIA or F1 or a team said the exact opposite of this--that the reason the current engines sound worse is the MGU-H and without it they will sound much better as the exhaust just exits the vehicle instead of being used to generate power.
They will sound a bit better (like Indycar or 80's F1) but the turbo is still a muffler (unless the wastegate is open) so they still won't have the piercing rasp of a naturally aspirated V6 engine like say the current F3 or the Alfa 155 DTM (or the flat-six Porsche GT3 engine).
This is just an excuse mostly. Even without the MGU it will still sound quiet-ish because of the turbos but even then that's not the reason why the cars sound bad. Loudness doesn't mean it sounds good. The Lamborghini Huracan only puts out 95db but it sounds way better. It's really down to the engine, exhaust design and hybrid system. The V6 engines themselves don't sound all that great which is made worse by the exhaust design, and then the hybrid adds the vacuum-cleaner sound that you hear on the onboards.
@@TassieLorenzo even without the turbos the current F1 V6 engines won't achieve that sound due to its design and exhausts. You'd need to change things like the engine timing, exhaust design completely and maybe even the firing order to get those engines sounding sweet. The V angle they're at doesn't help either.
They should take the rules from the WEC and take a closer look. FIA/ACO created an interesting set of rules, that uses energy per lap as a set number. You can use a V12 or V4-Turbo or whatever you want.
One of the engines is the literal Formula 2 engine. It's not exactly the height of technology, especially LMDh, but there are road car engines like the Ferrari V6 in LMH too. Is that really a good look to be using road car engines, F2 engines and 20 year old LMP2 engines with turbos added? BOP is used to compensate the likes of Porsche and BMW for having big, bulky engines compared to the compact Honda Acura 2.4L engine -- whereas in F1, they would be (IMO rightly) disadvantaged by the aerodynamic implications of trying to package such a big, bulky 4.0L twin-turbo V8 and (most likely) would not attempt it.
thats what they have done. 70kg tank limmit means a 70 lap race is limited to 1kg of fuel. and energy recovery is going to be limited by the braking zones so wont change lap to lap. cars must average nearly 3mpg
@@TassieLorenzo Wait till you hear that one of the greatest racing engines of all time was from a boat. Or that old BMW F1 engines where just the road engines as well. There is nothing wrong with using road based engines in race cars and infact it’s likely a draw for manufacters because they can say “look this is the same engine you can buy in our cars”
My idea for 2030 would be simpler and cheaper: N/A, 2.8L V8 with 40V (5 valves per cylinder), variable valve timing, lift and duration are allowed (including camless engines), 15k RPM limit, dual injection (direct injection via pre-chamber + port injection), twin-spark (one in the pre-chamber and the other out of it), micro-wave ignition allowed, and with and MGU-K in the crankshaft, with most parts (batteries, e-motors, injectors, sparks/microwave igniters, ECUs and radiators) being standalone to keep the costs down, and all of them using e-fuel.
@@v4skunk739The MGU-H would be a huge deal for long-haul trucking. Volvo already uses a less efficient mechanical version of the device on some of its engines.
@@perfectman3077 That's a good point. For that reason a 19000rpm limit was implemented in F1 in 2007 already. Since 2014 it's 18000 rpm, but because of fuel flow restrictions teams do not use it fully any more.
@@TheGabe92 Yes, with the fuel flow restrictions, the 2014 engines won't ever rev past 12500 (IIRC). They don't need to rev higher to make power anyway, due to forced induction.
1) Cars : too big, 2) tire development: limited. ROOT CAUSE : "🚫refuelling", safety changes heavier cars. Bring back SAFE REFUELLING - Car dimensions, car dynamics, tire performance will improve. Then, Monaco has a place on the race calendar.
@@perfectman3077 Not really wrong. Hybrid is a big reason for it too, but do you not remember the size difference between 2009 and 2010 cars when refuelling was banned, they grew a substantial amount
@@ThijsSH The size is mostly down to the aero characteristics, IIRC. Anyway, it doesn't matter, refueling is the worst thing that can happen to F1. It must never, ever be brought back.
MGU-H was one of the most interesting parts of these high tech engines but as most F1 viewers are rather simple minded and are not interested in / do not understand at all the engineering with its high efficiency behind this technology (Mercedes achieved over 50% thermal efficiency) this system will be terminated. Besides I have never understood why the F1 rule makers specify even the smallest engine detail such as bore, stroke, cylinder spacing, cylinder angle etc ... what disadvantage would be there if the engine builders were given more freedom in the design? You can still mandate displacement, boost pressure, minimum engine weight etc. ...
I guess the specificity in regulations is to make it more attractive for manufacturers to join (not that any did from 2014-2024). The more variables you have, the more arguing.
@@basilb4733 That's what Honda and Audi signed up for. F1 is a franchise now. They dictate whether a team can join. They want to protect and control every aspect.
The uniformity is to make it easy for constructors to change engine suppliers. It started with the fixed mounting points and fixed 90 degree angle for the 2006 V8 engines -- before that a team might hypothetically be changing from a 111 degree Renault V10 to a 72 degree Mercedes V10 which was a lot more work.
The ideas you’re offering definitely inspired by the WEC rules. Which I think Domenicali is also looking at. Nothing wrong with a limited front drive set up because it can be used solely for energy recovery only. While power must be from the rear. This is what FormulaE is doing
The question is if there were no regulations and you wanted to design a drive system with as much performance and as low weight as possible for F1, what would it look like? I like the hypercar rules with limit on 671hp for the petrol engine and 268hp electric motor. However it would be much more interesting if the regulation didn't dictate the relation between these and just stated 700kw output as a whole package and full freedom on generating power. I think the hybrid part would likely be more of an assistance with less storage. Porsche just released the new 911 with a MGU-H (eTurbo). The car also has a motor/generator integrated in the the transmission. Mercedes M139 also use EAT in their new 63 S E performance cars. It often take years for advanced technology to make it to road cars but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any current relevance.
The MGUK in the current regulations is restricted to 120kW (161hp) regardless if it is getting power from the battery, the MGUH, or both. The MGUH allows the MGUK to deploy for longer periods.
Bring back the V10s even if it's only two liters and as long as they remain naturally aspirated, Also I think it would bring new viewers to the F1 world
Seeing as road relevance and impact on the environment are both at historic lows, F1 needs to decide whether it wants to continue pursuing relevance or go the horse racing route and focus on what made the sport itself great. Either go full electric or go back to open engine formula with a bop like system with V8/V10/V12 hybrids and non hybrids. However, what you proposed sounds like a great middle ground. If only the rule makers were actually competent…
With the amount of times ive seen front wheels get hit, i dont think a hub motor putting extra cost and mass into the wheels is a good idea; a front motor running through halfshafts to the hubs sounds safer
I prefer smaller and light cars (1998 size). Small hybrid and batterys, only engine size limitation between. 2-3l. Refuelling yes, clean fuel yes! Ground effect, yes! More room to let teams invent something great innovations and budget cap of course! Maby yes for electric front axle! More tire manufacturer competion! Let F1 be: every lap like is quali! Edit: let andretti race! 24 cars to grid
Honestly, biofuel fed V10 engines driving the rear with electric front axles that use torque vectoring in the corners sounds like the future of pinnacle Motorsport and road going vehicles too. If F1 is supposed to be about the spectacle alongside trickle down engineering, then this is the only way to go!
Maybe they should focus on electrifying the transport from race to race instead of making a half-assed package. Shame about the teams not wanting an electric front motor, it would have been a lot better.
I don't understand how the 2026 engine decision was reached, it seems like a boring regulation without imagination and worrying about an issue whose countries where Formula 1 travels are the most polluting on the planet. As for 2030, from what the WEC taught us, everything depends on cost reduction. Today electric is in doubt due to the lack of raw materials, we know that we cannot escape oil, which is why I am in favor of Domenicalli, the problem is always the brands, who will continue wanting to sell the story that electric is the future.
I'm literally not watching the sport after 2025, maybe once cars are ACTAULLY smaller and not just smaller than a car 4 years ago that was also to big, and bring back v10's or atleast v8's with no batteries or electric motors
There is no need for V8's or V10's to return, they just need to make good choices in their engine designs, for example, the F1 V6 have a different sound from street cars V6's (and many of them have a cool sound), because of the angle between the cylinder banks and the limited number of connecting rod journals on each crankshaft, so that the engine has irregular combustion intervals, but most street cars V6's have regular combustion intervals (Personally, I think it would be cool if they used the VR5, as it has both a cool sound and would be more compact than the current V6 and also less long than an I5, which may even have a more interesting sound, but the cars would be very long)
@B Sport you should talk about that Toyota Eagle GTP car that thing has been said to be the car that generates the most downforce of all time. Its said to generate over 10,000 lbs of Downforce at 220 mph.
I will keep repeating it: Front regen, and maybe some kind of front power mode to get out of gravel traps. And make engine manufacturers compete on battery and electro motors...
Crazy choice to limit front axel regen when making it a 50/50 hybrid. F1 cant forget the popularity of their sport ultimately depends on car performance.
With the budget cap and renewable fuels, I think f1 teams should have more freedom designing the drivetrain, they’ll still be incentivized to make an economical car because of the fuel tank size
Hey I have been a long time watcher of your content and have been intrigued by your intro. I am wondering what engine can you hear In when your intro plays with your name and logo at the start of videos?
The whole problem consists in thinking that 20 cars that run like 30 times a year are the main problem in terms of pollution. Forget about planes and boats, surely those are very clean.
Hmm, but it has other enormous challenges. - Bumpy tracks and taking kerbs will not be viable. - not sure how spierling handles it, but going off track will be disaster for reliability, as the fans would suck dirt and particles - Racing in the wet will be out of question. - It will remove all innovations, as fans are sufficient to provide all the downforce you will ever need. So f1 would be a dead series.
@@askeladden450 that's kind of why I'm asking if it's viable. They already switched back to ground effect cars so maybe there's a way to implement it in a less disruptive way
@@askeladden450 Everyone in F1 is always pushing for more Downforce. Saying Everyone will be sufficient with that much downforce shows everytime in history that is not true. And actually the most downforce in history on a car is not from an F1 car or that Chapparrall 2J. It's the Toyota Eagle car which they said generate over 10,000 lbs of Downforce! I have no idea what speed, but that's what the article said of the car.
I like all of your ideas, but also F1 should only have a power restriction for the engine, fuel type requirement, hybrid power requirement, maybe a thermal efficiency or even emissions requirement etcetera
1.75L vr5 cylinder will sound near v10. 750-800 hp, low turbo 1.0 bar mean high RPM, no ERS, KERS 300HP. Fuel limit as it now, but no flow restriction. Weight engine limit down to 110kg. 5 engines per season. 1-2 upper gears on gearbox please make flex (fixed for weekend) as it was before they done all fixed ratios. Both tyres down to 16in with front tyres down to 690mm to make them lighter and nimble. Please make wheelbase -100mm too.
The current drivetrains are technologically the neatest I.C.E. of all time - They are essentially an optimized gas turbine and piston engine put together in a synergistic way. It’s too bad that doesn’t translate too well to a spectator of a race. If we are dumping the MGU-H then just go back to V10s please. After this video came out, Porsche unveiled the new 911 hybrid that is the closest example of using this turbo technology.
Seriously, what about inline 5 engines? I'm sure they can provide pretty good sound. Also, I like the front electric engine idea. Let's keep the same ICE we have today and replace the MGU-H with MGU-K at the front axle.
i honestly don't understand why the FIA had to comply with teams saying they don't want front electric motors. so what if audi has an advantage? let other teams catch up no? it'll only take a few months
Three thoughts: First, even though I know that the MGU-H is the most complicated part of the drivetrain, I can't help but mourn its disappearance, since from what I understand it plays a key part in the extreme efficiency of the current F1 engines. Even though there are reasons for this, it feels a bit backwards to scrap the most innovative part of the engine. Then, I believe that the 2026 engine specs are just underwhelming. Basically, it's the mainstream LMdH powertrain, but slightly glorified. Otherwise, nothing more interesting or special, and more importantly, not more power. In a world of 1100 hp Tesla Model S Plaid, 1200 hp Lucid Air, 800 hp BMW M5, 1900 hp Rimac Nevera and 2000 hp Lotus Evija, Formula One sounds and feels outgunned. And it shouldn't, it should command respect. 1500 hp should be the goal, with 750 hp from both sides of the powertrain. Finally, the increase in electric power in the mix should open for more creativity. I wish F1 (and roadcar manufacturers for that manner) would start to approach cars differently: build a tiny (1L, 1.5L, 2L) but emotive ICE (with 10, 12 or more cylindres, N/A or supercharged), and combine it with a huge electric motor. You get a crazy gem of an engine, with an appetite for revs, along with big, instantaneous power everywhere, everytime. And by scaling down the engine you reduce the need for cooling and uprated components, so you can have a lighter car, reverting the inflation cycle of the cars' weight. And you get the most interesting engines you can imagine in an F1.
I also don't understand why they ditch the MGU-H is probably the greatest thing these engines have and even Porsche in the new 911 is going to implement something similar and I think it's the future I'm sure most future turbo hybrid supercars are going to have something similar, it increases efficiency and eliminates turbo lag, and if the new f1 cars don't have an MGU-H their better by naturally aspirated at lest they will sound better now their gone get the worst of both worlds bad efficiency and bad sound.
the MGU-H is the best bit. They should have just made it a standard part. Should have Kept it because it makes the combustion engine amazingly efficient. I generally did like the idea of going to 50% elec, but they seem to have messed it up. They should have maybe set a target powertrain horsepower number and a battery weight and allowed the battery to deliver more power through the years as the battery energy density improved. Then reduced the fuel flow each year to balance off the new elec power. So say they start with a 25% elec / 75% combustion, and then each year or 2 change the ratio towards more elec. Carbon neutral fuels are good to have. It's important though not to pretend they will ever be cheaper than fossil fuels or electric cars. It's hard for them to be economical. For them to succeed the world of basically needs abundant free renewable energy. We are going in that direction, but it won't happen during the next 10 years. Most likely fuels F1 use will eventually be used in planes and not cars.
They should open up energy storage methods so the teams have better solutions just for rapid charge and discharge of energy. Like the older LMP1 cars, you have flywheel, capacitors, hell if someone wants the old toy car with spring storage, they can (and of course front axle deploy to use all available tires). For me the V6 can stay but make it NA, they will sound like V12 with different exhaust headers.
I'm for whatever setup they want that meets the power target AND allows the cars to be smaller and lighter. I'm here for the development race and the on track racing. I'm not here for the aesthetics
In an ideal world, Formula 1 would be just limited amount of energy and make the powertrain however you want, it forces the car to be really efficient and hence less drag and dirty air. Engineers are free to be wild within energy consumption limit of a race, not a lap like lmp1, but a race.
I think they should: 1. Either admit that electric drive is superior. More economic and delivers power better. So move to a fully electric drive with fuel cells and/or ICE generators. Add an electric power limiter at the input of the power electronics to motivate efficiency, ban cryogenics, just in case. And leave everything else pretty much unregulated. 2. Or abandon all eco pretenses and use something exotic and interesting. Rotary engines or opposed piston engines.
I also like the idea of hub motors, but wouldn't it be better to put them in all four wheels? And I do think AWD is the future for F1. After all, F1 is also about technology, right?
My thoughts for what is worth to completely rethink F1. There is a clear climate challenge which should drive the engineering and aerodynamic challenge. Start out with an overall definition of fuel tank capacity and distance to cover implied by a fuel consumption: perhaps 10l/100km (Group C was 25l/100...) to limit CO2 emissions. Introduce catalyic converters. Remove the minimum weight altogether, and impose a maximum weight (say 600 kg dry). Outlaw the use of wings, but allow flexible body work (or twin chassis) and a limited number of "trick" parts (say 8) limited in size. Define the maximum dimensions of the car (about 60% of the current cars) and restrict the tyre width to 200mm (to reduce particle emissions). Wheel size can be left to the teams. Allow all large tyre manufacturers to participate (Michelin, Pirelli, Bridgestone, Goodyear, Continental...etc). Allow all means to recover energy including front transmissions. Limit F1 pit lane staff to 4 per car plus 2 managers: transport in just 1 truck and 2 cars.
2.6 litre NA V6 rev to 12000 to 15000 rpm, Manufacturers are not going to support V10 Add electric motors to front wheels 50 litre fuel tank, all other Motorsport have been functioning with refueling so bring it back, rules must be of your are stopping you must change tyres so no dash go refueling Fuel first then change tyres
the manufacturers and the sport itself are dependent on WEF politics and the goal of these politics is that in the future cars will be a thing of the past. Controlled demolition of the system.
@@somethingfunny6867 that is why I suggested the WEC refueling rules with adjusting the minimum fuel to be added and tyres should be changed after fuel is added
Firstly, FOM do not make the rules. Secondly, if you're GM and have spent 4 years developing a PU to the 2026 rules for 2028 entry, you would be so thrilled to have it changed by 2030! I think what they'll do, possibly before 2026 is change the energy an power outputs. They've already lowered the threshold for maximum MGUK deployment (from 300kph to 290kph) and reduced the per lap energy recovery (9MJ to 8.5MJ). They could increase fuel flow by 25%, raising the ICE power from around 535hp to around 670hp, and reduce the MGUK output from 350kW (470hp) to 250kW (335hp). But energy recovery could still be at 350kW, meaning that there woudl be less need for fuel burning to generate electricity. The fuel flow increase could be the same curve, or the maximum fuel flow point could be moved to a higher rpm. The recent rules update allowed for an override of the MGUK output, so that the maximum MGUK output could be maintained to a higher speed. But this only starts being a benefit above 290kph. By having the normal maximum output of 250kW the override could be 350kW and be available at a lower speed. The batteries on these are still quite small - about 1/15 or 1/20 the capacity of a Formula E battery. They should have made more effort in to making the package lighter - the 2026 PU is pretty much the same weight as the current PU, but is much weaker.
Bsport... Im not an engineer but what are the figures for electric motor up time and charge rates like per lap for the current configuration and the newer incoming rules? Feels like the current configuration allows aleast 2 laps of "overtake" usage before the battery gets zero-ed.
F1 should just make a cost cap and remove all the other rules. Just don't spend more than this through the season, and you're good to go. Limiting (controlling) what the manufacturers can and can not do in terms of engine design/performance is barbaric - let the manufacturers manufacture
Think the best regulations would be something like a 2-liter V8 revving to 18 000 RPM, with one of the extremely lightweight 32 kilogram (comprising motor, inverter, differential and transmission all combined!), 469 horsepower front electric drive units Lucid makes for Formula E in the front. Shrink down the width to 1.8 meters to make for better racing, the length a bit as well, and as such make the cars lighter and with less aero for better racing. I mean if manufacturers don't want to use an engine with more cylinders even just using a V6 and letting it rev more would make it sound a lot better, I've seen simulations of people testing this at 18 000 rpm and it definitely sounds very good even while not being a V8 or V10.
"1.8 meters ... with less aero for better racing." Ironically, when F1 cars were 2.15m wide from 1972 to 1992, *the tyres were further away from the body of the car,* therefore the bargeboards used to direct the tyre wakes away from the body of the car were not so sensitive to dirty air.. Something to ponder. I prefer the 2.15m width as it looks correct for Formula 1 IMO.
@@TassieLorenzo I just look at Formula E and the videos of them running 3-wide at Monaco and wish Formula 1 could have those moments too. Honestly the racing in Formula 1 is so bad in comparison to there. Width is super important for good racing.
@@swecreations Formula E is 6 seconds per lap slower than even Formula 3 at Monaco though. Formula Ford and Formula Vee produce the best racing, but they are not fast compared to other formula cars... (They are still very fast compared to most road cars or even GT cars of course.)
making F1 cars 'eco' is the most insulting dumb bullshit - if you serious about making f1 eco get all the aircraft and trucks it takes to fly and drive to tracks all around the world - eco and put 20000rpm v10's back in the cars !
I think what you propose here is very interesting and does seem to balance all the various priorities that F1 is bound to, but power to all four wheels doesn't feel like f1 to me :/
I really like when the Hypercars roll out of the pit boxes and fire up their gas engines. Each engine manufacture sounds different and behaves different. F1 all sounds the same. I would like to see a front electric drive with more open regulations in the engine department so we can get a rumble of a V8 or a scream of a v10. F1 it’s very close to just being a spec class and not a more open class of racing.
If engine manufacturers want to apply technologies from F1 to road cars, the future of road cars is electric. What will they do? Will they convert F1 to Fe?
Front electric motors in wheels, the most logical energy wise. Also, less regulation and just a fuel flow limit should be enough. Regulation should not force solutions but enforce objectives. This way real innovation occurs, electric or not. This, combine this to cost caps with redistribution of money whould make innovation more common (#f1 spirrit) without crazy r&d and avoid those era of long domination with little hope of change. Like it was the case during tge Lewis era a d also now in the Max era. Since it is a sport, sort of, why not limit the size of design teams also?
Audi uses an e-turbo in their recent models so the mgu-h does have relevance for real life. More than n/a v10s anyway (i don't like it as well but that's just reality)
F1 is no longer at the forefront of technology, that title is now Formula E’s. F1 is not as road relevant as marketing would make you believe otherwise every manufacturer would try to be in F1. That means F1 doesn’t have to cater to the car market and can do what it wants. If a manufacturer wants hybrid or electric front axles, let them. If an engine manufacturer like JUDD, Cosworth, and many others want to make a high revving or low grunting engine let them. I don’t see why the rules are such a narrow stream when if we look to WEC manufacturers can do what they want, therefore more want to join. As long as the engines use sustainable fuels it shouldn’t matter how many cylinders it has.
for engine tech it hasn't been for 30 years. 2009 to 2016 the hybrid developments were transferable. in the first year they cut a hybrid weight by 80% but nothing since then.
Torque vectoring would open up the whole question of driver aids again. This seems to be a constant problem with F1 cars being "relevant". Road cars are in many ways more technologically advanced than F1 already. So how you sell relevance isn't easy. If manufacturers all want to align their F1 presence with their corporate direction we have a problem. It isn't as if there is a consistent view of corporate directions. With even more engine manufacturer brandings appearing, this will only get worse. How you align a Ferrari, McLaren or Aston Martin corporate direction with a Ford, Renault, or Honda direction isn't clear. Audi and Mercedes get caught in the middle. And you have to ask, who actually cares other than the corporate flaks? The fans don't. In the end the flow of money will determine outcomes. The switch from teams needing external sponsorship income to deriving most of their income from participating in the championship means the need to put on a good show will become ever more important. That means a good TV presentation.
With all that rear downforce I don‘t see overbreaking the rear as a problem for 2026. AFAIK rear brakes were the same as the fronts before KERS/Hybrid and I‘d wonder if the rears produced anything less than 1000 kW peak and 500 kW averqge from 340 down to 80 kph back then - with much lighter cars. So if anything, that driveshaft-mounted electric engine is probably vastly undersized to recuperate most efficiently in 26. For 2030, the question is which engine suppliers do you want in F1. For that, I‘d say go for supercar manufacturers. They will happily build small N/A V8s up to V12s with or without rear axle KERS. If utility vehicle brands like Mercedes and Renault can‘t live with that - great! Ferrari will be happy and Honda probably too. Audi can run as Lamborghini. Cosworth will join immediately.
I’ve been saying this, I believe this will happen. If the biggest stars in F1 like Hamilton, Verstappen, Vettel etc decide to pursue WEC, they’re gonna take a large chunk of the F1 “fan base” with them
@@daviddickson7253 Why would they want to go to WEC so they can be BOP'ed to the midfield at a whim? As it is the likes of Hamilton and Verstappen already get cranky if they are in the midfield season-to-season due to their own's teams poor efforts (leaving from Mercedes to Ferrari despite past success for example), would they accept being pushed down to the midfield as quickly as on a race-by-race basis due to ACO meddling with their team having no say in the matter?
4:46 the sound (or lack there of) is nothing to do with the engines themselves or the layout, it’s the hybrid bullshit. OG turbo v6’s from the 80’s sound mental.
I wish the rulemakers were competent enough to pick up on your 'cylinder count freedom' idea
yea, if theyre limiting 1) Fuel tank Size, 2) Emissions, 3) the physical dimensions of the engine, why does the cylinder count matter? if it can only use 150L of fuel over a lap, why force it to be a 6 cyl instead of an 8, or a 2. theyre not 2-stronkes or wankels that burn a bunch of oil oil and thus get more energy from it effectively getting more than 150L to play with, so why not.
Interesting if manufacturers will use the same formula in couple of seasons
@@RCmaniac667 thwy probably will, this isnt the wec where ther cars have BOP
@@garchompy_1561 development costs are the most likely reason why not.
@@garchompy_1561 Everyone will choose a 800cc V-twin with a turbo (or whatever) as it's most efficient, but is having motorcycle engines like that (and not the high-revving NA kind with silly amounts of cylinders like Honda used to make) what FOM or FIA are going for? [I assume that's a typo and you meant 1.5L per lap not 150L per lap!]
I think the idea of using the ICE to energise the ERS in 2026 can be summed up by this Jeremy Clarkson quote:
"Using conspicuous consumption to solve the global problem of conspicuous consumption is muddle-headed and foolish"
at that point why not use a CVT.
Building a 600 plus HP engine, governing it down to 500 by using the excess to charge batteries and calling it "green" is exactly what wrong with the sport today' It's just a traveling marketing gimmick.
@@johnjones928lol the fia thinks theyre gonna arrive at perpetual energy after enough investment
@@johnjones928 because by using 100 of the horses of the ICE engine to charge up the batteries, you can deploy an extra short burst of 500hp at the beginning of the next straight, is a lot faster than just running the 600hp. The math checks out. It's faster because you use less fuel, means you also need to carry less fuel, which means a lighter car, which means a faster car. BUT. It's terribly boring for normal folks who don't get it. I think it's an extra element of overtaking and strategy. However, I agree there's nothing green about it. the flights, the traveling, the whole circus, nothing of that is green, even if you save 50kg of fuel for the race.
Why not go fully renewable? Extend the roll hoop, about 6 metres higher, and tack a mainsail and jib from it?
Give me a V10 carbon neutral engine and the size of 2010-13 cars. That would be my perfect 2030 regulations
C02 is the gas of life.
Yes. Engine tech is pretty much maxed, let's see what can be done with e-fuels.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Not really. It's just that manufacturers know there's time limit before they go bye bye. Like there's limit of investment they're willing to do.
@@gerogyzurkov2259 You're saying that engine technology hasn't peaked, or nearly peaked?
@@PistonAvatarGuy Not sure at this point. Considering the rapid dates of Governments trying to make combustion go away within 20 yrs.
The entire thing is a joke. Every end of rules cycle we get good battles at the front and bam back to massive field spread.
Ford RBPT and Audi won't be able to compete in 2026 without the new engine (and subsequently low drag chassis) rules though as they don't have a current generation engine.
what?? because of audi they didnt want front ev...man..that is incredible sad
and wow..1st time hearing of recovery system in 98 mclaren..thx👍
quality content!
The same shameful behaviour as not letting Andretti in.
@@Sonnell 100%👍
What a loser mentality to do that
Its really pathetic isnt it
are they meant to be the best racing and engineering teams or the best anti competition teams
I think they should be merciless in making the cars smaller and lighter. 900kgs is unacceptably too heavy
Was (distantly) hoping the 50% split would be at current power levels, or that they’d raise the fuel flow limit to utilize the full 15,000rpm the V6 is supposedly capable of. I think they’re also wary of the front motors being capable of extremely precise traction control (which also could mean ABS). Seeing what WRC Rally1 is going through right now, they really need to come to a decision quickly about what they want F1 to be…
Out of the loop, what's going on with WRC Rally?
ABS and TC would kinda ruin the excitement of F1
@@SlyGuyJay Rally1 category is abit of a failure manufacturer wise, and they’ve been testing updated Rally2 cars, even considering the current top class with no hybrid system. Seems like even the standard hybrid components are still quite expensive, and having 2.5 manufacturers (msport runs the puma basically as their own car) is not drawing any new blood.
they could get more RPM out by making it a 1l engine .
@@axelode45 F1 used to have TC (not ABS though) in the 90s and 2000s. They were wanting to get rid of it but they were scared that it would start a development war in differentials instead so they decided TC was tacitly allowed since it's cheaper. But yeah, having TC and ABS would not ruin the excitement of F1.
So essentially 2026 regulations represent the technical development level of the Chevrolet Volt and BMW i3 REX :D Tech from 15 years ago! 😅
Damn, I feel old now...👴
Transitioning to electric power just to have it's energy generated by combustion from the engine, that seems redundant af. And it's only because teams do not want Audi to have an advantage if they rely on front electric motors......what a damn shame. As you mentioned, if we're going to 100% sustainable fuels, might as well go back to 3L V10s 😄. I'm most interested in having multiple cylinder counts available though, that sounds like fun, and could give each power unit a very unique character, especially sounds wise. Now I wonder if we can combine front electric motors with a V10 though 🤔
which is weird cause (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Ferrari and Alpine have hypercars in the WEC series with electric motors on the front axle
It’s so counterintuitive
These regulations are mostly to appease Audi and the VW group to get them into F1. They wanted more electrification because its their brand strategy for road cars. Same goes for Alpine and Mercedes. It's all about marketing for their brands regardless of how irrelevant and stupid that is. I reckon if it wasn't for F1 trying to get Audi in, we wouldn't have these stupid 50/50 mandates and power unit rules for 2026.
The reality is just deregulating the engines allowing for a mixed cylinder count, having 100% sustainable fuels, deregulating the fuels and having front axle regeneration would be perfect for the sport and everyone involved. Manufacturers can make and use the engines and fuel they want and we get more interesting cars and better sounds. We already had KERS with V8 engines from 2009 - 2012. There's no reason why we can't have an improved version of that now.
@@RockSolitude 100% agree
@@RockSolitude Deregulation won't do us any good if the logistical tail for each car becomes way too long for some teams to even bother continuing.
To me all the issues with power train regulations is that it was meant to level the playing field somewhat. Mate, nowadays we have the cost cap. IMO the next regulations should be like "under the cost cap anything goes". Do you want more exotic materials? You can use them if it fits your budget. Developing mass dampener? If it fits your budget go for it. Torque vectoring? 20 cylinders? Turbo or NA? All your choice.
Of course it couldn't be literally this simple, you have to regulate emissions, what fuel to use, prohibit refuelling - all of it of course impact power train development, but cut back on all you can and let the engineers engineer their solutions...
So a bit more like WEC?
9 out of 10 comments on here complain that rule change will spread the field again. What you propose would do the same but turbocharge that. And once the golden goose has been found, everyone would copy it. So, okay, you get 1 season in which somebody who found the new double diffusor runs away with it and then another in which all cars are the same again.
It's not like I don't think there should be some scope to open up the rules, but I doubt it'd do much positive for the sport.
@@ThijsSH the show they are providing there is awesome. So why not?
@@ThijsSH exactly. Although in WEC they have a performance envelope instead such as power limits and aerodynamics.
Agressive cost cap and loads of freedom on power train, that would make F1 rly exciting
KERS (capacitor instead battery), 2 hub motors in front wheels, airflow limit (not displacement or NA/turbo), or only limit power like WEC.
Perhaps they could just remember that F1 was supposedly the pinnacle of performance? not an endurance class? And do away with fuel flow/capacity limits, Bore/stroke/cylinder limits and a swathe of other items that just make the cars heavier and less wieldy?
NeT ZeRo meanwhile the jets there flying all over the world are putting out far more co2 than these f1 cars the engines are so efficient there hardly producing that much co2 for the power they make
@@sbrader97 🤣it's called Virtue Signaling - typical insecure behavior by the elite, at the expense of common sense
🤣it's typical insecure behavior by the elite, at the expense of common sense .
@@sbrader97yes, typical insecure posturing at the expense of common sense
@sbrader97 yes, typical posturing at the expense of common sense
Zero electric would be best, but since there is no way manufacturers would agree to it then motors in the front wheels is by far the best solution.
Road relevance for F1 engines is the worst possible excuse I've heard.
Like the current F1 engines were taken out of a road car and needed no development whatsoever lol
The manufacturers care about road relevance because they want to be able to say "this car has f1 tech" for marketing, that's the entire reason they're in the sport
@@defnotatroll I see, but the need to change F1 to get more " views and likes " is exactly what's ruining it.
Plus, if they focus on the sustainable fuels it would be much better imo
I think their reasoning is the other way around. They argue that technologies and knowledge from F1 could be used in road cars. But I'm also sceptical about how relevant this really is for the current road cars. AMG one is the only example I know with direct relevance.
@@andionn5575 True, but they can improve combustion engine technology and apply it to road cars, just chopp some cylinders and you have a "road engine" XD
It's not because it has more cylinders that it is less relevant
@@Dario01 F1 has to cater to the manufacturers. Without manufacturers the sport is dead
We fans just want close racing again.. hybrids or not..
Agreed, but I think the racing is close enough now Red Bull have been caught. The big problem is that the drivers can't race each properly
@@JohnH100-ih3he yeah.. yet there are no plans reduce the overall length by a meter at least.. these cars are like pigs now tbh
Ground effects are supposed to help racing have aged so poorly.
@@gerogyzurkov2259 Racing is closer than ever under these rules. There is just over 1 second difference splitting the entire field in lap times.
@@v4skunk739 yeah after few yrs of RB domination.
3L NA engine, any cyl arrangement to the rear and electric motor to the front!!!!
I like the idea of 1000hp total and a fuel tank size
displacement isn't as importent
front electric, rear ICE and refuelling during pitstops to bring back strategy.
An electric motor at the front doesn't sound that bad if the weight can be kept under control. But I would like for it to only be used for generation, RWD cars are just more exciting to watch.
They would have to enforce it under braking too, even if the motors weren’t used for ABS, I could see a version of the third brake pedal, they don’t wanna let the old genie out of those bottles because teams aren’t 50-100 guys anymore.
4:41 Thought the FIA or F1 or a team said the exact opposite of this--that the reason the current engines sound worse is the MGU-H and without it they will sound much better as the exhaust just exits the vehicle instead of being used to generate power.
They will sound a bit better (like Indycar or 80's F1) but the turbo is still a muffler (unless the wastegate is open) so they still won't have the piercing rasp of a naturally aspirated V6 engine like say the current F3 or the Alfa 155 DTM (or the flat-six Porsche GT3 engine).
This is just an excuse mostly. Even without the MGU it will still sound quiet-ish because of the turbos but even then that's not the reason why the cars sound bad. Loudness doesn't mean it sounds good. The Lamborghini Huracan only puts out 95db but it sounds way better. It's really down to the engine, exhaust design and hybrid system. The V6 engines themselves don't sound all that great which is made worse by the exhaust design, and then the hybrid adds the vacuum-cleaner sound that you hear on the onboards.
@@TassieLorenzo even without the turbos the current F1 V6 engines won't achieve that sound due to its design and exhausts. You'd need to change things like the engine timing, exhaust design completely and maybe even the firing order to get those engines sounding sweet. The V angle they're at doesn't help either.
They should take the rules from the WEC and take a closer look. FIA/ACO created an interesting set of rules, that uses energy per lap as a set number. You can use a V12 or V4-Turbo or whatever you want.
oh hell yeah give me that big V8 from Cadillac, for real
One of the engines is the literal Formula 2 engine. It's not exactly the height of technology, especially LMDh, but there are road car engines like the Ferrari V6 in LMH too. Is that really a good look to be using road car engines, F2 engines and 20 year old LMP2 engines with turbos added? BOP is used to compensate the likes of Porsche and BMW for having big, bulky engines compared to the compact Honda Acura 2.4L engine -- whereas in F1, they would be (IMO rightly) disadvantaged by the aerodynamic implications of trying to package such a big, bulky 4.0L twin-turbo V8 and (most likely) would not attempt it.
@@TassieLorenzo Probably to lower costs. Altough shows their intent on how stretch the BOP by running such an unoptimise car.
thats what they have done. 70kg tank limmit means a 70 lap race is limited to 1kg of fuel. and energy recovery is going to be limited by the braking zones so wont change lap to lap. cars must average nearly 3mpg
@@TassieLorenzo Wait till you hear that one of the greatest racing engines of all time was from a boat. Or that old BMW F1 engines where just the road engines as well. There is nothing wrong with using road based engines in race cars and infact it’s likely a draw for manufacters because they can say “look this is the same engine you can buy in our cars”
My idea for 2030 would be simpler and cheaper: N/A, 2.8L V8 with 40V (5 valves per cylinder), variable valve timing, lift and duration are allowed (including camless engines), 15k RPM limit, dual injection (direct injection via pre-chamber + port injection), twin-spark (one in the pre-chamber and the other out of it), micro-wave ignition allowed, and with and MGU-K in the crankshaft, with most parts (batteries, e-motors, injectors, sparks/microwave igniters, ECUs and radiators) being standalone to keep the costs down, and all of them using e-fuel.
To me MGU-H was the biggest advancement WTF
GO NA
be at the most advance hybrid systems.
They say MGU-H has no commercial viability. Yet many cars are hybrid and turbo charged.
MGU-H is an electric supercharger
@@v4skunk739The MGU-H would be a huge deal for long-haul trucking. Volvo already uses a less efficient mechanical version of the device on some of its engines.
2L V8 with MGU sounds like a good idea. So naturally I do not expect them to go with it.
2L v8? wtf? Where do you people come up with these things? Smaller engines have to rev higher, which is worse in every way.
Or absurdly of 1.5l V16 and I not joking
@@perfectman3077 That's a good point. For that reason a 19000rpm limit was implemented in F1 in 2007 already. Since 2014 it's 18000 rpm, but because of fuel flow restrictions teams do not use it fully any more.
@@TheGabe92 Yes, with the fuel flow restrictions, the 2014 engines won't ever rev past 12500 (IIRC). They don't need to rev higher to make power anyway, due to forced induction.
1) Cars : too big, 2) tire development: limited.
ROOT CAUSE : "🚫refuelling", safety changes heavier cars.
Bring back SAFE REFUELLING - Car dimensions, car dynamics, tire performance will improve.
Then, Monaco has a place on the race calendar.
wrong.
@@perfectman3077 Not really wrong. Hybrid is a big reason for it too, but do you not remember the size difference between 2009 and 2010 cars when refuelling was banned, they grew a substantial amount
@@ThijsSH The size is mostly down to the aero characteristics, IIRC. Anyway, it doesn't matter, refueling is the worst thing that can happen to F1. It must never, ever be brought back.
There's probably another reason for no loud engines: Noise complaints from cities, which could get F1 in trouble, I wonder how that went in the past
Go back to the v10s. These current cars are horrible
Perhaps have recovery on all 4 wheels but only allow deployment at the rear
What do I think? I think B Sport should be in charge in charge of future regulations.
MGU-H was one of the most interesting parts of these high tech engines but as most F1 viewers are rather simple minded and are not interested in / do not understand at all the engineering with its high efficiency behind this technology (Mercedes achieved over 50% thermal efficiency) this system will be terminated. Besides I have never understood why the F1 rule makers specify even the smallest engine detail such as bore, stroke, cylinder spacing, cylinder angle etc ... what disadvantage would be there if the engine builders were given more freedom in the design? You can still mandate displacement, boost pressure, minimum engine weight etc. ...
I guess the specificity in regulations is to make it more attractive for manufacturers to join (not that any did from 2014-2024). The more variables you have, the more arguing.
@@Ruylopez778Not sure if it is more attractive for manufacturers to have nearly every engine detail prescribed ...
@@basilb4733 That's what Honda and Audi signed up for. F1 is a franchise now. They dictate whether a team can join. They want to protect and control every aspect.
It was also the most expensive part of the engine.
The uniformity is to make it easy for constructors to change engine suppliers. It started with the fixed mounting points and fixed 90 degree angle for the 2006 V8 engines -- before that a team might hypothetically be changing from a 111 degree Renault V10 to a 72 degree Mercedes V10 which was a lot more work.
Can you send this to F1 themselfes please? Thank you!
The ideas you’re offering definitely inspired by the WEC rules. Which I think Domenicali is also looking at.
Nothing wrong with a limited front drive set up because it can be used solely for energy recovery only. While power must be from the rear. This is what FormulaE is doing
The question is if there were no regulations and you wanted to design a drive system with as much performance and as low weight as possible for F1, what would it look like?
I like the hypercar rules with limit on 671hp for the petrol engine and 268hp electric motor. However it would be much more interesting if the regulation didn't dictate the relation between these and just stated 700kw output as a whole package and full freedom on generating power. I think the hybrid part would likely be more of an assistance with less storage.
Porsche just released the new 911 with a MGU-H (eTurbo). The car also has a motor/generator integrated in the the transmission. Mercedes M139 also use EAT in their new 63 S E performance cars. It often take years for advanced technology to make it to road cars but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any current relevance.
The MGUK in the current regulations is restricted to 120kW (161hp) regardless if it is getting power from the battery, the MGUH, or both.
The MGUH allows the MGUK to deploy for longer periods.
Bring back the V10s even if it's only two liters and as long as they remain naturally aspirated,
Also I think it would bring new viewers to the F1 world
Seeing as road relevance and impact on the environment are both at historic lows, F1 needs to decide whether it wants to continue pursuing relevance or go the horse racing route and focus on what made the sport itself great. Either go full electric or go back to open engine formula with a bop like system with V8/V10/V12 hybrids and non hybrids. However, what you proposed sounds like a great middle ground. If only the rule makers were actually competent…
i think the large batteries can be used strategically to have an edge when overtaking. if everyone is equally fast there wont be any overtakes
FIA WEC 2016 rules for LMP1-H
70kg for around 300km in Le Mans
I think an electrified axle maces so much sence in recovering energy we cant ignore it.
With the amount of times ive seen front wheels get hit, i dont think a hub motor putting extra cost and mass into the wheels is a good idea; a front motor running through halfshafts to the hubs sounds safer
I prefer smaller and light cars (1998 size). Small hybrid and batterys, only engine size limitation between. 2-3l. Refuelling yes, clean fuel yes! Ground effect, yes! More room to let teams invent something great innovations and budget cap of course! Maby yes for electric front axle! More tire manufacturer competion! Let F1 be: every lap like is quali!
Edit: let andretti race! 24 cars to grid
Honestly, biofuel fed V10 engines driving the rear with electric front axles that use torque vectoring in the corners sounds like the future of pinnacle Motorsport and road going vehicles too. If F1 is supposed to be about the spectacle alongside trickle down engineering, then this is the only way to go!
Letting the Teams decide wich Engine size sounds Exciting i think of something like the Cadillac LMDH Car wich is Amazing
the problem with it is that no car will be over 10,000 RPM. love the sound of the caddi but f1 should be high RPM
Maybe they should focus on electrifying the transport from race to race instead of making a half-assed package. Shame about the teams not wanting an electric front motor, it would have been a lot better.
I don't understand how the 2026 engine decision was reached, it seems like a boring regulation without imagination and worrying about an issue whose countries where Formula 1 travels are the most polluting on the planet. As for 2030, from what the WEC taught us, everything depends on cost reduction. Today electric is in doubt due to the lack of raw materials, we know that we cannot escape oil, which is why I am in favor of Domenicalli, the problem is always the brands, who will continue wanting to sell the story that electric is the future.
I'm literally not watching the sport after 2025, maybe once cars are ACTAULLY smaller and not just smaller than a car 4 years ago that was also to big, and bring back v10's or atleast v8's with no batteries or electric motors
smaller cars are worse!! The 97 cars were also 2m wide and they were much better than everything that came before them with regards to racing.
There is no need for V8's or V10's to return, they just need to make good choices in their engine designs, for example, the F1 V6 have a different sound from street cars V6's (and many of them have a cool sound), because of the angle between the cylinder banks and the limited number of connecting rod journals on each crankshaft, so that the engine has irregular combustion intervals, but most street cars V6's have regular combustion intervals (Personally, I think it would be cool if they used the VR5, as it has both a cool sound and would be more compact than the current V6 and also less long than an I5, which may even have a more interesting sound, but the cars would be very long)
@B Sport you should talk about that Toyota Eagle GTP car that thing has been said to be the car that generates the most downforce of all time. Its said to generate over 10,000 lbs of Downforce at 220 mph.
I really don’t like the 2026 rule atm, like the current v6 sounds the best pre 2022, but they decided to lock the waste gate rules lol
I will keep repeating it:
Front regen, and maybe some kind of front power mode to get out of gravel traps.
And make engine manufacturers compete on battery and electro motors...
Crazy choice to limit front axel regen when making it a 50/50 hybrid. F1 cant forget the popularity of their sport ultimately depends on car performance.
Also going hybrid to be more efficient yet limiting regen is so counter nonsensical.
the rules are set up to make hybrids look stupid.
With the budget cap and renewable fuels, I think f1 teams should have more freedom designing the drivetrain, they’ll still be incentivized to make an economical car because of the fuel tank size
Hey I have been a long time watcher of your content and have been intrigued by your intro. I am wondering what engine can you hear In when your intro plays with your name and logo at the start of videos?
MGU in the front axle is the tech that road cars will ge t the most out of it
The whole problem consists in thinking that 20 cars that run like 30 times a year are the main problem in terms of pollution. Forget about planes and boats, surely those are very clean.
Let us dream of a 100% combustion engine F1 again.
wouldn't Fan cars solve the problem of dirty air and extremely wide cars? how much of an effect would dirty air have on the McMurtry Spéirling?
This is a good idea tbf
Hmm, but it has other enormous challenges.
- Bumpy tracks and taking kerbs will not be viable.
- not sure how spierling handles it, but going off track will be disaster for reliability, as the fans would suck dirt and particles
- Racing in the wet will be out of question.
- It will remove all innovations, as fans are sufficient to provide all the downforce you will ever need. So f1 would be a dead series.
That would mean racing in the wet would be impossible though, as everything would just be a cloud of mist
@@askeladden450 that's kind of why I'm asking if it's viable. They already switched back to ground effect cars so maybe there's a way to implement it in a less disruptive way
@@askeladden450 Everyone in F1 is always pushing for more Downforce. Saying Everyone will be sufficient with that much downforce shows everytime in history that is not true. And actually the most downforce in history on a car is not from an F1 car or that Chapparrall 2J. It's the Toyota Eagle car which they said generate over 10,000 lbs of Downforce! I have no idea what speed, but that's what the article said of the car.
I like all of your ideas, but also F1 should only have a power restriction for the engine, fuel type requirement, hybrid power requirement, maybe a thermal efficiency or even emissions requirement etcetera
1.75L vr5 cylinder will sound near v10. 750-800 hp, low turbo 1.0 bar mean high RPM, no ERS, KERS 300HP. Fuel limit as it now, but no flow restriction. Weight engine limit down to 110kg. 5 engines per season. 1-2 upper gears on gearbox please make flex (fixed for weekend) as it was before they done all fixed ratios. Both tyres down to 16in with front tyres down to 690mm to make them lighter and nimble. Please make wheelbase -100mm too.
The current drivetrains are technologically the neatest I.C.E. of all time - They are essentially an optimized gas turbine and piston engine put together in a synergistic way. It’s too bad that doesn’t translate too well to a spectator of a race. If we are dumping the MGU-H then just go back to V10s please.
After this video came out, Porsche unveiled the new 911 hybrid that is the closest example of using this turbo technology.
1 Electric Motor in each wheel, a limited gas tank and the manufacturer is free to choose what type of motor he uses to generate the electricity.
Seriously, what about inline 5 engines? I'm sure they can provide pretty good sound. Also, I like the front electric engine idea. Let's keep the same ICE we have today and replace the MGU-H with MGU-K at the front axle.
i honestly don't understand why the FIA had to comply with teams saying they don't want front electric motors. so what if audi has an advantage? let other teams catch up no? it'll only take a few months
Three thoughts:
First, even though I know that the MGU-H is the most complicated part of the drivetrain, I can't help but mourn its disappearance, since from what I understand it plays a key part in the extreme efficiency of the current F1 engines. Even though there are reasons for this, it feels a bit backwards to scrap the most innovative part of the engine.
Then, I believe that the 2026 engine specs are just underwhelming. Basically, it's the mainstream LMdH powertrain, but slightly glorified. Otherwise, nothing more interesting or special, and more importantly, not more power. In a world of 1100 hp Tesla Model S Plaid, 1200 hp Lucid Air, 800 hp BMW M5, 1900 hp Rimac Nevera and 2000 hp Lotus Evija, Formula One sounds and feels outgunned. And it shouldn't, it should command respect. 1500 hp should be the goal, with 750 hp from both sides of the powertrain.
Finally, the increase in electric power in the mix should open for more creativity. I wish F1 (and roadcar manufacturers for that manner) would start to approach cars differently: build a tiny (1L, 1.5L, 2L) but emotive ICE (with 10, 12 or more cylindres, N/A or supercharged), and combine it with a huge electric motor. You get a crazy gem of an engine, with an appetite for revs, along with big, instantaneous power everywhere, everytime. And by scaling down the engine you reduce the need for cooling and uprated components, so you can have a lighter car, reverting the inflation cycle of the cars' weight. And you get the most interesting engines you can imagine in an F1.
I also don't understand why they ditch the MGU-H is probably the greatest thing these engines have and even Porsche in the new 911 is going to implement something similar and I think it's the future I'm sure most future turbo hybrid supercars are going to have something similar, it increases efficiency and eliminates turbo lag, and if the new f1 cars don't have an MGU-H their better by naturally aspirated at lest they will sound better now their gone get the worst of both worlds bad efficiency and bad sound.
@@muxiku Your last point of being both inefficient and underwhelming is very true, thanks for that
the MGU-H is the best bit. They should have just made it a standard part. Should have Kept it because it makes the combustion engine amazingly efficient.
I generally did like the idea of going to 50% elec, but they seem to have messed it up. They should have maybe set a target powertrain horsepower number and a battery weight and allowed the battery to deliver more power through the years as the battery energy density improved. Then reduced the fuel flow each year to balance off the new elec power. So say they start with a 25% elec / 75% combustion, and then each year or 2 change the ratio towards more elec.
Carbon neutral fuels are good to have. It's important though not to pretend they will ever be cheaper than fossil fuels or electric cars. It's hard for them to be economical. For them to succeed the world of basically needs abundant free renewable energy. We are going in that direction, but it won't happen during the next 10 years. Most likely fuels F1 use will eventually be used in planes and not cars.
They should open up energy storage methods so the teams have better solutions just for rapid charge and discharge of energy. Like the older LMP1 cars, you have flywheel, capacitors, hell if someone wants the old toy car with spring storage, they can (and of course front axle deploy to use all available tires). For me the V6 can stay but make it NA, they will sound like V12 with different exhaust headers.
Also much more road relevant with the rapid storage and deploy since it will save the Battery in EVs from long term degradation.
F1 struggling desperately to figure out how to recreate LMP1 cars
Front electric sounds to complicated too. Just run V8 or 10
6:10 do you think that you could make a video that goes into some more of the details regarding hub-driven motors?
Could be interesting. The racing series with most experience in this field is Formula Student😁
It'll be weird if they do go the 50/50 route. It will look as if they're using nitrous.
I'm for whatever setup they want that meets the power target AND allows the cars to be smaller and lighter.
I'm here for the development race and the on track racing. I'm not here for the aesthetics
I love your videos, they're usually pretty good, but here there is a very large misunderstanding between power and work.
FIA: mgu-h is too expensive, tricky and will never find its way into the roads.
Porsche: Yeah, whatever. So, this is our new 911 with mgu-h
In an ideal world, Formula 1 would be just limited amount of energy and make the powertrain however you want, it forces the car to be really efficient and hence less drag and dirty air. Engineers are free to be wild within energy consumption limit of a race, not a lap like lmp1, but a race.
And add to that don't expect v10s though, but i am happy to see the true pinnacle of combustion engine available, The Gas turbine engine.
I think they should:
1. Either admit that electric drive is superior. More economic and delivers power better. So move to a fully electric drive with fuel cells and/or ICE generators. Add an electric power limiter at the input of the power electronics to motivate efficiency, ban cryogenics, just in case. And leave everything else pretty much unregulated.
2. Or abandon all eco pretenses and use something exotic and interesting. Rotary engines or opposed piston engines.
Not having an MGU in the front is so stupid
Time to open a new series
Or make super formula it .
Light small V8 powered ,high revving
No electricity
I also like the idea of hub motors, but wouldn't it be better to put them in all four wheels?
And I do think AWD is the future for F1. After all, F1 is also about technology, right?
My thoughts for what is worth to completely rethink F1.
There is a clear climate challenge which should drive the engineering and aerodynamic challenge.
Start out with an overall definition of fuel tank capacity and distance to cover implied by a fuel consumption: perhaps 10l/100km (Group C was 25l/100...) to limit CO2 emissions. Introduce catalyic converters.
Remove the minimum weight altogether, and impose a maximum weight (say 600 kg dry).
Outlaw the use of wings, but allow flexible body work (or twin chassis) and a limited number of "trick" parts (say 8) limited in size.
Define the maximum dimensions of the car (about 60% of the current cars) and restrict the tyre width to 200mm (to reduce particle emissions). Wheel size can be left to the teams. Allow all large tyre manufacturers to participate (Michelin, Pirelli, Bridgestone, Goodyear, Continental...etc).
Allow all means to recover energy including front transmissions.
Limit F1 pit lane staff to 4 per car plus 2 managers: transport in just 1 truck and 2 cars.
2.6 litre NA V6 rev to 12000 to 15000 rpm, Manufacturers are not going to support V10
Add electric motors to front wheels
50 litre fuel tank, all other Motorsport have been functioning with refueling so bring it back, rules must be of your are stopping you must change tyres so no dash go refueling
Fuel first then change tyres
f1's refueling problem is that they were dumping 80l in 5-6 seconds. tyre changes are 2-3 seconds.
@@somethingfunny6867 apply WEC refueling rules
the manufacturers and the sport itself are dependent on WEF politics and the goal of these politics is that in the future cars will be a thing of the past. Controlled demolition of the system.
@@somethingfunny6867 that is why I suggested the WEC refueling rules with adjusting the minimum fuel to be added and tyres should be changed after fuel is added
Firstly, FOM do not make the rules.
Secondly, if you're GM and have spent 4 years developing a PU to the 2026 rules for 2028 entry, you would be so thrilled to have it changed by 2030!
I think what they'll do, possibly before 2026 is change the energy an power outputs. They've already lowered the threshold for maximum MGUK deployment (from 300kph to 290kph) and reduced the per lap energy recovery (9MJ to 8.5MJ).
They could increase fuel flow by 25%, raising the ICE power from around 535hp to around 670hp, and reduce the MGUK output from 350kW (470hp) to 250kW (335hp). But energy recovery could still be at 350kW, meaning that there woudl be less need for fuel burning to generate electricity.
The fuel flow increase could be the same curve, or the maximum fuel flow point could be moved to a higher rpm.
The recent rules update allowed for an override of the MGUK output, so that the maximum MGUK output could be maintained to a higher speed. But this only starts being a benefit above 290kph.
By having the normal maximum output of 250kW the override could be 350kW and be available at a lower speed.
The batteries on these are still quite small - about 1/15 or 1/20 the capacity of a Formula E battery.
They should have made more effort in to making the package lighter - the 2026 PU is pretty much the same weight as the current PU, but is much weaker.
@BSport320 you seen the new 992.2 engine announced today?
Bsport... Im not an engineer but what are the figures for electric motor up time and charge rates like per lap for the current configuration and the newer incoming rules?
Feels like the current configuration allows aleast 2 laps of "overtake" usage before the battery gets zero-ed.
F1 should just make a cost cap and remove all the other rules. Just don't spend more than this through the season, and you're good to go. Limiting (controlling) what the manufacturers can and can not do in terms of engine design/performance is barbaric - let the manufacturers manufacture
Think the best regulations would be something like a 2-liter V8 revving to 18 000 RPM, with one of the extremely lightweight 32 kilogram (comprising motor, inverter, differential and transmission all combined!), 469 horsepower front electric drive units Lucid makes for Formula E in the front.
Shrink down the width to 1.8 meters to make for better racing, the length a bit as well, and as such make the cars lighter and with less aero for better racing.
I mean if manufacturers don't want to use an engine with more cylinders even just using a V6 and letting it rev more would make it sound a lot better, I've seen simulations of people testing this at 18 000 rpm and it definitely sounds very good even while not being a V8 or V10.
"1.8 meters ... with less aero for better racing." Ironically, when F1 cars were 2.15m wide from 1972 to 1992, *the tyres were further away from the body of the car,* therefore the bargeboards used to direct the tyre wakes away from the body of the car were not so sensitive to dirty air.. Something to ponder. I prefer the 2.15m width as it looks correct for Formula 1 IMO.
@@TassieLorenzo I just look at Formula E and the videos of them running 3-wide at Monaco and wish Formula 1 could have those moments too.
Honestly the racing in Formula 1 is so bad in comparison to there. Width is super important for good racing.
@@swecreations Formula E is 6 seconds per lap slower than even Formula 3 at Monaco though. Formula Ford and Formula Vee produce the best racing, but they are not fast compared to other formula cars... (They are still very fast compared to most road cars or even GT cars of course.)
making F1 cars 'eco' is the most insulting dumb bullshit - if you serious about making f1 eco get all the aircraft and trucks it takes to fly and drive to tracks all around the world - eco and put 20000rpm v10's back in the cars !
I think what you propose here is very interesting and does seem to balance all the various priorities that F1 is bound to, but power to all four wheels doesn't feel like f1 to me :/
I really like when the Hypercars roll out of the pit boxes and fire up their gas engines. Each engine manufacture sounds different and behaves different. F1 all sounds the same. I would like to see a front electric drive with more open regulations in the engine department so we can get a rumble of a V8 or a scream of a v10. F1 it’s very close to just being a spec class and not a more open class of racing.
If engine manufacturers want to apply technologies from F1 to road cars, the future of road cars is electric. What will they do? Will they convert F1 to Fe?
Front electric motors in wheels, the most logical energy wise.
Also, less regulation and just a fuel flow limit should be enough.
Regulation should not force solutions but enforce objectives. This way real innovation occurs, electric or not.
This, combine this to cost caps with redistribution of money whould make innovation more common (#f1 spirrit) without crazy r&d and avoid those era of long domination with little hope of change. Like it was the case during tge Lewis era a d also now in the Max era.
Since it is a sport, sort of, why not limit the size of design teams also?
Audi uses an e-turbo in their recent models so the mgu-h does have relevance for real life. More than n/a v10s anyway (i don't like it as well but that's just reality)
FIA: we want to keep fans
Fans: V10?
FIA: huh?
F1 is no longer at the forefront of technology, that title is now Formula E’s. F1 is not as road relevant as marketing would make you believe otherwise every manufacturer would try to be in F1.
That means F1 doesn’t have to cater to the car market and can do what it wants. If a manufacturer wants hybrid or electric front axles, let them. If an engine manufacturer like JUDD, Cosworth, and many others want to make a high revving or low grunting engine let them. I don’t see why the rules are such a narrow stream when if we look to WEC manufacturers can do what they want, therefore more want to join.
As long as the engines use sustainable fuels it shouldn’t matter how many cylinders it has.
for engine tech it hasn't been for 30 years. 2009 to 2016 the hybrid developments were transferable. in the first year they cut a hybrid weight by 80% but nothing since then.
We all only want combustion and v8 engines. V10, v12 etc.
Sounds a lot like Indy Car hybrid rules for oval racing. 🤨
This is the first ive heard of the 1998 McLaren "ERS"
PLEASE explain
Torque vectoring would open up the whole question of driver aids again.
This seems to be a constant problem with F1 cars being "relevant". Road cars are in many ways more technologically advanced than F1 already. So how you sell relevance isn't easy.
If manufacturers all want to align their F1 presence with their corporate direction we have a problem. It isn't as if there is a consistent view of corporate directions. With even more engine manufacturer brandings appearing, this will only get worse. How you align a Ferrari, McLaren or Aston Martin corporate direction with a Ford, Renault, or Honda direction isn't clear. Audi and Mercedes get caught in the middle. And you have to ask, who actually cares other than the corporate flaks? The fans don't.
In the end the flow of money will determine outcomes. The switch from teams needing external sponsorship income to deriving most of their income from participating in the championship means the need to put on a good show will become ever more important. That means a good TV presentation.
With all that rear downforce I don‘t see overbreaking the rear as a problem for 2026. AFAIK rear brakes were the same as the fronts before KERS/Hybrid and I‘d wonder if the rears produced anything less than 1000 kW peak and 500 kW averqge from 340 down to 80 kph back then - with much lighter cars. So if anything, that driveshaft-mounted electric engine is probably vastly undersized to recuperate most efficiently in 26. For 2030, the question is which engine suppliers do you want in F1. For that, I‘d say go for supercar manufacturers. They will happily build small N/A V8s up to V12s with or without rear axle KERS. If utility vehicle brands like Mercedes and Renault can‘t live with that - great! Ferrari will be happy and Honda probably too. Audi can run as Lamborghini. Cosworth will join immediately.
the 2026 rules are going to be silly. might make monaco interesting though with 1 car on 500bhp and another on 1000bhp.
Only way f1 becomes more open with the engines rules is if WEC gets HUGE commercially.
I’ve been saying this, I believe this will happen. If the biggest stars in F1 like Hamilton, Verstappen, Vettel etc decide to pursue WEC, they’re gonna take a large chunk of the F1 “fan base” with them
@@daviddickson7253 Why would they want to go to WEC so they can be BOP'ed to the midfield at a whim? As it is the likes of Hamilton and Verstappen already get cranky if they are in the midfield season-to-season due to their own's teams poor efforts (leaving from Mercedes to Ferrari despite past success for example), would they accept being pushed down to the midfield as quickly as on a race-by-race basis due to ACO meddling with their team having no say in the matter?
4:46 the sound (or lack there of) is nothing to do with the engines themselves or the layout, it’s the hybrid bullshit. OG turbo v6’s from the 80’s sound mental.