if you are willing to allow anything but a rocket, what about other fuels in a turbine configuration? what about turbojets, ramjets, scramjets, nuclear Stirling engines, and any other esoteric or absurd concept? I think you would need to define more precisely what a rocket even is to rule them out as well. Not to mention, dare I even suggest it, an electric motor with just a battery, no combustion, no hybrid. You made rules that allow it, and then only investigated stuff that basically has been done already with larger numbers on some specs as the change. What will you do when anakin skywalker shows up with a pod racer?
News reports beating this sort of thing up is just rubbish, this was announced last year, now suddenly Harry is angry about it. Leave them to sort out their own family problems without the press and people with nothing better to do with their lives fanning the flames.
There is a difference between a flat and a 180 degree v... in a flat engine, the opposing cylinders compress and expand at the same time, in a 180 degree v, when one is compressing the other expands.
Such bs that MGU-H is going to be banned in 2026. If anything it should count as a safety feature by reducing or eliminating turbo lag, makes drivers more predictable if they can put down power more consistently.
if your able to go as high tech as the MGU-H why not use a design featuring free valve technology. less weight, parasitic drag, infinitely variable valve control. sounds like a no brainer to me.
the Mario Forghieri Flat 12 has been the most powerful for 5 years in a row. but being wide it reduced the dimensions of the venturi tunnels. so it was abandoned and the turbo was studied. unfortunately Ferrari was boycotted and damaged those years. they banned ceramic materials and the use of water as an antiknock agent, an experiment in which Ferrari was focusing a lot.
They say F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, but when they start banning tech such as the MGU-H, it bricks my brain. That's like saying: "Today's cars are safer than yesterday's," then banning ABS,airbags and seat belts. Also, what if we swapped a heavy battery for capacitors?
NONE OF THE ABOVE. If there are no rules, and no budgetary constraints, you'll have a General Electric T901 turbo-shaft (3,000 shp) driving a generator feeding electric motors at each corner. A small battery or capacitor will eliminate any lag. The turbine will operate at full load and the optimal speed all the time until there is no place to send the power and then it'll simply free wheel with zero fuel until there is storage capacity and draw to fill again.
Great video, but mate, in the future please put a very weak high-pass filer on your audio. the random bass-drops throughout the video were very annoying.
I'd go a version of the Rolls Royce Crecy 2 stroke engine, with turbos. Not only would you double your power per cc, but you'd hear the car all the way around the track.
Subaru isn’t known for making reliable engines? Is that true or just opinion? There’s lots of Subarus is Australia and I always thought they were renowned for their reliability… 🤷♂️
So I'm guessing that the pratt and whitney engine mentioned is a PT-6 of some sort, and imo this would work great if you could also do a cvt as a turboshaft engine like that would not adjust shaft speed very quickly however could provide immense power and torque
Well I would like to clarify some misconceptions about rotary engines and their reliability. Those engines shine in racing conditions, basically thats the best use for them to be reliable and long lasting. You probably see plenty street cars with rotary engines (mazda rx series) that fails quickly and are considered not reliable. Thats caused mostly by poor owners maintenance and bad usage (e.g. revving before reaching proper temps, overheating, driving on low rpm (which leads to poor lubrication = fast wear + carbon build) so street application in traffic also isnt great for rotary) and so on... But then ask professional racing teams using rotary engines, they runs brilliant and are way more reliable than piston engines. Mazda said that after le mans race, they have opened their engine and there were not even a signs of wear in the engine. Look for an interview with guys from 520hp NA 3 rotor rx7. As personal experience, I know rotary workshop specialist/rebuilder that have build his own rx8 for track use. He have opened the engine a few times, and after 25k miles there was no engine wear. That perfectly proves my point about being perfect for racing application. Power is great NA or turbo, you can add another rotors... 3,4,5,6... to get even more crazy power. My only worry would be the fuel consumption as they are really fuel hungry, which is obviously true.
What is already an expensive sport would become unaffordable even for wealthy car companies. They'd shift to less expensive racing classes like Indycars. Probably without rules one group would dominate all the time.
Yah, but no "vrooom, vroom!" The whine of electric engines just isn't the same <g>. "Refueling" again, during tire changes, cool! Brings back "fuel" considerations to tactics. Do you fuel longer to eliminate a tire change etc. I miss that in the current F1 rules. Gen 2 is still power limited. They have to manage power use to end the race with 0% battery. Sounds like that limit is going to get smaller in Gen 3 0-60mph in under 2 seconds, 4 wheel drive ... whiplash speed. All in 10 years. FE is slower at Monaco because of the limits of the battery to carry energy.
