What If F1 ENGINES Had No Rules? 

Fun fact: Koenigsegg bought the rights for the Motoro Moderni flat-12 and was going to put a Motori Moderni down-tuned 9000 rpm version in the first Koenigsegg. But during development the owner Carlo Chiti died and the company went bankrupt. Koenigsegg later bought all the tooling and stuff in an auction, but the tooling was obsolete with wooden tooling and hand written drawings etc, so they ultimately opted for the Ford Modular V8 instead.

This guy: "What if F1 engines had no rules?" Also this guy: "There's must be some rules"

I’ve often contemplated how the F1 landscape would look if the rules allowed manufacturers to use whatever form of propulsion they wanted with a cap on fuel amounts and type. The premise would be a race of 25-50 laps with a capped amount for qualifying and race. Those that complete the laps would be ranked by time and those that come up short would be placed according to distance travelled. While I’m sure many would arrive at similar conclusions, it would be cool to return to an era where each manufacturer had varied configurations, cylinder numbers, displacements, and use of turbos/superchargers/hybrid batteries.

I wasn't expecting james 'MO POWA BABEH' 8:50 but it makes me happy!

I expected this to go more like “FUCK IT, let’s shove a Merlin in.” EDIT: Add the gun cowlings from a mustang to get the whistle, too.

I'm surprised rotary wasn't the pick given packaging constraints.

Sleeve valve. An ICE engine is at base, an air pump. If the engine restrictions were removed someone would try a liquid cooled sleeve valve engine, like the Napier Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. The Sabre engine produced 1.36 HP per cubic inch using relatively low octane gasoline (by present standards) and a low compression ratio of 7:1. A sleeve valve setup had the highest volumetric efficiency of the WW II aircraft engines. With no poppet valves, valve float and binding cannot occur. The complexities of the engine were a problem for front line fighter maintenance, but not such a problem in a race car, where teardown and rebuild is a given. And THEN you had turbocharging!

A Centrifugal supercharged, 32 Cylinder, 8 liter, piston port, two stroke DIESEL, Four row, radial, with ten speed gear box. It makes well over 1,500 HP at a weight about half that of the 1,350 HP BMW mentioned before the Commel. The size is also much less than you mentioned. RPM can go to 22,000 RPM, but that is not required for the listed power. Then you use a blow down power recovery turbine to form a Turbo-Compound engine. With the standard 1500+ HP is doubled to +3,000 HP! Now for the best part, EVERYTHING IS OFF THE SHELF PARTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PRODUCTION FOR AGES!! Lighter weight and weight distribution, better aero, All encompassing body to cover the huge rear tires, or all four if you like, and the Underbody Venturi for huge down force and Hydro-dynamic suspension to down load the entire car with three to four times the current load!

Regardless of type or displacement or power I just want the revs to go back to 18K rpms in F1.

Psychologist: engines can’t hurt you Me: Horizontal K Engine

I used to be an engineer and I would have loved the opportunity to design a completely new type of engine. The things that come to mind that i would experiment with would be, taking your block choice for some simplicity and going two stroke with a typical 4 stroke crankcase and valve design. Use the turbo for expelling exhaust, then continuing to charge the cylinder after the exhaust is flushed. Then push more towards the diesel style by using high pressure direct injection after tdc, may not be feasible but I'm tired and just playing. I would keep the hybrid turbo basics but replace the battery with a vacuum fly wheel. I would also add an additional combustion method for the turbine to speed it up and extract more of its existing potential. Like i said I'm not at my sharpest and just felt like playing and trying to re-live the good old days of conceptualizing before then spending a lot of time trying to figure out why it won't work until reaching a point that it might. Conceptualizing was one of my favorite parts especially with others and trying to see if you have an idea worth continuing to think about.

I don't usually burst out laughing at the mention of an engine, but when you said "Pratt and Whitney", I couldn't help it! You've got to love Lotus!

No limits hands down it ends up with a Wankel engine. Power to weight ratio is non comparable. Considering you can get 1000hp out of something a regular person can carry

“So let’s say our no rules engine has a rule”

I apologize for my English, and also for my ignorance. I would like to ask why F1 doesn't use electric motors placed in the front wheels to anticipate accelerations when exiting corners.

I htink if you free up engine configuration rules, BUT limit the amount of fuel that can be burnt, have minimum car weights with the relative safety and aero rules, you'd have some interesting innovation around engines.

The end part is a bit of a misnomer. Remember you have no rules. No one said you had to make the most powerful engine which would fit in that box. You would look at the whole car and its grip levels, work out the ideal power level to make best use of that and then go for the smallest, lightest options to hit that power target. For instance if you need less power you can run smaller turbos. If you run smaller turbos you're in less need of the hybrid stuff so that can go and suddenly you're a good number of kg's lighter and still well over the power level the car could use.

For camshaft tho, I think I have a better idea. Koenigsegg's freevalve is extremely genius, although maybe it might risk malfunctioning, but atleast it works. So instead of the curve of a traditional valve's opening, you get an up-down-up down opening, which means that it can put more air because the camshaft isn't closing after it reaches the peak. It's basically all time peak when open then instantly closes. And that's the first benefit only, then second benefit is, you don't have to worry about valve float because it is controlled by the system. And I'm not done yet, there's a third benefit, which is less parasitic loss. In a traditional engine, power can be less because of parasitic loss because engine has to spin many things. A traditional average sedan engine can have alternator, fuel pump, a/c, power steering, and many more. Now, we really are not gonn aput those in an F1 engine for weight reasons, but camshafts are still heavy, and not only that, but the valve that has to compress the valve springs is a challenge, which requires a lot of force, and results to a loss. Since freevalve doesn't have a camshaft, it reduces the parasitic loss of the engine. Another thing that's beneficial is all about turbos and supercharger. Because this has no rules, we can go for both, because why not? You'll get the best of both worlds, and it basically only takes of for the advantage of having a freevalve, but it's still better to have a supercharger than a traditional camshaft with a supercharger right? That's basically twice the parasitic loss of a supercharged freevalve engine. If not, Bugatti also has the innovation which improves their Chiron W16 over the Veyron W16. Basically, intead of splitting the exhaust to 4, there's only 2 headers and 2 turbos are connected to each. There is a valve for the second turbo so that at low rpm, the valves are closed, and all the exhaust gases goes to the first 2 turbos, which results in less lag, then at high rpm, the valve open and since the first 2 turbos are already spooled up, the engine can easily spool up the last 2. It is extremely effective as it make for a better hp and torque curve for low rpms

This is something I would watch, basically a no-holds racing, wings, displacement, wheels, and turbo's all up for grabs; it would be like the wacky races.

I wouldn’t discount rotary engines. I think Rob Dahm’s 4 rotor is making upwards of 1500 horsepower in a relatively compact package, so I wonder what F1 engineers could do with a turbo 4 rotor, without the restrictions of using a mix of old Mazda road car parts and off the shelf aftermarket stuff.

A rotary might actually work, if a manufacturer puts money into it. The reliability issues can be fixed by just throwing money at it. Also, rotary engines are extremly small, light and have a lot of power. They are basicly the ideal race engine.

You still going to drive upside down?

Here in the States, Subarus are well known for their reliability, save for one problem that was fixed in 2013. Prior to 2013 Subaru engines were well known to blow head gaskets. The only chronic problem Subarus have now is related to a lack of maintenance on the part of owners. Subarus will develop oil leaks if... an owner does not change the PCV valve on a regular basis, preferably about every 30,000 miles.

No tech limits would get me interested in racing again. Anyway, I'm an engineer but not in the automotive space. What I think makes the most sense is a turbine connected to a generator, with super capacitors, and an elective drive train. Turbines like constant load, and are terrible at acceleration. They spin at high speeds making mechanical gearboxes complex. Meanwhile, electric motors are great at torque - this is why most trains are diesel electric rather than using mechanical transmissions. Anyway, supercaps can charge and discharge much faster than any battery, allowing you to decelerate into a corner, fully charge the supercaps, then throw down gobs of torque - all while keeping your turbine at constant speed providing baseline power for the vehicle. I also think a similar design (but using batteries) makes sense for consumer vehicles. When your tesla is low but you're almost home, you can just put 1 gallon of gas in, and the turbine will recharge the electric system. Or put in 10 gallons while on a road trip.

Toluene powered turbo rotary engines might be an idea because power density. Or, hell, two-strokes. You *might* have a hybrid (supercaps, no charge or discharge limit) and AWD. And active aero, active suspension, traction control, all that. No, boxers are not basically 180 degree V engines. Boxers have opposite piston power strokes happening simultaneously. Which means, the engine pictured at 10:15 is not a boxer.

Someone should make an experimental racing series where the only rules are a standardized car, and the companies can do whatever they want with the powertrain. Call it FX or F0

With the money behind F1 R&D if there was no limits it would be NUTS

Cool video, you just answered a ton of little questions I've always had but never looked into enough, yep it all made perfect sense you've got a great way of explaining things, thanks so much!

I cannot believe you completely overlooked the engine style banned in F1, The Mazda Wankel style motor. Time for a new video just on this engine.

All I want is a V10 with blown diffusers and DAS to make it extra grippy

The bugatti W16 is technically A VVR16. The engines heritage came from the VR6 on the golf. Then they double it up with two banks of VR6 hence, the W12 in bentleys. Then they thought "lets make the ultimate engine by adding 4 more cylinders!" said those germans.

hear me out: Boxer-8, 2.0L, titanium internals (crank, rods and pistons), double rotary valves for each piston (also made out of titanium), billet block and head, variable geometry turbo, timing gears and variable valve timing. expect at least 800HP to 1000HP out of this (would probably make much more) and way over 15k RPM redline. plus perfect balance (as it is a Boxer-8) and fewer moving parts because of the rotary valves plus less torque being wasted on opening the valves and no valve float at all. it is not a very complex engine btw, if you want to make it complex take off the timing gears and swap it straight for a little eletric motor that will spin the valves and connect it to the ECU so it will act like a Freevalve. this would be an absolute beast, no need for hybrid motors, but if you want one, go on, add one too. also wouldnt have much turbo lag because of modern tecnology and the ammount of cylinders.

What ever happened to driving up-side-down in a tunnel?

I would put in a turbo rotary engine. Small, light, and with enough RnD you can make big power and make it also reliable enough.

All things considered with weight and aero factored in, I think an inline 6 would be the best F1 engine. My calculations of about 2 liters would have the bore between 95-100mm. The inherent balance and smoothness and simplicity would be ideal for reliability and comfort. The firing order gives a nice torque curve as well. It would actually be very compact, since it would employ a dry sump and the intake would be on the side instead of the top, meaning one side pod for intake air and the other for cooling. Since I believe race cars neeed starter motors for safety, we might as well employ a compact but powerful MGU mainly to flatten the torque curve even more. The engine would rev quite easily to 20,000rpm and sound mentally good being half a v12 with more time between cylinder firings. Look up Honda CBX or Honda Valkyrie exhaust sound to get some idea. In a race car, a capacitor makes a lot of sense for energy storage, but an engineer would have to decide between that and a battery. I think F1 should be closed cockpit like WEC prototypes and employ race spec air condition in the cockpit to keep temps under control so a battery might make more sense. The last idea is up in the air, but imagine ONLY and MGU-H with no exhaust driven turbine ruining sound. And electric compressor, aka and electric centrifugal supercharger to add torque to a 2 liter straight 6.

I love this content. Great stuff! You should totally do a separate vid for comprex and how it works and whether it or a similar design could be viable today.

Well, how about Lancis's twin charged 1.8l straight 4 from group B? That produced 1,000hp at 5 bar. So twin charging sounds good.

I’ve always wanted f1 to go to a “no technology limits” model, and just limit engine capacity, fuel load and price cap. Imagine a 500cc hybrid turbo AWD variable aero and active suspension. It would lead to so much real world application development.

Hi Scott! Love your videos and having you reflect your experience from racing! Just a little feedback regarding your sound settings. It seems that your microphone is picking up your arms and hands hitting your desk. It's a pretty low frequency that makes it sound like the upstairs neighbors are playing ball :)

an opposed piston two stroke engine could be a powerful option. they are compact, highly efficient and dirt simple since there is no valve train or cylinder head, making them also extremely reliable. they fire on every rotation rather than on every other rotation like a four stroke, meaning you could in theory get twice the power out of the same displacement (in reality the numbers are lower, but there is still a massive advantage to be had here) you always got two pistons moving in opposite directions perfectly aligned, meaning the engine is always perfectly balanced right out the gate. since the whole package is perfectly balanced no additional balancing is required, allowing for extremely lightweight crank shafts, which facilitate higher rpms. higher efficiency (up to 55% according to some sources) also means less mass wasted on carrying fuel and a smaller fuel tank. you are limited to a cylinder number that is a multiple of 3, but since we have seen 12 cylinder engines, i'd say going six, nine or 12 cylinder options would be viable. forced induction is necessary for these engines to function, but considering that forced induction is the standard now anyway, i'd say this doesn't even matter.

I wish there was just a racing category with no rules on anything other than safety, so we would be able to see engineers actually push everything to it's limits, with different body shapes and things like cars with fans

I remember talking to someone who had been working on a 2-stroke F1 engine. The basic plan was to combine as many Formula A kart engines together (each producing ~30hp and rev up to 20K rpm) onto a single drive shaft, with a modular design to swap out modules for quick "rebuilds". I was told that a FIA rule change mandating 4-stroke engines killed the project - would have loved to see it work though.

I grew up about 16 miles from Watkins Glen, New York racetrack. My father had told me that in the 70's was a formula one car that had a big fan under it that would draw the car tight to the track and would exhaust the air out the back. He told me that they could no longer use that technology because drivers were complaining about the debris showering them well driving behind that type of car.

Did I miss the part where you discussed exotic fuels? There is more power to be had using them, safety be damd. Also, I heard no mention of rotary valve tech, or other camless tech. And more discussion of using gas turbine power would be interesting, much progress has been made with those... But this was still a fascinating thought exercise, thank you D61!

instead of the battery, you could try using a supercapacitor like the Lamborghini Sian FKP, they would be far, far lighter, and the energy output would be even faster than a battery. You could use the super cap to fill in the performance gaps of the ICE, and make an even more potent combo

Ferrari developed an F1 engine with Desmodromic Variable Valve Actuation (DVVA) but the FIA banned it (probably on costs). Ducati use it in MotoGP

The reason why no one ever uses the V14 is because the balancing is a complete nightmare to deal with and any difference in balance would cause the engine to destroy itself. Personally I'd have either have a turbo V10 or V12 that uses a MGU-K for the front axle to pull the car through the turns while the engine powering the rear wheels would handle the acceleration out of high speed turns AWD F1 BABYYYYYY Pretty sure the weight distribution would be close to 50/50 to 40/60 Honestly, I could make a video on what I would have and tag this channel since I love yall 🥰

I love that you have a clip of Jack stand jimmy bobin his head to the lobe of the big block! Perfect!

So a V12 Turbo with an MGU-H would be very OP... Mclaren only missed 1 thing in 1988

Honestly thats why i’m so excited about Aston Martin Valkryie in IMSA/ WEC its nice to see V12 back against V8 and V6.

Fun fact.. i designed the lotus in the beginning when i was about 8.. the initial design was made out a small pine wood block and we used to race them against each other down a handbuilt wooden sloped track. We weren't even allowed engine back then. Rules were super strict. We instead used lead weights to try and go faster. That was the only goal. Go faster.

The MGU should be referred to as the Dynacharger. This was the name given to it by the original inventor, Edward Mayer Halimi. Engineering work on it was started in the late 80's and was operating less that 10 years later.

There was a time when F1 was full of different concepts, the golden age of F1. Today's F1: now you're too fast, now you're too slow, safety first, the track is too dangerous, not city racing - a family friendly show.

3 rotors just entered the chat

6:25 The Comprex supercharger is a genius design. It's basically a hollow pipe with 2-stroke-like gas ports, with a spinning airtight paddle wheel inside. The exhaust goes into the drum on one end, and pushes the air directly into the intake on the other end, and the spinning motion makes the exhaust gases miss the intake manifold port right as they approach it. The gas is reflected into the opposite direction where there's an open exhaust port, and on the same side soon opens the fresh air port that sucks in the air as the escaping exhaust gases leave behind vacuum.

Tip: Let the mic hang from something other than resting on the table. Every time you emote with your arms and touch the table, there is a low frequency banging noise - which sounds like someone is jumping on the roof or the floor above. Great video though :)

A point of clarification. You said keeping the rpm low keeps the reciprocating mass down. Mass doesn't change with speed, only kinetic energy, so keeping the rpm low keeps the kinetic energy low.

Love the reference to Jackstand Jimmy with the blower car in the beginning 😂

Four smaller engines, one for each wheel, is what should be done. That would help with cornering remarkably.

I would have only one engine regulation. A 3 litre cap on displacement. Apart from that it should be do what you like

Electromagnetically actuated engine valves.

Really cool video! Excellent work. Thanks.

Funny that the reliability clip you show of the subaru is actually the clutch/flywheel exploding lol

I think a Prodrive-style "rocket" anti lag system could eliminate the need for a second turbo to bridge turbo lag, as a big single turbo could be always kept at high rotation speed.

Toluene.... Played a bit with it a few years ago. Got a tune with 10% mix with petrol... Lots of timing. Its Fun! 😅

Really Interesting look at what could be possible. I have often wondered about the solutions to more power/less weight if the rule book were to be dumped. One suggestion though, you really need an microphone isolation mount, especially one that is not connected to the desk - every time your elbows or arms touched the table there was a very audible "thump" transmitted to the mic. Drove me nuts! Ok, drove me more nuts. Cheers, Susi.

"What if F1 had no rules?" (immediately applies rules)

Man I'm gonna be constantly thinking about a Bugatti W16 engine in an F1 car now

Look at the engine in the Yaris GR. 300hp from a 1.5l Turbo I3 Now lets make that a V6 with 3l displacement 600hp? But that engine is tuned to last, but what if we tuned it to last 10 races or so? 750hp? Now you can lose weight from the removal of batteries.

No rules sounds just right to me. It would make F1 interesting again. One thing that isn't being discussed here is the extra weight and packaging size (in the case of ICE mills) of the necessary larger fuel tank and stronger transmission. Every change introduces necessary compromises. And the same no rule "rule" should be applied to the wheel/tire packages. Imagine if Pirelli weren't dictating to EVERYONE.

"Turbine engines had some success . . ." Yeah. Like Bluebird CN7 in which Donald Campbell took the land speed record in 1964. This was the last wheel-driven car to take the outright speed record, because the FIA finally gave in and allowed thrust-powered cars to be considered for the outright record shortly afterwards.

I feel like if there was unlimited budget, we'd see some kind of jet or capacitor. Perhaps not for racing but definitely if we're just building for a single lap.

It took half the video to find out v12 is the preferred configuration

One thing I missed from this video is the rule framework taken into consideration outside of the engines. Because with current rules on fuel flow and no refueling, the current engines are very very close to what's theoretically possible in terms of power output. Maybe a tad more displacement like 2 or 2.5 liters, slightly less boost and slightly lower rpm would be advantageous to increase thermal efficiency, but that's about it. IF we can use more fuel (but no refueling), we exchange fuel efficiency for more power at similar weight i.e. ditch the hybrid stuff, enlarge displacement and add boost. IF we can also use the engine aerodynamically, we blow insane amounts of fuel through it to create an artificial fan car that gains 5 seconds a lap in slow corners.

for hybrid setup, i think supercapacitor should be considered over traditional battery since it just need to store little amount of power to accomodate the lag, while it can dump a huge amount of current that would produce really high torque

"there's no replacement for displacement" "actually, there is: turbo"

Hands up those who recognised Jackstand Jimmy! 😄

Between having all the power you could ever use, the least amount of wind resistance and the most traction possible. A truly unlimited road race car would only be limited by the amount of g-force the driver could withstand during the race. The drivers would definitely be wearing g-suits like fighter pilots currently wear, but even with them staying fully conscious with when pulling 9+ Gs is very difficult.

dude! this is two videos in one OK... so! pls make a video of the first 10 mins cos it was brilliant. I had no clue they existed and thx amazing content

What about Rotary engines?

3:56 Motori Moderni not Motori Monerdi

This was a cool video, and I have wondered what would happen if the only engine rules were your stipulations, plus the 2026 fuel regs, which would be the limiting factor on power.

Scott explains complex concepts so well!!! Would love to see a video explaining the difference between current F1 regs vs 2026 regs.

If it's not a turbine used to power batteries, then I think you have it wrong.

that is what f1 was - the best ideas and concepts for battle and not slowing down the race to safe tires..... good old times!

BTW, I really like the LMP1 engine formula where you could use whatever concept with only the fuel flow as a lImiting factor. That way we had 2 litre V4s, 2.4 L V6s, 3.0 L V6s, 3.4 L V6s, 4.5 L V8s naturally aspirated, and 4.0 L V6 Diesels. The most efficient engine basically got the most power (also fuel flow on hybrids and non-hybrids were different).

Popular Mechanics/ Popular Science did an article 20-odd years ago about the F-0 concept. Anything goes. One of the hypothesized powertrains was a turbine engine driving a generator. The primary propulsion was an electric motor at all four wheels. Burst speed would be augmented by capacitors that would recharge in constant power times.

I'm so happy to just see Cleetus McFarlane in your video😂

On the topic of 'true W engines' at 12:28, I like to call the Bugatti engines a WR setup, since their W16 was based on Volkswagen's VR engines.

I love the way you make this explaining videos and all those „what if’s „ You explain that pretty complicated matter in a way that even an idiot like me gets the feeling of understanding it’s basics Plus it entertaining also And I’m not an native English speaker What I basically wanted to say is thank you and keep doing what you do I’m really appreciate your work 🫶

interesting stuff.....i'm glad i got to witness the 80s turbos cars when i was a kid.....on a side note there's a lot of sub booming coming through your mike, i think it's when you put your arms downon your desk.... try rolling off the low end on your audio track a bit as it's pretty distracting (on my system anyway). cheers, great content as always!

This would make the sport more interesting.

Nuclear powered F1 car. What's the worst that can happen?

I get why you would choose a turbo over a supercharger here, but that assumes one needs to choose between them. Why wouldn't twincharging work? If we are talking no rules, one could do worse than taking a look at cars like the Lancia Delta S4 (a Group B rally car). That cars engine was ludicrous. Seems to me that the benefits of that setup would, at least in theory, work well here. (I'm thinking more cylinders than the S4, but more or less the same basic setup)

When you thump the table with your elbows, it booms my home theatre subwoofer - not annoyingly so, but enough to be noticeable. You may wish to equalise out bass below 240hz, that should do it. Interesting video too, thanks for exploring this.

The fun thing about power is only so much can be reliably put down. This opens up really ridiculous ideas, like a stock block, pushrod LS V8. You can cheaply get 1,000hp out of a turbo LS and it will last miles and miles, with better economy than you'd imagine.

The BRM v16 is the greatest sounding engine I’ve ever heard

Thanks for the video. This is the best description of an MGU-H I've ever heard.

Pirelli's phrase, "power without control is useless..." defines very well the conclusion of this complete video. Very good job, analyzing the multiple disciplines and developments today.

*Mo pawa babbyyyy* 😂😅