The Road to the 50% Thermally Efficient Internal Combustion Engine

In this talk, Pat will explore some of the techniques that have been employed on current Formula 1 hybrid power units to reach 50% thermal efficiency using examples from modelling work undertaken with Cranfield University. He will discuss the fundamental rethink required when a racing engine is fuel limited as opposed to air limited and look to lessons that could be transferred to other high power density mobility systems, as well as considering how such an engine could develop in the future.
Pat Symonds
CTO
Formula One Management

[@Colevid19]

To walk that line between efficiency and performance… it’s mind blowing to think what is asked of engineers in modern F1.

[@RockitFX1]

Necessity is the mother of all inventions.

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

I love this, thank you. I do wonder what a compression ignition version of one of these F1 engines would look like. If fuel flow is the limitation, oils typically have higher calorific value per kg than spark ignition fuels. It sounds like the full load condition in an F1 engine is very close to compression ignition conditions, so it might be a very small step into that space. Marine diesel engines have been performing at or above 50% fuel efficiency for some decades now, the most efficient of them relying on turbo compounding with excess turbine work being fed back into the crankshaft. Some of the thermodynamic concepts discussed here are direct parallels between the biggest IC engines ever built and some of the highest performing very small ones, which I find quite fascinating.

[@FZamboni]

What a video and only 2.2k views/1 comment.... thanks, a lot of great information

[@johnnymac1976]

2 Strokes with modern direct injection and separate oiling systems are a niche worth exploring!

[@quickcinema8031]

mazda 2 stroke is what you want

[@zanebrimson7777]

It’s what I thought, however, Bombardier’s Evinrude was based on this and is defunct now. What happened?

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

Exactly opposed piston 2 stroke that’s supercharged scavenged

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

@@mickvonbornemann3824 A short stroke opposed piston 2 stoke compression ignition engine with the turbo-compounding would be very interesting. The turbo-compounding provides the positive pressure difference between intake and exhaust for scavenging.

[@MrDarkodude]

So combustion engines are not dead. Very instructive lecture.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Honda and Mitsubishi three valve pre combustion chamber in 1970s similar idea . Small pre-combustion chamber with small third valve a rich mixture ignited lean mixture in main chamber .

[@TheAnonymous1one]

Amazing video this channel is underrated. It has such good content

[@dj_laundry_list]

This is much more interesting than watching an actual F1 race

[@ronniescott5179]

Very interesting lecture on engine research and improvement which is vital for road cars as that is what it is all about. Motor racing is the competition between drivers and would be more interesting if a common car is used produced by to the same simple rules. The current rules are to a large degree formulated by technicians and politicians not sports men. The current races are largely between technicians spending large sums of money on research resulting in very expensive engines . Back in the day Formula Junior was a low cost car with similar performance which resulted in highly

[@teagreen2220]

Nice comments about efficiency and such here. I think that great efficiency should be studied for scientific learning. An actual consumer automobile should be a balanced version of initial expense, power, reliability, and longevity. A low thermal efficient engine will run at lower temperatures all around, is simple, not running close to any material limits, will not destroy plastic parts and electronic parts, will maintain lower oil temperatures for less waste, and produce less vibration.

[@daveodesa1979]

These aren't really Miller Cycle engines. These are low-pressure turbo-compound cycle engines which utilize Miller valve timing. With 5 bar of boost, there is quite a lot of pumping and expansion energy to be recovered by the turbine wheels. He mentioned 20% of the net power.

[@TheBDD1970]

Really cool. I would like to learn how much energy in the form of electricity is used from the engine/mechanical operation....or how small can you make the battery so it just becomes a capacitor rather than a primary energy store.

[@nowhere64967]

Is there a pdf version of the conference?

[@etusch]

you can download automatically produced subtitles as text

[@franks4103]

Phew, although interesting content .... it is terrible to sit through someone reading through 95% of their presentation on screen .... just give me the handout, I'll read it myself and if I have any questions I'll reach out to you!!

[@chrispompano]

LoL......he has me with what they taught in 7th grade Speech Class, NEVER use the old an overused intro "Without Further Adieu", & he used it twice within 60sec! 😐

[@franks4103]

@@chrispompano yes that ‘adieu’ bit is hysterical…. so it’s now ‘without further goodbye’! 😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@chrispompano]

@@franks4103 🙃😵😁

[@clearyComprehensiveRailology]

I like that @40:00, "we don't use that except maybe when crawling out of a corner and that doesn't last very long..believe me" very terse.

[@frv6610]

Weichai achieved record 52.28% in november 2022 for diesel engine.

[@playyourturntodieatvgperson]

desiels are much more efficient than gas engines, so thats not particularly suprising

[@daveodesa1979]

That is base engine efficiency, almost certainly turbo-compounded. SuperTruck II achieved 56% with heat recovery.

[@ThorstenKreutzenberger]

Turbo compound is the only way, dont waste time and material with batteries.

[@Appletank8]

So ... has anyone considered using a giant compressor fan and produce thrust?

[@kentonian]

Richard noble

[@widodoakrom3938]

V6 1.6 liter turbocharger hybrid is ones of ice that capable to reach 50% thermal efficiency

[@DctrBread]

this talk has given me even more certainty that formula 1 cars should not be counted as cars. Heave suspension, plasma jets into the combustion chamber, and a Cd of over 1? Thats a UFO.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

A top fuel dragster puts 10,000 HP to the track. The engine has 1 gallon of water in it, and it had a 2 gallon expanexpansion thank. If you put 2500 BTU [100 HP] into that system, that tank would explode in 2 seconds. How termally efficient do you really think that engine is

[@baloog8]

It's really not that hard. Wet-ethanol, HCCI with spray length coolant-adjustment to gain super high compresssion. With the cascading weight savings from engine to frame/components, you'll save at least the equivalent of 50% thermo-efficiency and 100% on fuel prices because wet ethanol is surprisingly still almost as efficient as straight/pure ethanol!

[@playyourturntodieatvgperson]

"not that hard" "homogeneous charge compression ignition" sure buddy

[@baloog8]

@@playyourturntodieatvgperson if only sarcasm held actual power or knowledge to expand on =)

[@csjrogerson2377]

A 2 stroke marine diesel has already reached 52%.

[@allanallansson9532]

Yes, by being much bigger (lower power density) and slower. He touches on this around 33:12, when commenting that larger and slower engines with higher stroke-bore ratios would be even more efficient. What is impressive here is not the thermal efficiency of 50+ % as such , but the fact that these levels were achieved in very high power density F1 engines and with synthetic limitations due to regulations. Context is everything.

[@JABRONIANGELOR]

@@allanallansson9532what are your thoughts on using a hybrid system on gasoline cars : the engine is used as a generator for maximum efficiency whilst using a smaller battery to just power an electric motor ( the battery will be charging discharging most of the time so it would be much better to use a different kind than the ones already in Teslas for eg) On the fuel side i'm hopeful that we can use better sources for ethanol like hemp and algae to replace fossil fuels and thus u get carbon neutral ICE engines.

[@paradiselost9946]

@@JABRONIANGELOR its rather pointless. works if the end goal is to make a reasonably slow car get decent mileage, but not if all out power and economy are desired. sure, little motor, run at peak efficiency... great. the generator isnt as efficient as youre led to believe. try to make it simple... drop a magnet in a copper pipe. it creates a current in the pipe, that current creates an opposing magnet field... replace the pipe with a coil. or cut a slot in it. with no resistance across the coil or slot, there is no current flow, and the magnet falls freely. short the coil, short the gap, we get maximum current, maximum reaction. more work required to push the magnet. ok. so now picture the generator as no more than the pipe/coil... with a resistor across it. when that resistance is EQUAL to the coils resistance... you will get HALF the power in each "side" of the circuit. it takes two units to push the magnet through teh coil, for every ONE unit dissipated in both the resistor, and the generator. thats when the generator is maxed out, working at full load. it cant deliver anymore current, or voltage. as that resistance changes, so does the amount of power flowing through the circuit. if its larger than the generator? its fine. make it ten times larger, and for every unit of work done in the resistor, the "load"... 1/10th is performed on the generator, and 1&1/10 units of work is required to push the magnet. a battery is NOT a resistor. it needs certain voltages to charge, to discharge. a generator held at the charge voltage of a battery is limited in the current it can deliver by that voltage. if it tries to raise the voltage, more current flows instead... until the generator stalls. every genset has an engine twice the rating of the generator itself... WHY? because generators are actually only "efficient" when they are barely loaded. that is, you can make most of the "work" appear in the load. and thats the exact opposite of an ICE... they run better under load as throttles open wide and air flow is unimpeded... takes power to move air, shift it from one place to another... a cubic meter weighs just 1.2kg. but when a 4L engine at 6000RPM can consume 12M3 per minute, that alone is 14.4KG of air that just got moved. if the intake was say, 100CM2, or 10x10... it would be moving at 1.2km/minute.... you have to accelerate 14.4kg from a standstill to 72km/h every minute. that alone requires power. it seems unrelated? thats because people often fail to appreciate just how much power is required to simply MOVE air! back to the generator... as the machine gets smaller, more portable, it starts to run closer and closer to its REAL efficiency, delivering maximum current and voltage into an equal load... and that is always 50%! anyway. the hybrid may be efficient when its barely charging its batteries electrically (ignore the power lost in batteries and inverters and rectifiers...) yet the engine isnt so efficient, when the batteries are taking a heavy charge, the generator isnt as efficient, yet the engine is... the only way they get away with it is that for the brief moment one usually accelerates, the heavy discharge on the batteries can give quite a lot of force to the wheels, but it cant SUSTAIN that power level for very long... and the rest of the time, the sort of cars that run hybrid are usually driven by "hyper-milers" and "dawdlers"... we dont REALLY need "250 RWHP"... lol at ads for cars from 70 years ago.... "21.6hp"...

[@widodoakrom3938]

F1 has a lot of regulations and limitations

[@playyourturntodieatvgperson]

@@JABRONIANGELOR such a system has its advantages, but gas(chemical potential energy) -> heat -> mechanical energy is simpler than gas -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electricity -> mechanical energy. so it ends up being a quedstion of wether the extra conversion losses or the efficiency gains from more stable rpm is more impactful

[@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391]

I wonder how much more technical development would have taken place, if there were no regulations on engines what so ever, just restrictions on fuel consumption - just like I wonder, how much technical development, and advancement would have taken place in formula E if, instead on a one make series, it just had weight, size and safety regulations.

[@colinbowman8816]

Formula e has a stock chassis, battery. The rest of the drivetrain is open to development, and that's led to motor/controller development which is very worthwhile.

[@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391]

@@colinbowman8816 Thanks for that correction.

[@lucaslittmarck2122]

First achieved in small engines with opposed pistons firing against each other in the same cylinder removing all heat loss from the top. Actually reached more than 60%. Just check old delta engines here on KZbin. Time for F1 to stop with this madness and bring back the sound, revs and soul.

[@ehb403]

Legislators do not understand the phrase "if it sounds too good to be true then it is".

[@terenceiutzi4003]

And that heat is used to heat the car and defrost windows. Where Tesla uses a 10% efficient heat pump for that. End check your numbers on efficiency. You are telling me that my 300HP uses 150 HP to dissipate heat, leaving me 150 hp to drive the truck? How much gasoline does it take to heat the cab of a vehicle in the winter? My VW Beetle had a gasoline interior heater, and I got 1/3 as much gas milage in the winter!

[@gearloose703]

It is bummer these only really work at full load, which is not that interesting. It almost sounds like the F1 engine is not capable of running various combustion modes depending on the load because only full power is relevant.

[@angelracing]

they apply reverse technology to learn very high knowledge about alien spacecrafts, but we still use internal combustion engines, whose efficiency compared to 1935 until today the gain was negligible compared to everyone's needs...

[@Hydrogenblonde]

You can't reverse engineer "alien" technology. To reverse engineer anything you must already understand the technology and the physics involved, which means you would already be using that technology yourself. Reverse engineering is just stealing a design not a technology. A cave man could not reverse engineer a cell phone.

[@paradiselost9946]

imho, the main issue is that compression stroke. because of it, you need to deal with octane ratings and combustion chamber geometry. get limited to "compression ratios". "swept volumes". when i picture ANY engine as an inclined plane, they all "work wrong". bad leverage. great compressors. takes very little force on the crank to move the piston. it takes a huge amount of force on the piston to create a small force on the crank. most of the pressure goes into bearings, until its at approximately 45 degrees ATDC. the mechanism for converting force from linear to rotary is itself flawed. and there seems to be no way around it... rotors, eccentrics, swashplates, wobblers... they ALL share the same basic form of operation...

[@redvt9881]

Waissi engine, proved a better movement. But dislike its piston shaft? Design as it could be less bulky

[@paradiselost9946]

@@redvt9881 meh. nice sinusoidal motion, terrible bearing loads. that massive bearing means high speeds, high stress, and expensive. and the engine itself, its mechanical linkage... its no different to any other crank, eccentric, or other method. still has terrible mechanical advantage at TDC, still wastes all that combustion pressure in slamming bearings rather than make torque. only one i know of that does it differently is a "humphrey pump".

[@mcspikesky]

Rotary vane combustion engine?

[@paradiselost9946]

@@mcspikesky you make one that runs by itself, you will be the first to do so after 150 odd years of people fiddling with them with no success. pressure acts in all directions equally. two vanes forming any chamber have almost the same force acting on them. end result... no turning effort.

[@camshaftcasting1451]

Funny how such an expert presentation gets so few views, whereas "tuners" with not a Scooby get millions.

[@ernestbidon5027]

Well, 18 minutes in I quit. -50 % have been reached by two-strokes ship engines 30 years ago. -Lean burning is well known since over 100 years -Everybody has heard of stratified burning and all that stuff, but they are never gonna give us the interresting details anyway. The only information they let out is the stuff they are sure everybody knows. -He could at least have gotten a correct drawing of a Ricardo Dolphin!!!!! That's was the last straw.

[@camshaftcasting1451]

@@ernestbidon5027 You make some good points - the presenter himself was also clear that very little under the sun is truly new. However, we must acknowledge the supreme achievement of developing the technologies to such a fine level. 625 horsepower per litre (with rule-constrained bore, stroke, rpm ...) AND approaching 50% BTE is very impressive, to me at least.

[@mikeb3172]

Sustainable isn't relevant at all for race engines... it's for engineering advancements in general

[@jonathans8]

i wouldn't worry too much about "sustainable" fuels; it's always safe to ignore the criticisms of the ignorant. most don't even know where all of the pollution they're upset about comes from. they still think it's your car!

[@jamesbuttery3862]

So you're not worried about all the pollution were producing as a human race? Just forget about it and do as we please eh?

[@HPRaceDevelopment]

f1 already exceeding that

[@rogerfroud300]

Impressive though this is, heat engines are ultimately doomed through this still appalling efficiency. Let's not forget that this is only part of the process. The prospecting, drilling, pumping, refining, delivering that must go on before you ever get to waste half of it has to be taken into account when you compare it to Electric propulsion.

[@yakut9876]

Every technology has its disadvantages, and electricity is no exception. The semiconductor industry causes harm to the environment, as does electrochemical batteries. The efficiency of internal combustion engines ( 36% - 48% ) in large engines can actually exceed those numbers, reaching ( 60% ), and this is much more than the efficiency of photovoltaic panels ( 15% - 26% ) that they promote !

[@zzebowa]

It must be very difficult, as engineers, to keep a straight face while pretending CO2 is dangerous to the planet.

[@jeebusk]

"Okie Dokes" 45:00 everyone knows that's not properly pronounced and we have higher expectations of individuals with a proper British accent.

[@corruption1724]

Your average power plant, the source in which to charge an EV, is 35% thermal efficiency.

[@tedmoss]

Think cost, not efficiency. How about Calif. and Texas running on 100% solar and wind?

[@cj09beira]

time to go back to nuclear

[@zanebrimson7777]

Combined cycle electric power plants reach 60% thermal efficiency

[@yakut9876]

No, it is ( 60 % - 65 % )

[@Krunch2020]

My EV charges on solar panels and nuclear at night.

[@jimjam6958]

Here in the UK after 2035 we won't be able to buy a diesel or petrol car.

[@yakut9876]

But will you rely all the time on batteries that have a limited lifespan ?

[@AEVMU]

It will get pushed back.

[@AEVMU]

There isn't enough copper in the world to support the electric expansion. A lot of the worlds mining executives are warning of a massive copper shortage.

[@jimjam6958]

@@AEVMU you mean the university of Michigan study paid for by the IEF comprised of 72 oil producing countries and totally unbiased? No such thing as cannot be done, do you remember putting a man on the moon?

[@jimjam6958]

@@AEVMU besides aluminium also conducts electricity

[@angelracing]

because of the oil industry, will humanity be held hostage by archaic technologies forever?

[@deezynar]

I am guessing that you believe electric cars that haul a quarter ton or more of electric storage batteries around are sophisticated and superior. The energy density of electric storage batteries is still far below the desired level, it is nowhere near what gasoline or diesel provide. ICE tech will be around until batteries improve to the point where electric cars have similar ranges, weights, and costs. And "costs" means lifetime costs over a couple hundred thousand miles, not just purchase price. Replacing a battery pack is prohibitively expensive at this time. People who own electric cars now that have used up their initial battery pack, are warning potential electric car buyers that they regret buying theirs because replacing the batteries is punitively expensive.

[@drdoomgoat38]

​@@deezynarShut up BS peddler🤬

[@howebrad4601]

Electric drive systems are efficient, but large heavy batteries to store the same amount of energy as a couple gallons of liquid fuel; is not. Until batteries reach some kind of energy density breakthrough combustion power generation will rule, and will provide power indirectly to the wheels using electric drive systems

[@NoPrivateProperty]

the lightbulb rendered the candle obsolete

[@Gofast49442]

All that effort to put a mink stole and make up on a pig

[@CashIsKing_UseItOrLoseIt]

Less talkie talkie, more makie makie please.

[@phobosmoon4643]

what a waste of talent lol why do we pay engineers for something that .01% of society cares about?

[@ricinro]

Why bother. ICE technology is obsolete when EVs are already around 90% efficient.

[@NBSV1]

How efficient is that power generation? How much does it take to produce the batteries and dispose of them later on? ICE is much more likely to start transitioning to a hybrid setup with the combustion engine running a generator. That way you can optimize the engine to run at a specific RPM and load for maximum efficiency.

[@peted3637]

😅

[@yakut9876]

electrical technology is considered fleeting, It will only trend and then disappear. I think developing compressed air tanks and increasing their efficiency is the best, as it is a promising technology, more environmentally friendly, and simple. It is also possible to have a hybrid between combustion engines and an air engine, which would be better. The same can be said about hydraulic technology.

[@lavrentievv]

Water injection.