Ford EREV and F1 RedBull mashup

[Jseis]

After stewing on Ford’s Extended Range Electrical Vehicle tilt I began to research hybrids and Formula 1 race cars in particular. Ford has signed a partnership with RedBull. The current RedBull F1 racer is extraordinary as are all current gen F1 race cars.

Imagine a 1.6 liter V6 spooling up to 16,000 rpm, generating 850 horsepower, nearly 500 ft lbs of torque, recovering 33 seconds of braking energy per lap as well eliminating heat energy from the turbo by switching to a high speed electrical motor driven turbo.. and running 16:1 compression. Total horsepower is around 1,000 of which 150 hp is generated as electricity. The next power system unit will produce ~400+ electrical hp with the balance by the ICE. That 1.6 liter ICE is in house a in-house design! And depending on the course the racer averages 6-7 miles per gallon! Insane. An ICE at 50% efficiency is even more insane (particularly 16:1 compression ratio).

The RedBull-Ford partnership now makes sense for power unit developers interested in the mashup of fuel-controlling turbo heat offset with electric motor spooled turbo-braking-battery-electric motor mashup. Quite a challenge in dealing with the deadly killer of ICE (heat) with seamless power generation through battery-motor power, braking regen, & etc.

Turbo heat control by spooling a turbo with an electric motor to 25,000 rpm. Crazy!

A towing 700 mile range truck powered by small V-6 w/serious power/torque. While I doubt it’ll ever see the 80 mpge… 40 mpge might be possible (empty) with energy recovery and 50% ICE efficiency (I’d guess that’s possible given the F1 engines are all ready there). The new F1 parameters are 40% electrical energy output so pretty steep challenges.

But Ford’s EREV push makes sense ‘cause more range and powah! The new tech battery density curve-slope probably not going up fast enough and we all know what heat means… dealer visits.. so they’ll be happy ‘cause I smell maintenance.

I also see F1 differently. Serious engineering. Mercedes figured out how to get to an 18:1 compression ratio & RedBull found out… attempting to mimic results. Puts F1 leadership in a quandary as that’s a Mercedes advantage if no other team has it. Intrigue!

Links:



ford f1 partnership red bull - Google Search

red bull f1 engine - Google Search

red bull f1 engine horsepower - Google Search

red bull f1 engine torque specs - Google Search

red bull f1 engine miles per gallon

Sponsored

 

[ZeusDriver]

Back in the 1960's 50cc road racing motorcycles had very high specific output (the term usually used for output per CC or CI). The 50cc Suzuki V3 produced 19 hp at 20,000 rpm. 1.6 liters of the same tech would require quite a few cylinders, but would produce 608 HP, normally aspirated. Of course, remove the turbo from an F1 car, and its output would drop to about the same. Not a lot of progress in 60 years.

The 3.5 liter engine that might be used in the EREV Ford truck would produce 1368 HP at the same specific output as the Suzuki.

These little engines were anything but fuel efficient, however. But the 50% thermal efficiency figure for the formula one engine is misleading, because it includes the electric component. When the Prius engine is quoted at 38.5 % thermal efficient, they are not including any of the effects of hybridizing.

The effect of hybridizing can make a large difference in practice, as measured in fuel efficiency. For instance, the 2015 Jetta diesel had over 40% thermal efficiency but only achieved 31/45, 36 combined fuel mileage. The same year Prius achieved 51/48, 50 combined. The two cars are essentially the same weight.

There is no connection at all between F1 and any Ford truck. The 3.5 that is a candidate for the EREV, is an ordinary run-of-the-mill pickup truck engine, but if it were modified (via Atkinson cycle, etc) to run at a nearly constant rpm and load, then it could achieve a peak efficiency of perhaps 36% and remain near that peak much of the time.

The 700 mile range is not quoted as towing range for the EREV pickup. And "more range and powah" is not in Ford's plans. They have quoted acceleration figures that are worse, not better, than the existing Lightning figures. More range... of course, just as any truck running on gas will have vs the current Lightning.

Lower performance, more noise, more emissions, more maintenance, higher cost. Seems like a tough sell.

Sad that Ford has given up on EVs for a while, and are sending anyone who wants over 400 miles range in an EV over to GM.

 

[Jseis]

Well duh on the actual engine connection. The Red Bull-Ford
partnership is world brand marketing and parts manufacturing. Makes NASCAR look positively arthritic.

BTW, my dad was astounded at my ‘70 Honda SL350 redlined at 12,500 rpm. I reminded him that Honda raced 50cc bikes at over 20,000 rpm in early 60’s.

What is interesting is the F1 2026 40% battery electrical and 60% combustion power unit combo for a combined 1000 hp. Racing durability thereof (or not). And the 22,000 rpm electrical turbo.

Of note Formula 1 changes the engine rules every 5 years.

My 7.3 F250 was good for 600+ range. Most the cars I grew up with lucky to get 300ish miles, V8 sedans or flat four bugs.

What I am most curious about is the equivalent mpg of a hybrid. We’ve cheap power and expensive gas here on the coast so the Lightning at 80mpge is pretty efficient (Compared to ICE). I’d be interested in a hybrid but question the cost of getting to say 30 mpg, orc35, or 40. Battery density is the ultimate goal.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Back in the late 60's, a friend had a 1960(?) Alfa Romeo Giullieta Spyder Veloce with no redline. The tach pegged out at 8000 rpm. No turbo. Dual overhead cams. road like a brick on wheels

Sponsored