UMmmmm, actualy there are no details, it's more like bait, layed out in front of the rabbit hole.
What it does outline/hint at is the methodology of there thinking about engine development, within the arbitrary rules of F1. And what they, and everybody else leaves out, is that limitations in material sciences is the reason for the engineering heroics, and that access to say, the single crystal materials used for jet turbine hot section blades, would allow higher combustion temps and pressures, and greater efficiency, in NA engine, that would outperform anything built yet. The reason that F1 cant do that is money, and
compared to true airospace development,F1 has lint
in there pockets, and have falken back onto 1940's
turbocompound aircraft engine technology.
zero mechanical details, nothing verifiable is zero information, plus there is a long venerable tradition of lying like hell whenever you talk about competitive advantages :)
efficiency goes with materials, as a higher temperature and shock loading, will permit higher compression ratios, and that is as far as I know the only way to exract energy from a piston engine
well unless the piston part is just viewed as a gas generator, but whoa betsy, the rabbit hole is looming before us, and having listened to folks involved in engine development (including F1), I am just a spectator,engines are hard, and these days anyone who could do ICE, is looking at other stuff, or retirement
ceramics have come close, but dont have the reiability when produced at the scale needed for
mass market
