2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[wuzak]

Sure, the teams and the FIA are supporting all this, but is not the FIA the de facto guilty party since they impose on the teams the direction they want?

The FIA are in a tricky position.

They have to create rules that are financially sustainable and environmentally sustainable enough that F1 is not kicked out of countries that aren't the Middle East.

F1 cars need engines/power units.

The FIA could specify engines/power units that small specialist firms like Cosworth or Judd could supply, and quite cheaply too. But the manufacturers would beat them at that game too, whilst also making it too expensive for such firms to compete.

So, the FIA are largely beholden to the Manufacturers wishes in regards engine architecture.

For the 2013 rules they set up a committee to formulate the rules. With input from Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and VAG they came up with 1.6L 4 cylinder turbo hyrbids with MGUH and MGUK.

Of course VAG quickly dropped out, and the others agreed, with the teams, that a V6 would be better suited for an F1 car.

A similar situation happened regarding the 2026 rules. A committee was set up with interested parties involved, as well as FIA technical delegates.

The main players were the four current suppliers plus Audi and Porsche.

The latter two were not too keen on the MGUH, so that got dropped. Making the ERS worse.

Then, of course, Porsche stuffed up their entry into F1 and disappeared.

Now we have a formula that makes Audi happy, but I dare say won't make race fans happy.

It's not all on the FIA - the PU suppliers agreed to this, actually pushed for this.

[gruntguru]

Burning fuel to charge batteries? Wut.
... Does that concept not entirely defeat the whole purpose of having batteries for “clean” energy?

it does not
burning fuel to charge batteries reduces the fuel and plant costs that would otherwise occur
as do the road hybrids
(ok plus these use a cheaper more efficient transmission than the ICEV can)

ie when only partial ICE power is needed for propulsion adding generating load reduces the fuel cost of that power
(because the ICE is less efficient at partial power than at high power)
using stored power saves fuel and plant costs (the alternative being a bigger and more powerful ICE)
(ok plus the F1 transmission is helpful to the efficiency of the electrical side)

F1 and (before that) GP race rules never ignored the road relevance of their times

yes ideally F1 might have been allowed mechanical energy storage
Williams were big in that

Tommy, I have read your posts here for years. You are an extremely valuable contributing asset to this community. I learn from your posts most every time I visit this site. Thank you. Considering your beyond PhD level of knowledge and experience in everything F1 tech, I’ve a general question.

If given the option between a v8 multi-turbo engine, or an equal in power hybrid unit like used in F1 now and coming soon, which is truly greener when considering the whole picture from source to disposal? Honestly. It seems with this F1 hybrid technology, logic and reason aren’t the order of the day, whereas political correctness and pyrrhic victories are — so I want the real skinny.

Meaning, the energy expended to manufacture and then drive/support a hybrid are needlessly excessive. Today’s F1 cars are obese, lengthy, and goofy-proportioned. The carbon based energies used pushing and stopping an oversized, ancillaries laden F1 car that is possibly hundreds of pounds heavier than what a turbo v8 would amount, seems a self-defeating, anti-racing endeavor from the get-go. A force fit at best.

The costs of sourcing, manufacturing, recycling and disposing of batteries — which we know is a sketchy business as far as cobalt and third world sourced minerals are concerned — is exorbitant. Plus the enormous volume of massive trucks & fuel to mine the exotic materials needed for batteries. Hybrids seem a much, much more earth destructive process, while also acting as a needless usury scheme for teams.

Speaking of usury... the amount of very expensive and highly skilled technological personnel required to support a rocket science level power unit is nuts. Hundreds more people are needed for hybrids as compared to support a simple (relatively speaking) turbo ICE. I get the need to have a test bed for manufacturers, but does it take dedicating and arguably destroying a sport to get that job done?

It all seems much more like a globalist pot latch than an honest to goodness attempt to stroke Mother Nature. As you described, they are even looking at burning the very fuel they are attempting to avoid just to have enough umph (which still isn’t enough umph according to some here) to charge these clumsy batteries to make an obese car go fast. Sure, the teams and the FIA are supporting all this, but is not the FIA the de facto guilty party since they impose on the teams the direction they want? It seems painfully similar to when Henry Ford said people could have any color car they wanted so long as they chose black. The teams can choose any power source they want as long as it’s hybrid. The similarities are uncanny. The FIA seems hell-bent to put lipstick on a pig by appearing carbon friendly, when in fact everyone knows racing and carbon friendliness are non-congruent.

Tell me what I’m missing because it seems the hybrids represent and bring about most everything anti-racing: overweight, disproportion, inertia, silent operation, etc.

They should stop flying the circus around the world in jumbos too.
Sail power.

[wuzak]

]They should stop flying the circus around the world in jumbos too.
Sail power.

No doubt the FIA gets the blame for that too.

Except FOM/Liberty sets the calendar.

[Tommy Cookers]

... If given the option between a v8 multi-turbo engine, or an equal in power hybrid unit like used in F1 now and coming soon, which is truly greener when considering the whole picture from source to disposal? ....

well yes ....
UK actor & racer & B.Sc Physics/M.Sc Control Engineering graduate Rowan 'MR Bean' Atkinson just said (about BEVs) wte
'unless your current ICE is only fit for scrap - don't buy a new BE vehicle as the initial carbon cost is so high'

hybrids being partial EVs and (UK) electricity now being about 50% decarbonised ... won't things be nice when it's 80% !

[Pat Pending]

well yes ....
UK actor & racer & B.Sc Physics/M.Sc Control Engineering graduate Rowan 'MR Bean' Atkinson just said (about BEVs) wte
'unless your current ICE is only fit for scrap - don't buy a new BE vehicle as the initial carbon cost is so high'

hybrids being partial EVs and (UK) electricity now being about 50% decarbonised ... won't things be nice when it's 80% !

And he was subsequently widely criticized for that article because the evidence just doesn't support it.
Of course you can find some study somewhere to support whatever position you want to take on this, but the broadly accepted view is whilst ev manufacturing does have a higher co2 footprint, over the life of the vehicle the total co2 will be lower (to a degree that varies depending on how the charging electricity is generated).
Where he is right is if you have a reasonably new ice car then it is better to just keep running it until it actually needs replacing. That's also true of most other consumer items - reduce, reuse, recycle.

[Juzh]

. . . The usual load transfer to the front/more front braking will be gone, max braking at the rear at initial stage with front brakes modulated for stability and bias moving forward towards the latter half. . . . .

What you are suggesting would reduce stopping power - that aint gonna happen.

Just looking at this video and we can see the trade off between powerful hybrid power making up time vs F1 car making up time on the brakes. A compromise to have longer braking and longer deployment vs shorter braking shorter deployment. It will be a matter for the race as in qualifying they will have max braking and deployment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYvWZiOelzE

There's no onboard footage of 919 evo for it's fastest lap. Only footage we have is a lap that's around 2s slower, so video creator just sped up that lap to match actual fastest lap claimed by porsche (no footage, just believe what they say), so the entire comparison is skewed as it just linearly increases speed everywhere for the evo.
In any case, general premise of the video is probably still correct, if somewhat distorted. 919 evo is much faster on straight, f1 cars much faster in corners.

[FW17]

What you are suggesting would reduce stopping power - that aint gonna happen.

Just looking at this video and we can see the trade off between powerful hybrid power making up time vs F1 car making up time on the brakes. A compromise to have longer braking and longer deployment vs shorter braking shorter deployment. It will be a matter for the race as in qualifying they will have max braking and deployment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYvWZiOelzE

There's no onboard footage of 919 evo for it's fastest lap. Only footage we have is a lap that's around 2s slower, so video creator just sped up that lap to match actual fastest lap claimed by porsche (no footage, just believe what they say), so the entire comparison is skewed as it just linearly increases speed everywhere for the evo.
In any case, general premise of the video is probably still correct, if somewhat distorted. 919 evo is much faster on straight, f1 cars much faster in corners.

Not much faster in the corners, but much time gained during braking as 919 evo regenerate more energy.

[Hoffman900]

Just looking at this video and we can see the trade off between powerful hybrid power making up time vs F1 car making up time on the brakes. A compromise to have longer braking and longer deployment vs shorter braking shorter deployment. It will be a matter for the race as in qualifying they will have max braking and deployment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYvWZiOelzE

There's no onboard footage of 919 evo for it's fastest lap. Only footage we have is a lap that's around 2s slower, so video creator just sped up that lap to match actual fastest lap claimed by porsche (no footage, just believe what they say), so the entire comparison is skewed as it just linearly increases speed everywhere for the evo.
In any case, general premise of the video is probably still correct, if somewhat distorted. 919 evo is much faster on straight, f1 cars much faster in corners.

Not much faster in the corners, but much time gained during braking as 919 evo regenerate more energy.

Braking on all cars is grip limited, which is an extension if aero. If it is slower in the corners due to less downforce, it’s going to be slower in the braking zone as well.

Race Engine Technology issues 124 and 125 have huge deep dives / dossiers on the Porsche 919 PU and the electronics side of it. Worth it if people want to actually know what they were doing.

124:

https://www.highpowermedia.com/Product/ ... -issue-124

125:
https://www.highpowermedia.com/Product/ ... -issue-125

[wuzak]

Probably not the place for this, but:

The MGU-K will recover a value of approximately 3162Kj , obtained from the kinetic energy dissipated by the cars when braking. While the energy recovery acquired through the enthalpy of the exhaust gases will allow the MGU-H to collect approximately 848 Kj . A total, adding the precious contribution of the motor generators, which reaches 4010KJ for each passage. An advantage that translates into around 4 seconds per lap, with a truly notable increase in top speed.

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2023 ... rrari.html

I'd suggest the numbers for the MGUK and MGUH are switched.

848KJ is approximately 9-10kW recovery, on average, for the MGUH (using 90s lap time). Which would equate to ~20kW on average when at full throtlle.

3162kJ equates to an average of ~35kW (90s) or 70kW (assuming time at full throttle of 50%).

3162kJ also exceeds the 2MJ per lap MGUK to ES allowed by the rules, so they would have to find something to do with the extra 1MJ odd.

3162kJ would also equate to ~ 26s of braking, while 848kJ equates to ~7s.

And we know that at Suzuka there aren't very many heavy braking zones.

A short braking zone at T1, a bit at the first Degner, some more at the hairpin, a bit at Spoon Curve, and the biggest braking at the chicane at the end of the lap.

This would look to be an issue for the 2026 rules, making them burn the fuel to recover the maximum energy per lap.

[Martin Keene]

Just add the MGUH to this setup...

It would be more like this:
http://www.gasturbineworld.co.uk/wpimag ... _05_06.jpg

http://www.gasturbineworld.co.uk/bladon.html

But probably with more stages.

Possibly a smaller version of one of these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ped%29.jpg

While I agree, 100% with what you are saying. What I am saying is the turboMGUH-jet could literally be done today with what the teams already have. Like it could realistically be a weekend project by a couple guys. Add 2 500hp electric K units and wire it as a manual differential, so the driver runs the diff.in real-time with steering wheel triggers. Throw in the after-burner capable exhaust thrust for overtaking, and we got a green crowd pleaser (CNG)!

Elon has mentioned a jet powered Tesla. This would be it!

Someone built something very similar to hillclimb it! Used a helicopter turbine as a turbo so full boost could be reached regardless of engine speed.

https://forum.wscc.co.uk/forum/topic/51 ... for-turbo/

https://raceenginedesign.co.uk/the-manic-beattie/

[michl420]

Can we stop throwing handbags and ask the real question:

Does the 2026 ERS actually benefit the performance of the 2026 F1 car?

It will contribute about 1/8 of the weight of the 2026 car, maybe more.
2026 cars are likely to be heavier than the current cars.
It will give power boost only for a small portion of most laps (Austria might be OK)
It contributes to drag as it requires cooling. The 2026 ERS will likely need a lot more cooling than the current ERS due to the increased power.
With the rules as they stand the cars will burn extra fuel to meet the energy recovery target (9MJ/lap) - though probably not the 30kg that Symonds suggested.
Cars will run out of energy early in the straights and/or will significantly reduce power over the length of the straight - which likely means that the cars will be significantly slower at the end of the straight than near the beginning (some will ask if we will notice - I think a car going from 1000hp to 500hp will have a noticeable effect on the speed - it could be like the difference between an out lap and a push lap in qualifying, which is very noticeable).
It is possible that the cars will be down to 400hp at the end of the straights for a few seconds as the cars recover energy.
Overtaking will no longer be done by outbraking into a corner - it will be done by expending more energy at the start of a straight or recovering less energy at the end of the straight.
sho
Will the ERS justify its own weight and contribution to drag?

My oppionion, from a technical point, it is a regression. The MGUH was a good thing, and I think you agree with me on this. For the pure racing-fans it is also another knee-jerk for the "green world". But as your numbers (which are always very interesting) suggest, the racing will be very similar to the 2013-2017 WEC era. And the fight there I do enjoy.

[Juzh]

But as your numbers (which are always very interesting) suggest, the racing will be very similar to the 2013-2017 WEC era. And the fight there I do enjoy.

Lift & coast for 2,5 km on a 5 km track? This aint real racing. WEC was (and still is) a farce imo because of this. If you really want to overtake someone just deploy energy for 1 second more and you have 40 km/h extra. It will be 10 times worse than drs, that much is obvious by now.

[wuzak]

My opinion is that an ERS with an MGUH works for a vehicle that spends a lot of its time at full throttle, or near-full throttle.

The 2026 ERS, to me, is more suitable for vehicles that do a lot of stopping and starting. Less for racing, more for commuting.

[Bill]

But as your numbers (which are always very interesting) suggest, the racing will be very similar to the 2013-2017 WEC era. And the fight there I do enjoy.

Lift & coast for 2,5 km on a 5 km track? This aint real racing. WEC was (and still is) a farce imo because of this. If you really want to overtake someone just deploy energy for 1 second more and you have 40 km/h extra. It will be 10 times worse than drs, that much is obvious by now.

wec was spetacular with those 1000hp monsters that could recover energy with all wheels,the toyota used at one point supercapacitors instead of batteries ,audi used diesel engines .it was exciting times for tech

[wuzak]

This weekend they are racing in Qatar.

The track has 1 major braking zone and all but one corner would be considered medium or high speed. 75% of the lap is at full throttle.

It seems unlikely that there would be significant brake recovery, nor would it appear that there would be much in the way of partial throttle recovery, as even at part throttle much of the circuit would require more power than the ICE can give.

So what do they do?

Sacrifice straight line speed to recover energy to be used in the high speed corners?

It would seem that the ERS will largely dead weight at such a circuit.