2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[wuzak]

if 2026 has less drag on straights it has less DF and braking torque - so 350 kW's worth will be available for a longer time
(unless they revert to high drag high DF at the braking point)

I believe that is the whole point of the active aero.
Reduce drag on straights but have downforce for corners.

downforce for corners or downforce for corners and downforce for braking ?

For corners and braking.

[gruntguru]

. . . 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.

[FW17]

. . . 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.

[Chuckjr]

Wait.

Burning fuel to charge batteries? Wut.

Isn’t that the same as plugging your Tesla into a gas generator to charge it, or stealing from Peter to pay Paul? Does that concept not entirely defeat the whole purpose of having batteries for “clean” energy?

So this isn’t really about clean energy, it’s about looking politically correct.

We already knew the FIA were idiots, but this would give solid scientific evidence of their stupidity. Just the mining and manufacture of the batteries and their disposal poses a far larger waste footprint than a simple clean burning naturally aspirated, or even turbo v8 engine.

Make the cars smaller and lighter for better racing without heavy batteries and burning fuel to charge them. Less weight and size means less energy needed to push and stop the cars. Why is that such a nutty idea by comparison?

The illogic of it all is extremely embarrassing to the FIA’s “science”, and frustrating to fans and the continued development of the sport. What a croc. Come on man.

[mzso]

Just the mining and manufacture of the batteries and their disposal poses a far larger waste footprint than a simple clean burning naturally aspirated, or even turbo v8 engine.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

[Zynerji]

Just the mining and manufacture of the batteries and their disposal poses a far larger waste footprint than a simple clean burning naturally aspirated, or even turbo v8 engine.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Not fully. The unregulated mining uses lots of children and very little safety gear.

[wuzak]

We already knew the FIA were idiots, but this would give solid scientific evidence of their stupidity. Just the mining and manufacture of the batteries and their disposal poses a far larger waste footprint than a simple clean burning naturally aspirated, or even turbo v8 engine.

The FIA held talks about the 2026 PU rules with interested manufacturers, and this is what they came up with.

Don't blame it all on the FIA, since, according to Pat Symonds, they wanted front and rear energy recovery and no fuel burning.

[Tommy Cookers]

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

[gruntguru]

Just the mining and manufacture of the batteries and their disposal poses a far larger waste footprint than a simple clean burning naturally aspirated, or even turbo v8 engine.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Not fully. The unregulated mining uses lots of children and very little safety gear.

Although you are correct, it is wicked to conflate lack of mining regulation in a 3rd world country with vehicle propulsion choices.

A lot of clothing is made by underpaid children in SE Asian sweatshops. Do we stop buying clothes, just cheap clothes or do we have to run a deep investigation every time we shop for clothes? Or perhaps we could just campaign for better supply chain regulation?

[FW17]

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Not fully. The unregulated mining uses lots of children and very little safety gear.

Although you are correct, it is wicked to conflate lack of mining regulation in a 3rd world country with vehicle propulsion choices.

A lot of clothing is made by underpaid children in SE Asian sweatshops. Do we stop buying clothes, just cheap clothes or do we have to run a deep investigation every time we shop for clothes? Or perhaps we could just campaign for better supply chain regulation?

It is sweatshop or starvation. No different to the dawn of industrial revolution in the west.

[Zynerji]

This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Not fully. The unregulated mining uses lots of children and very little safety gear.

Although you are correct, it is wicked to conflate lack of mining regulation in a 3rd world country with vehicle propulsion choices.

A lot of clothing is made by underpaid children in SE Asian sweatshops. Do we stop buying clothes, just cheap clothes or do we have to run a deep investigation every time we shop for clothes? Or perhaps we could just campaign for better supply chain regulation?

Not only are you justifying child labor in third world mines, your entire gaslight is truly beneath the dignity of these forums.

[gruntguru]

Not fully. The unregulated mining uses lots of children and very little safety gear.

Although you are correct, it is wicked to conflate lack of mining regulation in a 3rd world country with vehicle propulsion choices.
A lot of clothing is made by underpaid children in SE Asian sweatshops. Do we stop buying clothes, just cheap clothes or do we have to run a deep investigation every time we shop for clothes? Or perhaps we could just campaign for better supply chain regulation?

Not only are you justifying child labor in third world mines, your entire gaslight is truly beneath the dignity of these forums.

It would require a twisted or deficient mind to interpret my post as justifying child labor.

On the other hand, your original post is offensive in suggesting there is any connection between EV advocacy (or ownership) and child labor in the Congo.

[Zynerji]

Although you are correct, it is wicked to conflate lack of mining regulation in a 3rd world country with vehicle propulsion choices.
A lot of clothing is made by underpaid children in SE Asian sweatshops. Do we stop buying clothes, just cheap clothes or do we have to run a deep investigation every time we shop for clothes? Or perhaps we could just campaign for better supply chain regulation?

Not only are you justifying child labor in third world mines, your entire gaslight is truly beneath the dignity of these forums.

It would require a twisted or deficient mind to interpret my post as justifying child labor.

On the other hand, your original post is offensive in suggesting there is any connection between EV advocacy (or ownership) and child labor in the Congo.

[Chuckjr]

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.

[wuzak]

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.

Will the ERS justify its own weight and contribution to drag?