2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

I guess the people that actually work on these things should give you a call then?

Perhaps. They could also stop claiming nonsense.

But it is the combination of ICE, Turbocharger and MGU-H which makes it complex. These parts are designed to match eachother perfectly. Any change to one of these, or even new fuel brings the need redesign and manufacture of those parts.

This feels vastly over-exaggerated.

• The electric motor for one if once optimized for such high rpm running it will always function optimally. No matter how everything else changes, it's working conditions remain the same. You can always want it lighter and smaller, but that's not a combination effect.
• The ICE and the turbo charger is always designed together, but even then from the info engine manufacturers released, overwhelmingly their efforts were spent on the combustion process the make it more efficient and such powerful. And another big cost was following Mercedes and re-designing the whole thing for split turbos .

Most of which feels costly on it's own, and more importantly, already developed.

What definitely requires gross redesigns is suddenly dropping the MGU-H. So why bother, if not going for something drastically different? (It would come handy for RB, since they have a time limit on Honda's IP, but otherwise its nonsense.)

[mzso]

which drives more natural.

That doesn't sound like an argument for anything meaningful. But it is vague as hell.

[Stu]

I guess the people that actually work on these things should give you a call then?

Perhaps. They could also stop claiming nonsense.

But it is the combination of ICE, Turbocharger and MGU-H which makes it complex. These parts are designed to match eachother perfectly. Any change to one of these, or even new fuel brings the need redesign and manufacture of those parts.

This feels vastly over-exaggerated.
[*]The electric motor for one if once optimized for such high rpm running it will always function optimally. No matter how everything else changes, it's working conditions remain the same. You can always want it lighter and smaller, but that's not a combination effect.
[*]The ICE and the turbo charger is always designed together, but even then from the info engine manufacturers released, overwhelmingly their efforts were spent on the combustion process the make it more efficient and such powerful. And another big cost was following Mercedes and re-designing the whole thing for split turbos .

Most of which feels costly on it's own, and more importantly, already developed.

What definitely requires gross redesigns is suddenly dropping the MGU-H. So why bother, if not going for something drastically different? (It would come handy for RB, since they have a time limit on Honda's IP, but otherwise its nonsense.)

As they look towards further cost reductions (engine charges by the builders already goes part way to achieving this), surely a standardised “GU-H” would be a good middle-ground (these are already commercially available), this would still allow for the efficiency of the engine to be maintained, while throttle lag considerations would determine how the boost is controlled (it may lead to some power reduction as it would no longer be possible to ‘drive’ the turbo artificially). Doing that would allow energy recovery to be increased with a front axle “GU-K”. Personally I’m not averse to 4wd and allowing it to be a “MGU-K”, but from a purity perspective Rwd makes sense.

I would also go for a reduction in available fuel volume (to offset the energy potential created by front axle recovery), not sure what that would equate to as a numbers reduction, but it would offset some of the extra mass (as would smaller/lighter front brakes and hubs). I would also like to see a split on battery architecture, allowing a mix of super capacitors and li-ion for short and long term storage/use.

All a bit pie-in-the-sky, but you have to believe in the power of dreams!

[NL_Fer]

Yeah

Fia standard GU-H would be a nice middle ground. But I could think some manufacturers will block it, because of Porsche’s experience with it on the 919 hypercar. They preferred it than, above the front axle MGU-K. But who knows, maybe the two axle MGU-K is the better option with 2026 electric motor technology.

[NL_Fer]

which drives more natural.

That doesn't sound like an argument for anything meaningful. But it is vague as hell.

Watch WEC, it is what the Toyota drivers said when they switched from TS050 to GR10.

[garrett]

expensive and overcomplicated MGU-H will be sacked from 2026 onwards, as Mercedes and Renault have abandoned their opposition.

It smells like bullshit. The H is nothing but an electric motor on a shaft, that has already been developed. Granted, how you utilize it to recover and the power it recovers and to spin the turbo to reach optimal performance is not trivial, but they had the past 7 years to optimize that. Nothing to spend there either.
So what does throwing it out actually gains? I come up empty.
It will bring back turbo lag, which is a regression. It will certainly make the PU less efficient, which goes completely against their claimed goals....

It's kind of surprising that Ferrari is okay with it. Their ICE is the worst since cheat mode was blocked. Taking away H can only hurt them.

"Most of them reject four-wheel drive for reasons of weight."

Say what? If you have the generators already there, it adds exactly zero weight to use them as motors as well.

Definetely not. You should consider that the decisions regarding the future PU is not necessarily taken on sole technical but rather political reasons as well. Good or bad, a decision has to be taken anyway, otherwise the FIA will impose the new regulations. The MGU-H obviously has been seen as an obstacle in that, and, as e.g. it never will make it to relevance concerning the car production, it has to be sacked. Maybe (my impression) it is the compensation for keeping the V6 engines, what Mercedes and Renault demanded. If the electric power has to be increased up to 400 + kW and the MGU-H will be demobilized there logically has to be found another solution, which only can rely on better charging batteries and the front part of the car. One thing is for sure: the power harvesting from exhaust gases will be history in 2026.

[mzso]

surely a standardised “GU-H” would be a good middle-ground (these are already commercially available), this would still allow for the efficiency of the engine to be maintained, while throttle lag considerations would determine how the boost is controlled (it may lead to some power reduction as it would no longer be possible to ‘drive’ the turbo artificially).

You mean the H would only generate? What would it solve? It's already there, might as well use it to spin the turbo.

which drives more natural.

That doesn't sound like an argument for anything meaningful. But it is vague as hell.

Watch WEC, it is what the Toyota drivers said when they switched from TS050 to GR10.

Yeah, but fussy drivers whining about "feel" counts for exactly nothing when considering an engine formula.
They have to drive what's given and that's that. (a rally driver might feel the exact opposite.)

[NL_Fer]

https://topgear-autoguide.com/category/ ... 1607776408

This interview Mario Illien illustrates the cost involved with the MGU-H.

The MGU-H is to be abolished a good thing according to Illien. “The development of the MGU-H costs as much as that of the combustion engine. An incredible amount of money is wasted there. Whenever you change the characteristics of the engine towards better combustion, you have to adapt the turbocharger and MGU-H. That means new turbine and compression blades for better recuperation. '

In another interview the cost of an F1 Turbocharger is about 100000 because they are custom made. So for every change in the combustion, the need to redesign the TC and built a new unit. Than spend another few 1000 on fuel on the dyno to test and calibrate the new combo.

The cost could be kept down, if they would freeze the powerunit in design. But they want new fuel, another balance in combustion vs electric power, a new entrant. So a freeze is not the wish after 2025.

[mzso]

Definetely not. You should consider that the decisions regarding the future PU is not necessarily taken on sole technical but rather political reasons as well. Good or bad, a decision has to be taken anyway, otherwise the FIA will impose the new regulations. The MGU-H obviously has been seen as an obstacle in that, and, as e.g. it never will make it to relevance concerning the car production, it has to be sacked.

Maybe, but the reasons I keep hearing quoted about the complexity being expensive (especially at this point) seem rather false.

If the electric power has to be increased up to 400 + kW and the MGU-H will be demobilized there logically has to be found another solution, which only can rely on better charging batteries and the front part of the car.

But still, why bother? It's all-in-all not a very significant change. It mainly just accomplishes burning money...
If they still dedicated to playing ostrich and avoid electrification, then why not got to something drastically different and potentially useful like wave disk engines or rkm/liquid-piston rotary. It feels like we're heading towards another 10+ years of irrelevant F1 curiosity drivetrains. With their bio/syn fuel experiment/fantasy.
Taking away an electric MG here and adding some there doesn't really make much of a difference. Neither is adding or removing some cylinders.

One thing is for sure: the power harvesting from exhaust gases will be history in 2026.

The only thing certain is what already have happened.

[mzso]

https://topgear-autoguide.com/category/ ... 1607776408

This interview Mario Illien illustrates the cost involved with the MGU-H.

The MGU-H is to be abolished a good thing according to Illien. “The development of the MGU-H costs as much as that of the combustion engine. An incredible amount of money is wasted there. Whenever you change the characteristics of the engine towards better combustion, you have to adapt the turbocharger and MGU-H. That means new turbine and compression blades for better recuperation. '

In another interview the cost of an F1 Turbocharger is about 100000 because they are custom made. So for every change in the combustion, the need to redesign the TC and built a new unit. Than spend another few 1000 on fuel on the dyno to test and calibrate the new combo.

The cost could be kept down, if they would freeze the powerunit in design. But they want new fuel, another balance in combustion vs electric power, a new entrant. So a freeze is not the wish after 2025.

That still sounds like mostly an issue that stems from their drive toward efficiency. They'll still need to redesign the turbo for optimal performance and efficiency. Without the H I wouldn't be surprised if the importance of the turbo increases.
They'll just waste the energy that can be recuperated now.

[Zynerji]

https://topgear-autoguide.com/category/ ... 1607776408

This interview Mario Illien illustrates the cost involved with the MGU-H.

The MGU-H is to be abolished a good thing according to Illien. “The development of the MGU-H costs as much as that of the combustion engine. An incredible amount of money is wasted there. Whenever you change the characteristics of the engine towards better combustion, you have to adapt the turbocharger and MGU-H. That means new turbine and compression blades for better recuperation. '

In another interview the cost of an F1 Turbocharger is about 100000 because they are custom made. So for every change in the combustion, the need to redesign the TC and built a new unit. Than spend another few 1000 on fuel on the dyno to test and calibrate the new combo.

The cost could be kept down, if they would freeze the powerunit in design. But they want new fuel, another balance in combustion vs electric power, a new entrant. So a freeze is not the wish after 2025.

They dont "have" to do it. It is a choice for more performance. With the cost cap, who gaf?

[Tommy Cookers]

... a standardised “GU-H” would be a good middle-ground (these are already commercially available)
... energy recovery to be increased with a front axle “GU-K”.
Personally I’m not averse to 4wd and allowing it to be a “MGU-K”, but from a purity perspective Rwd makes sense.

the MGU-H is at the limit of transistor's combination of high switching frequency (rpm) and high power (current)

isn't K recovery at most circuits far less than the permitted 2 MJ ?
K recovery is difficult (package-inefficient really) - as during braking power plummets with DF and speed
K recovery is helped by 8 gears keeping the revs pretty constant - this is unavailable to front axle recovery

front GU-K or MGU-K by design fiddles (eg passive pole slipping and skipping) unpoliceable driver aids

ok front GU-K makes some sense (as has been said)

[NL_Fer]

Now that actually sound like a very interesting and road relevant development area. Increase front axle recovery without gearboxes and spoiling the brake feel. Maybe it would make even more sense to make the front recovery only, to increase the efficiency.

[mzso]

They dont "have" to do it. It is a choice for more performance. With the cost cap, who gaf?

But the cost cap doesn't apply to power units.

front GU-K or MGU-K by design fiddles (eg passive pole slipping and skipping) unpoliceable driver aids

The still have a standard ECU from McLaren, right? It only needs to be extended with the front wheels. It won't be more possible than now.

Maybe it would make even more sense to make the front recovery only, to increase the efficiency.

That would be interesting, but I doubt they'd do it. It would make racing/overtaking better with the longer distances, so obviously they won't make it that way... (I say that with relative certainty, because it's not realistic for electric motors to suck up 3000kW+ peak braking power that the brake discs can do.)

[Zynerji]

They dont "have" to do it. It is a choice for more performance. With the cost cap, who gaf?

But the cost cap doesn't apply to power units.

front GU-K or MGU-K by design fiddles (eg passive pole slipping and skipping) unpoliceable driver aids

The still have a standard ECU from McLaren, right? It only needs to be extended with the front wheels. It won't be more possible than now.

Maybe it would make even more sense to make the front recovery only, to increase the efficiency.

That would be interesting, but I doubt they'd do it. It would make racing/overtaking better with the longer distances, so obviously they won't make it that way... (I say that with relative certainty, because it's not realistic for electric motors to suck up 3000kW+ peak braking power that the brake discs can do.)

Well, they "need" to re-optimize the MGUH/Turbo every combustion update like my kids "need" a Netflix account... The cost is irrelevant.