2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[adrianjordan]

There are definitely applications for a H-unit on the normal roads. Not with commuter cars that only use 10% of their power for 99% of the time, but there are a lot of commercial vehicles that are within the range. Think city busses, delivery trucks, etc etc.

Ambulances!! We rev the bejeezuz out of them all the time!!

I’ll see your ambulances and raise you rental cars!

Aaah, but most ambulances ARE rented.....well, leased, but still lol.

Trust me, we kill engines more often than Sato used to!!

[FW17]

So guys, another question.

How do would feel about a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every powerunit. The manufacturers can only compete in consumption, packaging and reliability.

Could be interesting to see, if the best engines is not giving 0,3-0,6s advantage in qualifing and the best chassis-driver combo is in front. Than in the race the beter engine can give a little advantage and maybe some more battle/overtakes if the better engine qualifies further back.

We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

Should have been introduced in 2014, same way the V8s were capped to almost same power. The manufacturers could have been allowed unlimited time perfecting the power delivery to be as flat as possible.

Instead they had a token system

[mclaren111]

So guys, another question.

How do would feel about a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every powerunit. The manufacturers can only compete in consumption, packaging and reliability.

Could be interesting to see, if the best engines is not giving 0,3-0,6s advantage in qualifing and the best chassis-driver combo is in front. Than in the race the beter engine can give a little advantage and maybe some more battle/overtakes if the better engine qualifies further back.

We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

Should have been introduced in 2014, same way the V8s were capped to almost same power. The manufacturers could have been allowed unlimited time perfecting the power delivery to be as flat as possible.

Instead they had a token system

Seriously...

It's almost a Spec Series now with the 2022 rules...

And the PU's are frozen next year with minimal changes / updates available...

[Stu]

So guys, another question.

How do would feel about a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every powerunit. The manufacturers can only compete in consumption, packaging and reliability.

Could be interesting to see, if the best engines is not giving 0,3-0,6s advantage in qualifing and the best chassis-driver combo is in front. Than in the race the beter engine can give a little advantage and maybe some more battle/overtakes if the better engine qualifies further back.

We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

Should have been introduced in 2014, same way the V8s were capped to almost same power. The manufacturers could have been allowed unlimited time perfecting the power delivery to be as flat as possible.

Instead they had a token system

“Area under the curve” is the best method (rather than a max), it allows for a peaky delivery (with higher max output), or flexible delivery (with lower max output). Keep the fuel flow restrictions, though.

One strange thing with the current engine rule-set is that when they adjusted the amount of fuel that could be used during a GP they INCREASED the fuel mass available (which goes against the original philosophy of the whole reason for the change in power units); fuel saving is no longer spoken of, presumably because there is little danger of them running out!?

[wuzak]

One strange thing with the current engine rule-set is that when they adjusted the amount of fuel that could be used during a GP they INCREASED the fuel mass available (which goes against the original philosophy of the whole reason for the change in power units); fuel saving is no longer spoken of, presumably because there is little danger of them running out!?

They increased the fuel allowed at the same time as they gave the cars more downforce and drag.

That is not to say they use the full 110kg allowed, or that there is not fuel saving involved. There was fuel saving in the V8 era with no refuelling.

[Tommy Cookers]

... a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every power unit. .... We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

“Area under the curve” is the best method (rather than a max), it allows for a peaky delivery (with higher max output), or flexible delivery (with lower max output). Keep the fuel flow restrictions, though.

don't the current F1 fuel flow (and mapping) regulations already dictate the shape of every engine's torque curve ?

engines have an infinite number of (steady-state) torque curves - and dynamic torque curves also

[Jolle]

... a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every power unit. .... We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

“Area under the curve” is the best method (rather than a max), it allows for a peaky delivery (with higher max output), or flexible delivery (with lower max output). Keep the fuel flow restrictions, though.

don't the current F1 fuel flow regulations already dictate the shape of every engine's torque curve ?

In some ways yes, it basicly is flat from 10,500 on, and so it the power output (loosing some because of higher friction losses at higher rpm), but not the amount of torque (and therefore power). The more efficient an engine is in converting the fuel into power, the higher the torque and power is. I think what poster here means is a power cap/maximum disguised as a torque limit.

[Stu]

One strange thing with the current engine rule-set is that when they adjusted the amount of fuel that could be used during a GP they INCREASED the fuel mass available (which goes against the original philosophy of the whole reason for the change in power units); fuel saving is no longer spoken of, presumably because there is little danger of them running out!?

They increased the fuel allowed at the same time as they gave the cars more downforce and drag.

That is not to say they use the full 110kg allowed, or that there is not fuel saving involved. There was fuel saving in the V8 era with no refuelling.

The increase was still a regressive step. It basically made it that teams had no choice but chase maximum downforce by adding drag. A progressive solution would be to allow it, but keep the existing fuel mass; this would force the teams into a compromise on set-up and mapping/qualifying/race strategy.

[Stu]

... a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every power unit. .... We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

“Area under the curve” is the best method (rather than a max), it allows for a peaky delivery (with higher max output), or flexible delivery (with lower max output). Keep the fuel flow restrictions, though.

don't the current F1 fuel flow (and mapping) regulations already dictate the shape of every engine's torque curve ?

engines have an infinite number of (steady-state) torque curves - and dynamic torque curves also

They do now (the post-Ferrari-gate TD specifying fuel usage at various throttle applications does do that), but the original regulations (pre-March 2020) only put a cap on fuel flow.

[mzso]

So guys, another question.

How do would feel about a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every powerunit. The manufacturers can only compete in consumption, packaging and reliability.

Could be interesting to see, if the best engines is not giving 0,3-0,6s advantage in qualifing and the best chassis-driver combo is in front. Than in the race the beter engine can give a little advantage and maybe some more battle/overtakes if the better engine qualifies further back.

We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

Nah, that's too rational for F1... They'd never go for something like that. They'd rather prescribe the the layout the bore length, etc, up to even the screws that are used to hold the engine together.

I think it would work fine and would be a lot more interesting with opening up all other technical restriction. And also a separate cost cap for engine development. (otherwise Mercedes would just keep funding their championship victories)

As long as the fuel limit stay the fuel flow limit could be dropped.

[mzso]

Seriously...

It's almost a Spec Series now with the 2022 rules...

And the PU's are frozen next year with minimal changes / updates available...

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[FW17]

So guys, another question.

How do would feel about a capped power output? Like in the WEC LMDh class, where the torque output curve is identical for every powerunit. The manufacturers can only compete in consumption, packaging and reliability.

Could be interesting to see, if the best engines is not giving 0,3-0,6s advantage in qualifing and the best chassis-driver combo is in front. Than in the race the beter engine can give a little advantage and maybe some more battle/overtakes if the better engine qualifies further back.

We can also lose the fuel flowlimiter.

Should have been introduced in 2014, same way the V8s were capped to almost same power. The manufacturers could have been allowed unlimited time perfecting the power delivery to be as flat as possible.

Instead they had a token system

Seriously...

It's almost a Spec Series now with the 2022 rules...

And the PU's are frozen next year with minimal changes / updates available...

I am against large changes in 1 year. The 2014 change was a farce, ideally they should have had body work for 2013 if the new engines were coming in for 2014.

The same is happening again, the tyres should have been changed last year or worst case this year and the new body works should have been kept the year later.

While teams want stability of rules, I would say the small stepped changes are good and will go a far way from spec series issues you seem to have.

[Tommy Cookers]

don't the current F1 fuel flow regulations already dictate the shape of every engine's torque curve ?

In some ways yes, it basicly is flat from 10,500 on, and so it the power output (loosing some because of higher friction losses at higher rpm), but not the amount of torque (and therefore power). ...

well ... no ...
it isn't 'flat from 10500 on'

it's flat from just above idle to 10500 and falls continuously thereafter regardless of frictional torque

[Jolle]

don't the current F1 fuel flow regulations already dictate the shape of every engine's torque curve ?

In some ways yes, it basicly is flat from 10,500 on, and so it the power output (loosing some because of higher friction losses at higher rpm), but not the amount of torque (and therefore power). ...

well ... no ...
it isn't 'flat from 10500 on'

it's flat from just above idle to 10500 and falls continuously thereafter regardless of frictional torque

My bad, it’s goed down indeed from 10,500, so the power stays flat (minus the friction losses) until 15,000

[mclaren111]

Seriously...

It's almost a Spec Series now with the 2022 rules...

And the PU's are frozen next year with minimal changes / updates available...

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

We'll see soon enough...