2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

We'll see soon enough...

Since we were talking about what they could/should do, you still don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to be seen soon enough...

[mclaren111]

We'll see soon enough...

Since we were talking about what they could/should do, you still don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to be seen soon enough...

[BassVirolla]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 7859673110

No MGUH; more powerful MGUK. Only rear axle recovery.

[henry]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 7859673110

No MGUH; more powerful MGUK. Only rear axle recovery.

If the downforce of the next generation of cars is similar to now then that would mean 350kw recovery in braking down to about 170kph, reducing thereafter.

On some circuits, Silverstone say, energy available per lap will be much below that available now, at others, Singapore, probably as much if not more than now. So lots of variation circuit to circuit.

Of course we haven’t seen other rules. They may remove the ban on part throttle driving against the K and they may be able to drive against the brakes below 170kph which might get the total energy per lap back to current levels.

The C rate for the new energy store will be twice now and sustained for much longer periods so a challenge for the battery designers.

[Zynerji]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 7859673110

No MGUH; more powerful MGUK. Only rear axle recovery.

Yuck

Just go synth-fuel V10's/Big I5's and let's roll!

[BassVirolla]

Much bigger batteries; more weight.

I personally love the MGU-H as a concept and multiple functioning modes. Also, the MGU-H has allowed to reach and overcome the 50% efficiency barrier.

As much as MGU-H has complicated the PUs and the sport, I love them because they were a true innovation in the pinnacle of motorsports.

I think F1 is every day aproaching more being an european IndyCar.

[mzso]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 7859673110

No MGUH; more powerful MGUK. Only rear axle recovery.

So just making the current PU more primitive, inferior. What a pointless change.
F1 was already backwards, now it will be more so.

What's really ridiculous is deciding regulations 5 years in advance. They should have made the decision for 2023.
By the time the new PU is deployed it will likely be a dodo technology.

If the downforce of the next generation of cars is similar to now then that would mean 350kw recovery in braking down to about 170kph, reducing thereafter.

So little braking power below 170? Rather suprising knowing they go above 3000 kW from top speed.

Just go synth-fuel V10's/Big I5's and let's roll!

Or the Cugnot engine. Yay museum tech!
You're the same sort that yells "pinnacle of motorsport technology" in other threads, right?

[NL_Fer]

I doubt how much of that 350kw can be reached under breaking, recovery power will drop when the speed reduces under breaking. Could be even less effective than 2009 KERS, which’ boost was only compensating for the added weight of the system itself.

[Tommy Cookers]

I doubt how much of that 350kw can be reached under breaking, recovery power will drop when the speed reduces under breaking.....

recovery power will be rather constant under braking as downshifting maintains K rpm despite car speed reducing ....
the axle torque corresponding to constant recovery power increasing with each downshift until ....

axle torque demands all the available wheel grip (the grip is reducing with speed because DF reduces with speed) ....
then K recovery torque ie current must be reduced to avoid wheel under-rotation etc ...

and K voltage is now also falling with speed recovery power is now falling strongly ....
so recovery might be discontinued - braking becoming all-mechanical at this point

[BassVirolla]

I doubt how much of that 350kw can be reached under breaking, recovery power will drop when the speed reduces under breaking.....

recovery power will be rather constant under braking as downshifting maintains K rpm despite car speed reducing ....
the axle torque corresponding to constant recovery power increasing with each downshift until ....

axle torque demands all the available wheel grip (the grip is reducing with speed because DF reduces with speed) ....
then K recovery torque ie current must be reduced to avoid wheel under-rotation etc ...

and K voltage is now also falling with speed recovery power is now falling strongly ....
so recovery might be discontinued - braking becoming all-mechanical at this point

But torque required to "spin back" the engine / MGU-K from the wheels is greater with lower gears, while downforce is reducing. I see this quite like a short bust process, rather than a continuous recovery through downshifting.

[NL_Fer]

How would the deployment be?

An F1 car brakes for 12-16s a lap only. When deploying at 350kw, the deployment time would be the same 12-16s or less. If the deployment would be half power, at 175kw, the deployment time would double to 24-30s, which sounds more reasonable.

Another way would be to limit total combined power/torque, like in LMH class. For example at 700kw. Than it would be 350kw electric + 350kw combustion during deployment and 700kw pure combustion if the battery is depleted.

[mzso]

If they wanted something interesting, but staying with ICE. Why didn't they just throw on an engine development budget. Specify the fuel, the mandatory usage of battery (unlimited capacity) and electric motor, and let them use whatever they come up with on with the ICE.

[Zynerji]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 7859673110

No MGUH; more powerful MGUK. Only rear axle recovery.

So just making the current PU more primitive, inferior. What a pointless change.
F1 was already backwards, now it will be more so.

What's really ridiculous is deciding regulations 5 years in advance. They should have made the decision for 2023.
By the time the new PU is deployed it will likely be a dodo technology.

If the downforce of the next generation of cars is similar to now then that would mean 350kw recovery in braking down to about 170kph, reducing thereafter.

So little braking power below 170? Rather suprising knowing they go above 3000 kW from top speed.

Just go synth-fuel V10's/Big I5's and let's roll!

Or the Cugnot engine. Yay museum tech!
You're the same sort that yells "pinnacle of motorsport technology" in other threads, right?

I'd say a carbon-neutral fuel source is very modern. Then we can get back to the sound while being "green".

[henry]

If the downforce of the next generation of cars is similar to now then that would mean 350kw recovery in braking down to about 170kph, reducing thereafter.

So little braking power below 170? Rather suprising knowing they go above 3000 kW from top speed.

I have previously calculated that with the current 120kW the rear wheels would loc(under rotate) at around 120kph.

Very crudely, available braking power varies with speed cubed (to follow downforce) so 350kW results in 120x(350/120**1/3) = 171kph.

That’s probably a lower bound since the axle load comprises static load plus aero load. My original calcs took that and load transfer and reduction of downforce coefficient into account so I’m reasonably confident in the 120kph number.

[wesley123]

I'd say a carbon-neutral fuel source is very modern. Then we can get back to the sound while being "green".

Except it's not even remotely green. Not only is the manufacturing more complex, it is quite significantly less efficient. It requires more energy to produce than an electric car itself uses. And then we haven't even mentioned the actual efficiency in use. For synthetic fuels this will be around 50%, just like current engines. EV's however, have an efficiency that is far higher.

So in short; It is more energy intensive to make, and less efficient to use.

And then we of course have the part where every manufacturer has stopped, or is stopping ICE development. No reputable manufacturer would want to touch ICE, and an increase of it in motorsports, with a 10 foot pole.