2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Zynerji]

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

What about a front wheel GU-K? Could they recover enough then?

[mzso]

What they should do is freeze the current engine blocks and mguh (lease one to VAG if necessary), double mguk output, switch to 100% biofuel(waste derived), allow rotary or freevalve tech, allow plasma ignition, or any other cutting edge add-ons that boost efficiency.

Sounds complicated. Just slap on an engine development cost cap, a maximum power output, a bio fuel. And allow anything within.

[henry]

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

What about a front wheel GU-K? Could they recover enough then?

Without doing any real calculations I would expect a front wheel GU-K of the same power to recover similar energy, or maybe a little less. Lower aero load and static weight but aided rather than hindered by load transfer, albeit with smaller contact patches.

So if you have both front and rear and recover some energy driving against them at part throttle you might get to a similar deployment per lap to now.

The cost would be two large electrical machines, drive shafts and gearing at the front, a bigger ES and power electronics dealing with 700kW rather than 200 peak.

[ENGINE TUNER]

What they should do is freeze the current engine blocks and mguh (lease one to VAG if necessary), double mguk output, switch to 100% biofuel(waste derived), allow rotary or freevalve tech, allow plasma ignition, or any other cutting edge add-ons that boost efficiency.

Sounds complicated. Just slap on an engine development cost cap, a maximum power output, a bio fuel. And allow anything within.

Nothing complicated about freezing the engine blocks and mguh, but yeah, an engine cost cap and open development of top end and ignition. But F1 should never ever have a maximum power output, its bad enough that the mguk is strictly limited.

F1 also needs a rule that they can only harvest when fully off the torque demand pedal.

[mzso]

Nothing complicated about freezing the engine blocks and mguh, but yeah, an engine cost cap and open development of top end and ignition. But F1 should never ever have a maximum power output, its bad enough that the mguk is strictly limited.

It should. Power will never go unchecked and without a power cap you get stupidly prescribed engine parameters, like we had for 20 years. It roughly accomplishes the same thing, but it also kills variety and creativity along the way.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Nothing complicated about freezing the engine blocks and mguh, but yeah, an engine cost cap and open development of top end and ignition. But F1 should never ever have a maximum power output, its bad enough that the mguk is strictly limited.

It should. Power will never go unchecked and without a power cap you get stupidly prescribed engine parameters, like we had for 20 years. It roughly accomplishes the same thing, but it also kills variety and creativity along the way.

Fuel flow rate is enough of a power cap. The engine manufacturers don't want variety, and only want to compete on certain aspects. When any cylinder count was allowed after 88 they all eventually converged on the v10. They have figured out those parameters and want to focus on more forward looking avenues of development.

[saviour stivala]

It is not correct to say that ‘all converged on the V10 cylinder count’. There was a V12 in the making (Marmorini Toyota) when nearly all converged on the V10 cylinder count, of which the makers were forced to change plans by the rule makers when they forced the V10 cylinder count. And after forcing the V10 cylinder count, the rule makers even forced (standardized) the various V-bank angles in use back then. And after all that came the standardization of the the bore and so the stroke ratio configuration followed.

[mzso]

Nothing complicated about freezing the engine blocks and mguh, but yeah, an engine cost cap and open development of top end and ignition. But F1 should never ever have a maximum power output, its bad enough that the mguk is strictly limited.

It should. Power will never go unchecked and without a power cap you get stupidly prescribed engine parameters, like we had for 20 years. It roughly accomplishes the same thing, but it also kills variety and creativity along the way.

Fuel flow rate is enough of a power cap. The engine manufacturers don't want variety, and only want to compete on certain aspects. When any cylinder count was allowed after 88 they all eventually converged on the v10. They have figured out those parameters and want to focus on more forward looking avenues of development.

Well for one F large manufacturers, but also F1 has been very restricted since Ecclestone took over in the early eighties. And even more so when they even banned turbos. And when the cylinder count is the one significant thing you can play around with, it's unsurprising that there's only one ideal layout.

But more so, fuel flow is inadequate, it doesn't take into account electricity. Without it they could play around with how they want to hybridize.

[henry]

But more so, fuel flow is inadequate, it doesn't take into account electricity. Without it they could play around with how they want to hybridize.

Surely it does take account of hybridisation. It says “ here’s a rate at which you can consume externally created energy”. Hybridisation is part of the system used to deploy that energy most effectively.

[NL_Fer]

I like a power cap, or standaard torque output curve like LMDh will have. All cars equal power under qualifing. Than the manufactures can play around with efficiency and the most efficient can start the race with less fuel or race with less lift&cruise.

Dunno if we are going to see that in 2026, but I like the idea.

Also interesting will we see full 300kw recovery and deployment for the KERS? I mean, in that case 8s of brake energy recovery will result in only 8s of deployment.

[mzso]

But more so, fuel flow is inadequate, it doesn't take into account electricity. Without it they could play around with how they want to hybridize.

Surely it does take account of hybridisation. It says “ here’s a rate at which you can consume externally created energy”. Hybridisation is part of the system used to deploy that energy most effectively.

Only if you have the restriction of the power source being the ICE only as the prerequisite...
Otherwise you could use fuel cells, or just charge batteries.

But even with a fuel flow and nothing else you could just store heaps energy in a battery to get double power for one lap or such. And if you add MGU restrictions, then we're right back where we started.

[mzso]

I like a power cap, or standaard torque output curve like LMDh will have. All cars equal power under qualifing. Than the manufactures can play around with efficiency and the most efficient can start the race with less fuel or race with less lift&cruise.

Dunno if we are going to see that in 2026, but I like the idea.

Also interesting will we see full 300kw recovery and deployment for the KERS? I mean, in that case 8s of brake energy recovery will result in only 8s of deployment.

They could do input power cap, that would allow more variety. Though it's much simpler with pure electric, where you just measure and limit the input of the drive electronics. With hybrids you would need to measure both fuel and electricity flow.

[djos]

Could you potentially charge the battery while exiting corners and use it as a form of traction control?

[Tommy Cookers]

Could you potentially charge the battery while exiting corners and use it as a form of traction control?

the rules defining traction control (for banning it) presumably still apply - banning some types of transducing hardware

the rules on required PU mapping define the extent to which the ....
steady state PU torque at each and every accelerator position can reduce with when rpm increases occur
ie these PU torques can involve lumpy ICE torque curves being smoothed via related lumps of G-K actions
(the opposite of torque 'fills' via M-K actions)

and there could be designed-in dynamic effects that the rulemakers won't cover - or be able to test
ie creative pole-skipping or pole-slipping that could emulate TC or even semi-ABS - without any of the banned hardware
sudden and uncommanded torque 'cliff-edges' that appear with incipient wheelspin or locking
in normal operation the MG is quite close to slipping or skipping

[Jolle]

Could you potentially charge the battery while exiting corners and use it as a form of traction control?

Most definitely! The rule is that there must be a straightforward relationship between the throttle pedal and the torque of the engine, so eliminate any kind of TC. But, to get more drivability you can either fill in the turbo lag gaps with adding K or use is as a brake to smoothen the output (like you do on a motorbike with the rear brake). As long as 70% throttle is 70% torque, it doesn’t matter that it’s 60% ICE + 10% K or 80% ICE and -10% K.

With a good electric motor and well written software/control unit, it must be smoother/directer then a V12 without flywheel.