2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[AJI]

Is there mention of vee angle or hot vee possibility in any of the specs?
A 120° V would at least be a change in sound...

[AJI]

How is it still F1 if they delete basic cool stuff like VLIM?!?!?!

Yeah, not sure about the deletion of VLIM. Where's the saving?
Also, in regard to my previous post, is there any mention of VGT?

[vorticism]

Toyota used an MGUK-only hybrid system with an NA V8, and later a TT V6, for years in LMP. The spec hybrid system for 2023 LMDh entrants is MGUK only. The LMH entrants afaik are MGUK only as well although Ferrari haven't announced their powertrain yet. It seems like the MGUH never broke out of F1. Mercedes put a small one in a sedan recently; that's it I think.

[JordanMugen]

Do we have any ballpark numbers for the current PU's sustained power figures throughout a race distance? There is no way that the claims that 2026 PUs will retain current power levels accurate right? Maybe peak power but how are they expecting it to work out over a race distance? Would be a damn shame if they do all this work to figure out better aero for following just to be foiled by excessive battery management in the race.

Battery management and lift-and-coast is the way of electric (or in this case, partly electric) motor racing, it's what Formula E is all about if I understand correctly.

Supposedly the 2026 aerodynamic regulations will focus on efficiency -- active wings, narrower track (presumably narrower, less draggy tyres again), possibly partially faired wheels etc -- so straight-line speed should be retained even with less usable power.

[JordanMugen]

If they use the same size ES as now (and 4MJ maximum usage), 350kW could be deployed for 11s.

I think increasing the battery weight from 20kg to 220kg for a minimum car weight of at least 1000kg would be sensible. Electric cars tend to be heavy, so this would be very road relevant.

1000kg is still lightweight compared to roadgoing sportscars.

Leave the maximum MJ usage free and let them have at it trying to make the most energy dense 220kg battery possible!

more focus on electrification does not make sense when we have formula e and wec series.

How so? Automakers like FIAT, Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Volkswagen (including Audi and Porsche) will be or are halting ICE development soon. Given the ICE bans coming in 2030 to 2035 in Europe, there is no financial sense to invest in ICEs when they can better invest in EV platforms instead (many of these legacy ICE automakers are very far behind in EVs compared to Tesla, NIO etc). All that will happen is apparently tweaks to older ICEs to conform to increasingly strict emissions regulations.

So, on this basis, the ICE is (unforunately) "needed" to achieve the 1000hp (otherwise you would need a 2000+kg battery to match 100kg of petrol which is not practical) but the automakers want the competition to be on the electrical size not on the legacy ICE side.

It is already a "favour" to fans to stick with detuned V6 turbo engines and unnecessarily high minimum 10,500rpm for maximum fuel flow instead of market-relevant downsizing to 1.0L V4 turbo engines (and no minimum rpm for max. fuel flow, to allow lower rpm to reduce friction) which would arguably sound even worse. [Sure, the Porsche 919, which is essentially such a lower-revving V4 turbo, has it's fans but overall I don't think it sounds that good.]

[saviour stivala]

‘’automakers wants the competition to be on the electrical 'size' not on the legacy ICE side’’. As regards formula one ‘competition’ out of the six automakers involved in formula one, only the two yet to be confirmed as entrants wanted the competition to be on the electrical 'size' and not on the legacy ICE side because they know that they will not be able to jump-in and compete with the established four on the power unit as is side.

[Cold Fussion]

If they use the same size ES as now (and 4MJ maximum usage), 350kW could be deployed for 11s.

I think increasing the battery weight from 20kg to 220kg for a minimum car weight of at least 1000kg would be sensible. Electric cars tend to be heavy, so this would be very road relevant.

1000kg is still lightweight compared to roadgoing sportscars.

Leave the maximum MJ usage free and let them have at it trying to make the most energy dense 220kg battery possible!

I doubt they'll have a 200kg battery pack, which would probably be around 80KWh. It's just too heavy for an F1 car, it's even beyond LMP levels of weight. I think there is zero chance there will be no battery pack energy limit, not with how prescribed the ruleset is everywhere else.

[Bill]

F1 should just stay away from fixing the world and try to appease car manufactures or governments it is not their job,their job is to provide the best product for their important stakeholder which is the fans.it is an impossible goal what they trying to achieve ,they tried with hybrid and most efficient engine in the world and it didn't work.it's never enough with those power hungry bureaucrats and disloyal car companies,with the banning of combustion engines does it mean that f1 will eventually go full electric if they keep pandering to industry.Max mosley was onto something when he brought cosworth and introduced cheaper engine.

[johnny comelately]

If they use the same size ES as now (and 4MJ maximum usage), 350kW could be deployed for 11s.

I think increasing the battery weight from 20kg to 220kg for a minimum car weight of at least 1000kg would be sensible. Electric cars tend to be heavy, so this would be very road relevant.

1000kg is still lightweight compared to roadgoing sportscars.

Leave the maximum MJ usage free and let them have at it trying to make the most energy dense 220kg battery possible!

more focus on electrification does not make sense when we have formula e and wec series.

How so? Automakers like FIAT, Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Volkswagen (including Audi and Porsche) will be or are halting ICE development soon. Given the ICE bans coming in 2030 to 2035 in Europe, there is no financial sense to invest in ICEs when they can better invest in EV platforms instead (many of these legacy ICE automakers are very far behind in EVs compared to Tesla, NIO etc). All that will happen is apparently tweaks to older ICEs to conform to increasingly strict emissions regulations.

So, on this basis, the ICE is (unforunately) "needed" to achieve the 1000hp (otherwise you would need a 2000+kg battery to match 100kg of petrol which is not practical) but the automakers want the competition to be on the electrical size not on the legacy ICE side.

It is already a "favour" to fans to stick with detuned V6 turbo engines and unnecessarily high minimum 10,500rpm for maximum fuel flow instead of market-relevant downsizing to 1.0L V4 turbo engines (and no minimum rpm for max. fuel flow, to allow lower rpm to reduce friction) which would arguably sound even worse. [Sure, the Porsche 919, which is essentially such a lower-revving V4 turbo, has it's fans but overall I don't think it sounds that good.]

Downspeeding has been helpful for increasing efficiency.

[FW17]

Regulations specify that fuel energy flow rate must not exceed 3000MJ/h, which equates to approximately 65kg/h, compared to the current fuel flow rate of 100kg/h.


With the same efficiency as current engines the 840hp engine @ 100kg/hr will be down to 550 hp at 65kg/hr

[johnny comelately]

Regulations specify that fuel energy flow rate must not exceed 3000MJ/h, which equates to approximately 65kg/h, compared to the current fuel flow rate of 100kg/h.

Hard to match that with 1600cc, any mention of engine size?

[Tommy Cookers]

Downspeeding has been helpful for increasing efficiency.

we might think that downspeeding allows high CR ......
via management of SI combustion rate by management of injection rate

otherwise we'd have to say how downspeeding compares with downsizing

downspeeding ie retaining large cylinders helps emissionswise

[FW17]

The car weight can be almost the same if the 40kg weight in fuel is replaced by a battery of 9MJ

[FW17]

Regulations specify that fuel energy flow rate must not exceed 3000MJ/h, which equates to approximately 65kg/h, compared to the current fuel flow rate of 100kg/h.

Hard to match that with 1600cc, any mention of engine size?

Same as now, V6 1.6L

[johnny comelately]

Regulations specify that fuel energy flow rate must not exceed 3000MJ/h, which equates to approximately 65kg/h, compared to the current fuel flow rate of 100kg/h.

Hard to match that with 1600cc, any mention of engine size?

Same as now, V6 1.6L

Thank you