2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

A front recovery system should be obvious, but then we at 900kg..😪

User avatar
Red Rock Mutley
11
Joined: 28 Jul 2018, 17:04

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

wuzak wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 03:17
Red Rock Mutley wrote:
24 Aug 2022, 11:49
gruntguru wrote:
24 Aug 2022, 00:05
The ratio of power to grip is important to the spectacle. If the cars have more grip and less power there will be a reduction in the skill level required to control the car.

At a simplistic level you can think of this as time the driver has to spend modulating the throttle as opposed to simply WOT and control the steering.
It's an interesting observation, as the obvious gaming of the new ruleset further removes the throttle pedal from the action of the throttle. Run the ICE wide open for as much of the lap as possible while modulating PU power output as necessary by harvesting electrical energy. At least in qualifying. I did wonder how much energy is available in these other than WOT scenarios. And whether the terrifying high-speed corner spins are from the teams already deploying aggressive harvest strategies
How much time is an F1 car not at full throttle or braking?

You have to wonder what power they could recover using this strategy.

At current the ICE is capable of 600kW+ and the MGUK can recover/deploy 120kW.

For 2026 that will be 400kW ICE/350kW MGUK. I would think recovering full power from the MGUK would be difficult, even when the ICE is at full power.
It's a good question, how much energy is available in these Other Than WOT scenarios? I'd say there's a fair bit. Low-speed acceleration is the obvious one, where the ICE on its own can spin the wheels. There's more time spent part throttle in corners. And, of course, there's the later phase of braking where full harvest of the MGU can lock the wheels. In all those scenarios the MGU can harvest energy from the ICE.

Perhaps the trick is to treat the 2026 engine regs as a simple energy equation; the more chemical energy converted per lap, the faster the car will go. Treat the PU as a glorified genset, at least in full-power qualifying mode. Aim to run the ICE at full power for 100% of the lap and modulate PU output by manipulating the MGU. Anything less than the maximum possible energy conversion is time left on the table.

Having mulled it over, I think the question is not about these OTWOT scenarios, but rather, when does the ICE absolutely need to be throttled?

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Red Rock Mutley wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 11:42
Low-speed acceleration is the obvious one, where the ICE on its own can spin the wheels.
Low speed acceleration is where turbo lag will be the worst, and the MGUK will be needed to accelerate the car and overcome the lag.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
643
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

wuzak wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 13:12
Red Rock Mutley wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 11:42
Low-speed acceleration is the obvious one, where the ICE on its own can spin the wheels.
Low speed acceleration is where turbo lag will be the worst, and the MGUK will be needed to accelerate the car and overcome the lag.
in principle the ICE .....
can run GU at 350 kW to the apex without the turbo lagging
can run as a gas generator
can run less lean than would require 4.8 bar from the turbo

in principle couldn't a 'throttle' reduce air drawn by the compressor without causing the usual 'throttling' loss of power ?
this some of the aero-engine people started doing c.1939

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 14:32
can run GU at 350 kW to the apex without the turbo lagging
Isn't that the braking zone?
Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 14:32
can run as a gas generator
Isn't that possibility somewhat cancelled by the fact that the ICE is connected directly to the wheels?

Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 14:32
can run less lean than would require 4.8 bar from the turbo
They could certainly run richer for short periods to help with turbo lag.

Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 14:32
in principle couldn't a 'throttle' reduce air drawn by the compressor without causing the usual 'throttling' loss of power ?
this some of the aero-engine people started doing c.1939
That depends on what the finalised throttle rules are.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
643
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

my (first 2) suggestions above - can someone explain what would stop them working ?

User avatar
Red Rock Mutley
11
Joined: 28 Jul 2018, 17:04

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 16:16
my (first 2) suggestions above - can someone explain what would stop them working ?
Stu mentioned the accelerator pedal and injector regs. I've looked, but I'm not seeing them as limiting the ICE to MGU interaction. Perhaps he can help point out the specifics?

5.14 & 5.15 (2026) define the relationship between the pedal map and the +ve torque to the rear wheels. However, they are framed in terms of net PU output. So, for the accelerator pedal at 0%, it's possible to run the ICE at +350kW and the MGU at -350kW for a net zero PU output.

The benefit is as you say, the turbine is already producing boost when the driver goes on the throttle, so all that problem with lag goes away.... plus you're harvesting energy for the later acceleration phase. All, in all, it seems very attractive to aim for running the ICE at full power for 100% of the lap, and modulating PU output using the MGU (at least in qualifying).

Braking is a point of contention, and there's a design choice of when to bring the ICE "on power". It's perfectly possible to do it early in the braking phase when the revs have dropped sufficiently for the output from ICE to balance the harvest from the MGU.



2026 regs

5.14 Power unit torque demand
5.14.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.14.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.14.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.14.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.14.5 The driver maximum torque demand may only be reduced at a maximum rate of 100kW in any 1s period and the power reduction will be limited to a maximum of 450kW.

5.15 Power unit control
5.15.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the FIA ADR or FIA Standard ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demands being achieved is 50ms.
5.15.2 Teams may be required to demonstrate the accuracy of the power unit configurations used by the FIA Standard ECU.
5.15.3 Power unit control must not be influenced by clutch position, movement or operation.
5.15.4 The idle speed control target may not exceed 4,000rpm.
5.15.5 A number of power unit protections are available in the FIA Standard ECU.
A minimum of nine seconds hold time should be configured for the power unit protections enabled during qualifying and race. The configuration of the air tray fire detection and throttle failsafe are exceptionally unrestricted in order to allow each team to achieve the best level of safety.
5.15.6 The power unit must achieve the torque demanded by the FIA standard software.
5.15.7 In order to measure the torque generated by the power unit the following sensors must be
fitted:
a. Each driveshaft must be fitted with a torque sensor which has been manufactured and calibrated by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
b. The power unit output shaft must be fitted with a torque sensor which has been manufactured and calibrated by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
c. The MGU-K must be fitted with a torque sensor which has been manufactured and calibrated by a FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. The installation of the MGU-K torque sensor must be approved by the FIA.
The installation and the connectivity of each of these torque sensors to the FIA Standard ECU must be approved by the FIA.
5.15.8 Engine plenum air temperature must be more than ten degrees centigrade above ambient temperature. When assessing compliance, the temperature of the air will be the lap average recorded, by an FIA approved and sealed sensor located in an FIA approved location situated in the engine plenum, during every lap of the qualifying practice session and the race. The first lap of the race, laps carried out whilst the safety car is deployed, laps with a time at least 20% greater than the fastest lap of the session, pit in and out laps and any laps that are obvious anomalies (as judged by the FIA) will not be used to assess the average temperature. The ambient temperature will be that recorded by the FIA appointed weather service provider. This information will also be displayed on the timing monitors.
5.15.9 Any pressure sensor used to measure pressure of any fluid necessary to ensure the power unit functions correctly at all times (including but not limited to coolant, oil, fuel and air) must be manufactured by the single supplier appointed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council to a specification determined by the FIA Technical Department.
5.15.10 With the exception of exhaust temperature sensors and temperature sensors embedded in electronic boxes, any temperature sensor used to measure temperature of any fluid necessary to ensure the power unit functions correctly at all times (including but not limited to coolant, oil, fuel and air) must be manufactured by the single supplier appointed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council to a specification determined by the FIA Technical Department.
5.15.11 A maximum of one knock sensor per cylinder is permitted. This sensor must be an accelerometer-type and must be approved by the FIA Technical Department. The approval is also conditional upon such sensor being available on a non-exclusive basis and under normal and equivalent commercial terms to all Competitors. The approval request form must be sent by the sensor supplier to the FIA before the 1st of November of the preceding year.
5.15.12 No sensors of any kind capable of measuring or inferring internal cylinder pressure will be permitted.

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Exactly, since MAP and fuel flow are both adjustable independent of wheel and engine RPM, 'falling out of boost' could be avoided by having the MGUK absorb excess ICE output. Hence Tommy's post earlier iiuc about "energy available beyond wheel grip."
Tommy Cookers wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 14:32
in principle couldn't a 'throttle' reduce air drawn by the compressor without causing the usual 'throttling' loss of power ?
this some of the aero-engine people started doing c.1939

iirc this is what was being done all throught 2014-2022. The variable inlet guide vanes were effectively the throttle plate.
𓄀

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

djos wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 09:38
mzso wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 08:28
djos wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 00:25
Fuel cell tech, regardless of type, is entirely unsuitable for F1. And would be quite dangerous in an accident.
Thoroughly unfounded. You didn't even bother to pretend to have an argument.
By unsuitable I mean that to get any reasonable Power out of them, they would be impractical due to size and weight.

By dangerous, I merely mean that (assuming hydrogen fuel) that there is a much wider range of flammability in air. Iirc it was between 4-70% Is ignitable. So leaks after an accident would be a real concern, especially considering hydrogen is colourless and odourless.

I don’t know enough about other fuels to comment on those.

The reality is that fuel cell tech is not suitable for normal size vehicles or Motorsport applications. It’s real talent is in Large vehicles like trains, trucks and ships where they have the space to put lots of storage and rapid refueling is needed.
That is not true. They're merely underdeveloped.
There's a lot of umexplored potential. There's that nasa cell I linked a bunch of times which to begin with wouldn't add an unmanageable amout of weight. And it's just a prototype.

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Cold Fussion wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 21:06
vorticism wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 00:45
If they could sort it out it might be compelling. Hydrocarbon fuel energy density + electric motor p:w ratio
The problem is the volumetric density is appalling. Hydrogen at 750 bar is ~42kg/m3, so if they need roughly 110kg of fuel to complete a race now, they would need roughly 34kg of hydrogen for a fuel cell with a 60% efficiency vs a 50% efficiency PU currently, which means you need a roughly 800L tank of hydrogen to complete the race, which would be a packaging nightmare.
Well, yeah. But it's workable. I'm more skeptical about safety viability. A 750 bar tank bursting would be quite an explosion.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: 10 Apr 2015, 00:55
Location: Australia

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

The Audi Dakar car was an interesting and successful concept.
There is road relevance.
ICE would be more efficient in that config over a race distance as it negates the transitional fuel.
Audi is joining the circus.
What a sad thought.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

mzso wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 22:42
Cold Fussion wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 21:06
vorticism wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 00:45
If they could sort it out it might be compelling. Hydrocarbon fuel energy density + electric motor p:w ratio
The problem is the volumetric density is appalling. Hydrogen at 750 bar is ~42kg/m3, so if they need roughly 110kg of fuel to complete a race now, they would need roughly 34kg of hydrogen for a fuel cell with a 60% efficiency vs a 50% efficiency PU currently, which means you need a roughly 800L tank of hydrogen to complete the race, which would be a packaging nightmare.
Well, yeah. But it's workable. I'm more skeptical about safety viability. A 750 bar tank bursting would be quite an explosion.
The latest generation of Space vehicles use Methane, mostly because of the density difference with Hydrogen, plus the amount of cooling needed, and pressure. Is it likely any F1 teams would look at it? (produced by solar so 'green')
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
643
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post


johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: 10 Apr 2015, 00:55
Location: Australia

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

Isnt that what stings when an ant bites?

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

Post

mzso wrote:
25 Aug 2022, 22:37
djos wrote:
19 Aug 2022, 09:38
By unsuitable I mean that to get any reasonable Power out of them, they would be impractical due to size and weight.

By dangerous, I merely mean that (assuming hydrogen fuel) that there is a much wider range of flammability in air. Iirc it was between 4-70% Is ignitable. So leaks after an accident would be a real concern, especially considering hydrogen is colourless and odourless.

I don’t know enough about other fuels to comment on those.

The reality is that fuel cell tech is not suitable for normal size vehicles or Motorsport applications. It’s real talent is in Large vehicles like trains, trucks and ships where they have the space to put lots of storage and rapid refueling is needed.
That is not true. They're merely underdeveloped.
There's a lot of umexplored potential. There's that nasa cell I linked a bunch of times which to begin with wouldn't add an unmanageable amout of weight. And it's just a prototype.
On their own, sure, but you ignore all the ancillary equipment needed to make a viable FCEV.
"In downforce we trust"