2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[wuzak]

Also, when the fuel available for the race is reduced to 70-75% of the energy of the current regulations, how will they complete races in comparative time?

Drag will be reduced, but surely weight would have to be reduced significantly also? The PU regulations show only a small saving of weight over the current PUs.

[Big Tea]

Also, when the fuel available for the race is reduced to 70-75% of the energy of the current regulations, how will they complete races in comparative time?

Drag will be reduced, but surely weight would have to be reduced significantly also? The PU regulations show only a small saving of weight over the current PUs.

They do not have to be comparative to the past times, just relative to the other cars of the same year.
No one is going to to notice a tenth here or there if they all drop the same amount.

[Tommy Cookers]

For the PU as a whole. This rule does in fact limit how quickly the torque drops off after torque peak. (The throttle position determines the rpm where torque peaks).
5.6.4 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.

"There is a rule crying out to be validated" said the progressives :wink:

broadly this seems to be as close to constant power as the ICE run beyond 10500 with capped fuel rate can be
(presumably FIA checks from torque sensor data have always showed compliance)
and as close to constant torque below 10500 as will fit the fuel rate regime that deters slower running
the gradient specified would have greater effect given the lower maximum power of the new ICE

unless we read the words as meaning the opposite ie the torque below 10500 could fall fast ...
eg as in NA days when there was unregulated mapping - did drivers to some extent drive 'on the limiter' ?


and with fuel energy eg c.70% of the present amount ....
ICE energy will fall to eg c.63% of the present amount (as with no H for recovery the new ICE efficiency will be less)

[wuzak]

Also, when the fuel available for the race is reduced to 70-75% of the energy of the current regulations, how will they complete races in comparative time?

Drag will be reduced, but surely weight would have to be reduced significantly also? The PU regulations show only a small saving of weight over the current PUs.

They do not have to be comparative to the past times, just relative to the other cars of the same year.
No one is going to to notice a tenth here or there if they all drop the same amount.

It matters if they are not much faster than F2, or not at all.

Fans complained during the 2014-2016 rules that the cars were not fast enough when compared to GP2. The result was the 2017 rules, aimed at making the cars much faster.

[organic]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... -batterie/

AMuS article about 2026 power units, focusing on the potential for lack of deployment

[Big Tea]

Also, when the fuel available for the race is reduced to 70-75% of the energy of the current regulations, how will they complete races in comparative time?

Drag will be reduced, but surely weight would have to be reduced significantly also? The PU regulations show only a small saving of weight over the current PUs.

They do not have to be comparative to the past times, just relative to the other cars of the same year.
No one is going to to notice a tenth here or there if they all drop the same amount.

It matters if they are not much faster than F2, or not at all.

Fans complained during the 2014-2016 rules that the cars were not fast enough when compared to GP2. The result was the 2017 rules, aimed at making the cars much faster.

There is always the option of slowing F2 cars. A change to tyres or wing could knock an equivalent time off them as the F1 cars, as could a reduction in Revs.

[Holm86]

They do not have to be comparative to the past times, just relative to the other cars of the same year.
No one is going to to notice a tenth here or there if they all drop the same amount.

It matters if they are not much faster than F2, or not at all.

Fans complained during the 2014-2016 rules that the cars were not fast enough when compared to GP2. The result was the 2017 rules, aimed at making the cars much faster.

There is always the option of slowing F2 cars. A change to tyres or wing could knock an equivalent time off them as the F1 cars, as could a reduction in Revs.

That's definitely not the way to go

[JordanMugen]

That's definitely not the way to go

It is not? There are some (not me, I like downforce and think the 2017 revision were a triumph!), who argue F1 cars are too fast and the laptimes should be increased by at least 10 seconds a lap to allow "longer braking zones, more overtaking opportunities" etc.

Such folks despite 5G cornering and think 3-3.5G cornering, like Indycar or F2, would be more appropriate for the world championship.

So with such a downforce reduction F1 would drop to F2 pace, F2 could be dropped to F3 pace, F3 could be dropped to F4 pace etc.

[Holm86]

That's definitely not the way to go

It is not? There are some (not me, I like downforce and think the 2017 revision were a triumph!), who argue F1 cars are too fast and the laptimes should be increased by at least 10 seconds a lap to allow "longer braking zones, more overtaking opportunities" etc.

Such folks despite 5G cornering and think 3-3.5G cornering, like Indycar or F2, would be more appropriate for the world championship.

So with such a downforce reduction F1 would drop to F2 pace, F2 could be dropped to F3 pace, F3 could be dropped to F4 pace etc.

No, F1 has to be the fastest cars out there, by their own, not by nerfing other series.

If people want to watch slower more equal cars, they should just watch F2 instead

[wuzak]

No, F1 has to be the fastest cars out there, by their own, not by nerfing other series.

If people want to watch slower more equal cars, they should just watch F2 instead

And the FIA can only slow down other series over which they have control.

They can't, for example, slow down Indycar.

[mzso]

No, F1 has to be the fastest cars out there, by their own, not by nerfing other series.

If people want to watch slower more equal cars, they should just watch F2 instead

People want to watch better racing with a more competitive field. Which probably necessitates a slowdown.
The "huge" reg changes for this year proved to have too little of an effect. Basically most of the times drivers follow in each other in a more closely packed train.

[Holm86]

No, F1 has to be the fastest cars out there, by their own, not by nerfing other series.

If people want to watch slower more equal cars, they should just watch F2 instead

People want to watch better racing with a more competitive field. Which probably necessitates a slowdown.
The "huge" reg changes for this year proved to have too little of an effect. Basically most of the times drivers follow in each other in a more closely packed train.

Racing was much better last year, and the year before. And those cars were much faster.

Problem is FIA keeps --- up be changing the registrations every time there is some sort evolutionary equilibrium in the field.
Stable regulations will give closer racing if left alone long enough.

I understand that they had to change the engine regulations to be less complicated, but what they came up with is way too unambitious

[wuzak]

What do we make of this rule?

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.


How does that work with the generation strategy theories?

[henry]

What do we make of this rule?

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.


How does that work with the generation strategy theories?

Seems to suggest that max regen power, ICE driving the K, should be 100kW and to get to that at the end of straight will take 3.5 seconds. I’m guessing for safety to prevent very high decelerations under software control.

Suggests most regen under part throttle and braking.

[BassVirolla]

What do we make of this rule?

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.


How does that work with the generation strategy theories?

Seems to suggest that max regen power, ICE driving the K, should be 100kW and to get to that at the end of straight will take 3.5 seconds. I’m guessing for safety to prevent very high decelerations under software control.

Suggests most regen under part throttle and braking.

100kw / 1s is:

[(force x distance) /time] / time

It think it's a rate of application of braking force, to prevent sudden braking of the car when switching from full power to full regen (without applying brakes, i.e. lift & coast).

Edit: Sorry, Henry. I've just read now your response.