2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

The 2026 'K' power which will nearly triple from 161-to-469 hp means increased regenerative braking energy that would otherwise goes to waste. This increased regenerative braking will nearly eliminate friction brakes.

No. The rear brakes are mainly there for backup already. You can't get much power from there. And the front brakes the more important ones are still unutilized.
Besides all the braking together wouldn't be nearly enough to regenerate enough energy. Most energy is wasted by drag and friction, which helps when it comes to breaking. They go full power for much longer than they brake.

[mzso]

I read VES as just commenting on aero drag build up requiring a downshift to keep the engine from bogging down.

That was aimed at the statement by Horner:

"Plus, with the characteristics of these engines, that the combustion engine just doesn't become a generator to recharge a battery."

That's what I'm trying to clarify. Seems like he's just talking about aero, but if what Horner says is true then he could be saying end of straight aero+harvest(i.e. WOT harvest) requires a downshift.

I think he clearly was talking about running out of charge.

[saviour stivala]

These same ERS recovery/deployment doubts went on for at least two years into the present formula, and started by the first hints of the back then new announced formula. Today everybody admits that all four can deploy mostly all around a lap. Not only that the same doubts were wildly expressed about the fuel load and flow rate. Now the whole thing (power unit) ended up being championed. I believe that we should give the new decided upon power unit formula a chance, and not fall into the trap of some of those that have themselves approved the new formula starting to doubt there work and so already coming out wanting changes.

[mzso]

The 2026 'K' will produce three times the recovery power then the present 'K' does at present, and that includes on all tracks.

No need to reiterate, it's wrong. It has the potential to recover at three times the rate, but it will only be able to do that on tracks with enough turns. If there is such a track. Otherwise ICE needs to opportunistically drive the K to regenerate.
But even that is unlikely to be enough for some tracks. Most likely Monza and Spa and Baku included.

Also, let us not forget that storage is much more limited. So they can't even save up charge for the longest straights.

[Tommy Cookers]

The 2026 'K' will produce three times the recovery power then the present 'K' does at present, and that includes on all tracks.

No need to reiterate, it's wrong. It has the potential to recover at three times the rate, but it will only be able to do that on tracks with enough turns. If there is such a track. Otherwise ICE needs to opportunistically drive the K to regenerate.
But even that is unlikely to be enough for some tracks. Most likely Monza and Spa and Baku included.
Also, let us not forget that storage is much more limited. So they can't even save up charge for the longest straights.

yes it's wrong
the 2026 '3 time the recovery power' will be closer to 2 times the recovered energy

9.5 sec lap total braking time is a false measure ie recovery is (say) 7.5 sec at 120 kW
fundamentally because from high speed the car loses more speed per sec than from lower speed
and because .... there is less than 120 kW-worth of rear wheel grip below c 110 kph
and because .... the 120 kW MGU-K torque takes more axle torque with each downshift

all the above applies in greater disproportion with the 2026 350 kW MGU-K
below 150 kph there won't be 350 kW of rear wheel grip

relative to the 120 kW machine the 350 kW machine is better suited to being ICE-driven (irony)
there's no surprise - a 350 kW generator being suited to being driven by a c.400 kW ICE

[Cs98]

The 2026 'K' will produce three times the recovery power then the present 'K' does at present, and that includes on all tracks.

No need to reiterate, it's wrong. It has the potential to recover at three times the rate, but it will only be able to do that on tracks with enough turns. If there is such a track. Otherwise ICE needs to opportunistically drive the K to regenerate.
But even that is unlikely to be enough for some tracks. Most likely Monza and Spa and Baku included.
Also, let us not forget that storage is much more limited. So they can't even save up charge for the longest straights.

yes it's wrong
the 2026 '3 time the recovery' will be closer to 2 times

currently the eg 9.5 sec lap total braking time means recovery of (say) 7.5 sec at 120 kW
because there is less than 120 kW-worth of rear wheel grip below c 110 kph
plus .... the time in low speed braking is disproportionately large (relative to time in high speed braking)
plus .... the 120 kW torque takes more axle torque with each downshift

all the above applies in greater disproportion with the 2026 350 kW MGU-K
below 150 kph there won't be 350 kW of rear wheel grip

relative to the 120 kW machine the 350 kW machine is better suited to being ICE-driven (irony)
there's no surprise - a 350 kW generator being suited to being driven by a 350 kW ICE

Yeah, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these regulations very much are a poorly thought out compromise. 50/50 ICE to MGU-K might work if you had dual axle regen, and/or exhaust regen on top. With exhaust regen being by far the better option part. But the fact we only have rear axle regen makes it so incredibly unbalanced I think it will be an utter disaster. We already see teams starting to voice concercs (RB), but being dismissed by people who think it's only political in nature. I doubt it would work even with a 60/40 split, 70/30 would probably provide decent entertainment. Then you can actually get 40% of the engine power to the rear wheels whilst simultaneously getting max recharge to the battery, which would be very useful end of straight and in partial throttle corners.

[Hoffman900]

The part missing in this conversation is this applies to the current cars which have a Cd approaching 1.0 Cd, this is substantially worst than most pickup trucks.

Part of the new rule set is to use active aero to reduce drag on the straights. This is the part the entire PU / hybrid rule set is banking on to make work, otherwise you end up in the situation Horner is describing. The aero / chassis rules haven’r been finalized and the teams wouldn’t be able to simulate those.

You have to remember, in an aero class, you make more power so you can make more downforce (and subsequently drag). If you look at terminal speeds in F1, they are not much higher than they were 30 years ago when they had 650hp or so, but they are substantially faster over a lap. They’ve converted that power to downforce, and that’s the real way you go fast in F1.

Put a Honda RA109E in today’s cars and with today’s drag, and it would be a dog of a car.

[AR3-GP]

The part missing in this conversation is this applies to the current cars which have a Cd approaching 1.0 Cd, this is substantially worst than most pickup trucks.

Part of the new rule set is to use active aero to reduce drag on the straights. This is the part the entire PU / hybrid rule set is banking on to make work, otherwise you end up in the situation Horner is describing. The aero / chassis rules haven’r been finalized and the teams wouldn’t be able to simulate those.

How will DRS work if cars are already trimming out on the straights? How would overtaking work?

Active aero is interesting enough for a qualy lap, but doesn't it have drawbacks for actual racing? So you can create all the dirty air you want in the corners, and then cloak your Cd on the straights.

Would they be relying on a push to pass system in that case?

[Tommy Cookers]

the problem is nothing to do with drag

the problem is - more power needs more tyre grip - but more tyre grip is only available for the less time
unless we have eg fan cars generating high DF at low speeds

low DF at high speeds isn't the answer - unless they reinstate 1930s-type circuits

[Hoffman900]

The part missing in this conversation is this applies to the current cars which have a Cd approaching 1.0 Cd, this is substantially worst than most pickup trucks.

Part of the new rule set is to use active aero to reduce drag on the straights. This is the part the entire PU / hybrid rule set is banking on to make work, otherwise you end up in the situation Horner is describing. The aero / chassis rules haven’r been finalized and the teams wouldn’t be able to simulate those.

How will DRS work if cars are already trimming out on the straights? How would overtaking work?

Active aero is interesting enough for a qualy lap, but doesn't it have drawbacks for actual racing? So you can create all the dirty air you want in the corners, and then cloak your Cd on the straights.

Would they be relying on a push to pass system in that case?

That is the second part of the complaint made by Verstappen and Horner.

Read Max’s point here: https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s-2 ... /10490913/

He explicitly calls out this part of the 2026+ rules.

I personally like push to pass like used in DTM and Indy Car. Let the driver’s decide when to use it and takes the whole “did we get the DRS zones” right out of the equation, and if you use it up, you use it up.

[Hoffman900]

the problem is nothing to do with drag

the problem is - more power needs more tyre grip - but more tyre grip is only available for the less time
unless we have eg fan cars generating high DF at low speeds

low DF at high speeds isn't the answer - unless they reinstate 1930s-type circuits

It has everything to do with drag.

Drag consumes horsepower, that is the point of making more power in a series where downforce is rewarded with faster lap times.

Everyone involved in Bonneville knows this as well. You pick a class, look at the record, and look through the rule book for that class to see if you can make enough power with a given engine for a given chassis / body to match or beat said record.

The FIA is trying to “fix” what Horner pointed out with active aero to reduce drag. The entire concept working and not being a dud hinges on it.

The cars as they sit now have nearly the aero drag of a box truck / lorry, and that takes A LOT (~1000hp all in) to push these things above 200mph / 320kmh, where it only took 600hp 30 years ago (but they subsequently had a lot less downforce).

[Zynerji]

the problem is nothing to do with drag

the problem is - more power needs more tyre grip - but more tyre grip is only available for the less time
unless we have eg fan cars generating high DF at low speeds

low DF at high speeds isn't the answer - unless they reinstate 1930s-type circuits

AWD would help this?

[Hoffman900]

the problem is nothing to do with drag

the problem is - more power needs more tyre grip - but more tyre grip is only available for the less time
unless we have eg fan cars generating high DF at low speeds

low DF at high speeds isn't the answer - unless they reinstate 1930s-type circuits

AWD would help this?

Help what? I have no idea what Tommy is talking about.

The rules are as I said, less IC power and more EC power, and to keep them from running out of charge, they’re going to allow active aero to reduce drag. That’s literally the published and agreed upon rule concept.

Remember drag is proportional to the square of speed. The faster you go, the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of speed. The faster you go the more power you consume.

[Zynerji]

the problem is nothing to do with drag

the problem is - more power needs more tyre grip - but more tyre grip is only available for the less time
unless we have eg fan cars generating high DF at low speeds

low DF at high speeds isn't the answer - unless they reinstate 1930s-type circuits

AWD would help this?

Help what? Tommy is wrong and I have no idea what he is talking about.

The rules are as I said, less IC power and more EC power, and to keep them from running out of charge, they’re going to allow active aero to reduce drag.

I was asking if moving to AWD would give a large enough traction offset to not require an increase in downforce for the same vehicle speed.

[Hoffman900]

AWD would help this?

Help what? Tommy is wrong and I have no idea what he is talking about.

The rules are as I said, less IC power and more EC power, and to keep them from running out of charge, they’re going to allow active aero to reduce drag.

I was asking if moving to AWD would give a large enough traction offset to not require an increase in downforce for the same vehicle speed.

AWD only helps during grip limited acceleration phase. That won’t do anything for braking or lateral grip, and you’ll also add more frictional losses to the system with AWD. Plus to package it all, you’ll likely compromise a ton of aero.