2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Big Tea]

It would be an interesting process to watch if the FIA just said "you have 100 litres of fuel(*) to do the race, go and build your PU to make the best use of it. Car has to meet the usual other requirements for safety and aero limits. What have you got?"

(*)If the fuel allowance is below a certain critical value, some form of hybrid systems will be required to be competitive. The question is what is the critical fuel amount that forces the engineers to do more than just ask the drivers to lift and coast? Storing some of the wasted energy will be required in order to be competitive.

Would it not be better to just state the maximum flow rate if you want to open up options?
This would mean for power to be used alongside the ICE when at maximum requirement, and stored when there is spare capacity?

I don't know. Is a fuel flow rate a better restriction or is just a total fuel amount as good/better?

I was thinking that if fuel was available, the 'easy way' to get power is add cc, add boost, add revs.
All the traditional way to do things that have been covered this last decade.

With a flow limit, none of the above would be worth much investment as its old hat.
The only 'easy' ways to send makers down a different path is to give a restriction or an 'unexploited avenue'

If if total fuel is restricted it would make them chase economy and efficiency, but they have been doing that since the fuel allocation was first introduced, and it must be costing more and more to gain less and less by now, so a chance to go in another direction will leave the low hanging fruit while research comes through.

This is of course as well as any regen that could be allowed, but that is almost a cert now though.

Just my personal thinking, not that I am that good at thinking.

[Stu]

Would it not be better to just state the maximum flow rate if you want to open up options?
This would mean for power to be used alongside the ICE when at maximum requirement, and stored when there is spare capacity?

I don't know. Is a fuel flow rate a better restriction or is just a total fuel amount as good/better?

I was thinking that if fuel was available, the 'easy way' to get power is add cc, add boost, add revs.
All the traditional way to do things that have been covered this last decade.

With a flow limit, none of the above would be worth much investment as its old hat.
The only 'easy' ways to send makers down a different path is to give a restriction or an 'unexploited avenue'

If if total fuel is restricted it would make them chase economy and efficiency, but they have been doing that since the fuel allocation was first introduced, and it must be costing more and more to gain less and less by now, so a chance to go in another direction will leave the low hanging fruit while research comes through.

This is of course as well as any regen that could be allowed, but that is almost a cert now though.

Just my personal thinking, not that I am that good at thinking.

Fuel flow restriction is an interesting avenue. I have been thinking recently “if they had the fuel flow restriction WITHOUT the ERS devices would the cars be lighter or faster (as there is a need to use some of the fuel to ‘drive’ the electrical systems). Without that requirement what difference would it make to vehicle performance (if engine capacity was unchanged)?

[Big Tea]

I don't know. Is a fuel flow rate a better restriction or is just a total fuel amount as good/better?

I was thinking that if fuel was available, the 'easy way' to get power is add cc, add boost, add revs.
All the traditional way to do things that have been covered this last decade.

With a flow limit, none of the above would be worth much investment as its old hat.
The only 'easy' ways to send makers down a different path is to give a restriction or an 'unexploited avenue'

If if total fuel is restricted it would make them chase economy and efficiency, but they have been doing that since the fuel allocation was first introduced, and it must be costing more and more to gain less and less by now, so a chance to go in another direction will leave the low hanging fruit while research comes through.

This is of course as well as any regen that could be allowed, but that is almost a cert now though.

Just my personal thinking, not that I am that good at thinking.

Fuel flow restriction is an interesting avenue. I have been thinking recently “if they had the fuel flow restriction WITHOUT the ERS devices would the cars be lighter or faster (as there is a need to use some of the fuel to ‘drive’ the electrical systems). Without that requirement what difference would it make to vehicle performance (if engine capacity was unchanged)?

I think regen is here to stay along with 'green' fuel. Not so much as because it is a good idea, as because they are demonstrating F1 has some feedback into green transport (? honest ?)

They would have to make a clear decision that F1 is ICE based and old school motor sport continued in the way sailing rowing or horse racing is related to the original use of boats and horses.


I am not against it as such, but I can not see it continue to be the panicle as it is now and says it always has been.

I do wonder if someone with enough cash influence and media connections (cough, Red Bull) were to get some sort of classic style racing with new build cars if it would rival F1?

[NL_Fer]

Middle of the road solution would be limit the amount of fuel per lap.

It gives more design freedom, but prevents a team running 1500bhp for the first 3 laps, than cruise to victory.

Another option would be to limit the amount exhaust recovery. It would stop chasing that path of efficiency, but also cut allot of cost in that area.

[Big Tea]

Middle of the road solution would be limit the amount of fuel per lap.

It gives more design freedom, but prevents a team running 1500bhp for the first 3 laps, than cruise to victory.

Another option would be to limit the amount exhaust recovery. It would stop chasing that path of efficiency, but also cut allot of cost in that area.

Do you think maybe this is partly achieved now by tyres? Not intentionally (or is it?)
Use of too much power too often tares the tyres up, and probably helps spread the effectiveness of more power, and increases damage when retarding at the end of a straight from a higher point. It is obviously advantageous to hit that higher point, but it is not free from a tyres point of view.

[subfire91]

i would love to see where hydrogen leads them

but thats just a big wish, it wont happen, at least soon.

But i do believe its the future though

[Big Tea]

i would love to see where hydrogen leads them

but thats just a big wish, it wont happen, at least soon.

But i do believe its the future though

I would like to see the option left open for the teams to decide. It could even allow an outsider to come into the sport as a sponsored testbed. Even if they run consistently last, it would be good publicity and worth getting names on the cars

[Jolle]

i would love to see where hydrogen leads them

but thats just a big wish, it wont happen, at least soon.

But i do believe its the future though

I would like to see the option left open for the teams to decide. It could even allow an outsider to come into the sport as a sponsored testbed. Even if they run consistently last, it would be good publicity and worth getting names on the cars

There is garage 92 at Le Mans for those kinds of projects. F1 isn’t the place to run experimental cars outside the rules

[Big Tea]

i would love to see where hydrogen leads them

but thats just a big wish, it wont happen, at least soon.

But i do believe its the future though

I would like to see the option left open for the teams to decide. It could even allow an outsider to come into the sport as a sponsored testbed. Even if they run consistently last, it would be good publicity and worth getting names on the cars

There is garage 92 at Le Mans for those kinds of projects. F1 isn’t the place to run experimental cars outside the rules

Why would it be outside the rules? Same rules for everyone.
That is options, not compulsory

[NL_Fer]

Thinking about the scaled down version of current V6, like a 1.0 liter i3 or V4 with exhaust heat recovery. It would mean 200kw less power from ICE, can a bigger MGU-K compensate? It would at least need allot for energy from the hybrid system and another improvement of combustion efficiency.

I believe Mercedes would like this, to continue on their current technology. But are Ferrari and Renault in for another development war? And were does this leave Redbull, I doubt they can have the resource and knowledge to develop the Honda engine into this new era.

[jjn9128]

Thinking about the scaled down version of current V6, like a 1.0 liter i3 or V4 with exhaust heat recovery. It would mean 200kw less power from ICE, can a bigger MGU-K compensate? It would at least need allot for energy from the hybrid system and another improvement of combustion efficiency.

I believe Mercedes would like this, to continue on their current technology. But are Ferrari and Renault in for another development war? And were does this leave Redbull, I doubt they can have the resource and knowledge to develop the Honda engine into this new era.

Of course a bigger MGU is possible, but it adds weight. Then the weight of the batteries to drive it. Then there's the issue of how quickly the batteries deplete - you get half way up the straight then lose 1/2 your power and start decelerating. It's what the Toyota drivers noted with the GR010, that they can continue to accelerate the whole straight and not have to lift and coast so much to save energy - they're much happier about that. More lift and coast and derating is just going to make the drivers moan more. Less happy drivers translates to less happy pundits who make less happy fans - who likes listening to everyone complain all the time!? (Coulthard pisses me right off about this - complains about track limits, "if there was a wall there they'd obey", but then complains about penalties for track limits ).

F1 is between a rock and a hard place though. The OEMs want a certain thing, fans another. They cant go backwards because it can't be seen to be going against progress, but smaller engineering firms can't come in to save the teams without OEM backing because they'd never be competitive. Costs need to be contained but new technology is expensive.

What we've seen from the RS25 demo runs is F1 needs to be smaller/lighter but not necessarily faster. Another thing that annoys me about new aero coming for 2022 then new engine in 2025, those 2 need to be joined up in the "formula"; i.e. decide what sort of aero levels are appropriate for a power/fuel efficiency level.

[NL_Fer]

Yes, i feel the same way.

To drive the bigger MGU-K much more energy is needed from the ERS. This will set the doors wide open for another development war.

[RedNEO]

Thinking about the scaled down version of current V6, like a 1.0 liter i3 or V4 with exhaust heat recovery. It would mean 200kw less power from ICE, can a bigger MGU-K compensate? It would at least need allot for energy from the hybrid system and another improvement of combustion efficiency.

I believe Mercedes would like this, to continue on their current technology. But are Ferrari and Renault in for another development war? And were does this leave Redbull, I doubt they can have the resource and knowledge to develop the Honda engine into this new era.

Of course a bigger MGU is possible, but it adds weight. Then the weight of the batteries to drive it. Then there's the issue of how quickly the batteries deplete - you get half way up the straight then lose 1/2 your power and start decelerating. It's what the Toyota drivers noted with the GR010, that they can continue to accelerate the whole straight and not have to lift and coast so much to save energy - they're much happier about that. More lift and coast and derating is just going to make the drivers moan more. Less happy drivers translates to less happy pundits who make less happy fans - who likes listening to everyone complain all the time!? (Coulthard pisses me right off about this - complains about track limits, "if there was a wall there they'd obey", but then complains about penalties for track limits ).

F1 is between a rock and a hard place though. The OEMs want a certain thing, fans another. They cant go backwards because it can't be seen to be going against progress, but smaller engineering firms can't come in to save the teams without OEM backing because they'd never be competitive. Costs need to be contained but new technology is expensive.

What we've seen from the RS25 demo runs is F1 needs to be smaller/lighter but not necessarily faster. Another thing that annoys me about new aero coming for 2022 then new engine in 2025, those 2 need to be joined up in the "formula"; i.e. decide what sort of aero levels are appropriate for a power/fuel efficiency level.

This is true, it makes no sense why they have these new car regs that don’t even include the most important thing, the engines. Whatever engines they come up with will be still fitted to these heavy sluggish long cars.

If they want excitement they need to take out the mguh, take out the battery and have an engine running on the new sustainable efuels so nobody can complain about it not being green.

If they keep the mguh’s and batteries but just make them bigger and more expensive there’s no point even having a freeze for the same engines we have or calling them “new” engines.

[gruntguru]

Thinking about the scaled down version of current V6, like a 1.0 liter i3 or V4 with exhaust heat recovery. It would mean 200kw less power from ICE . .

As long as fuel flow stays at 100 kg/hr, the power won't drop much at all, especially at 1.0 liter. I think 0.8 liter IL-3 would be the best starting point - with perhaps 80 kg/hr fuel.

[mzso]

But will we get two stroke engines like Pat Symonds suggested?