2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Just_a_fan]

Well… If they, in this case, choose the Magnetti Martelli H motor shown in 2013 as a standerd part, there wouldn’t have been a spilt turbo solution and at the moment, in consumer products, the split turbo is the only one for sale in an actual car. There is no MM on any car out there.

The different commercial parties that would be interested in the real life application of a turbine driven recovery system could learn a lot from F1, companies like Bosch or Valeo. A standerd, sturdy, safe spec part, would hamper innovation.

This goes in my opinion for the several components that are new in this PU, where commercial use is possible. Battery tech, control electronics and where we see more use already: combustion chamber design and lean burn injection.

A co-developed, mass-market MGUH produced and used by the teams would be best. Then they can all offer in road cars and make more money/lower emissions. How is this NOT a great idea?

How much gas can it save when fitted to a golf? Can the owner recoupe the additional cost through his period of ownership of 4 year?

The thing about road cars, especially cars like the Golf, is numbers. They make and sell a lot of them. The costs of devices can be spread across 500k per year and that's just Golfs. Develop something that can be used across many makes and models and the cost per unit will be very small, meaning the cost to the owner is also small.

The benefit to the owners will depend on the markets being sold in to. In some markets where petroleum distillates are cheap, it will be a smaller saving. In countries where fuel is expensive, it'll make a bigger difference.

[Tommy Cookers]

there is nothing worth recovering unless the PU is running at high % power
as in F1 or the aircraft or torpedo boats or trucks that recoverd power

ie people should buy 20 hp engines in Golfs not 120 hp engines

[Jolle]

there is nothing worth recovering unless the PU is running at high % power
as in F1 or the aircraft or torpedo boats or trucks that recoverd power

ie people should buy 20 hp engines in Golfs not 120 hp engines

With every car, a motor with to much power that it's regular use is less efficient, but, any turbo car that still spits out heat out of the exhaust, has something to recover. And if you design in well, you could have a 60hp ICE, a 100hp E motor, that you'll have a 160hp off the line car, with a efficient 60hp for the motorway.

You have to think a bit different.

[Tommy Cookers]

SI engines are driven by throttling to degrade efficiency - there's a different torque curve for each throttle position
each different curve gives a different stable speed for a given vehicle and road
(unless regressive like a Yamaha RD350's)

but if recovery was maintained on throttling (it isn't) then further throttling efficiency drop would be needed - etc etc

yes an MGU-K and battery can be helpful for control aka driving

[FW17]

Only future for ICE is to work as a generator, in both fixed (charging) and mobile applications (as a range extender when coupled with inadequate battery size as in heavy and high power vehicles)

ICE power to wheels may not be the future.

Small, light, high efficient generator power packages should be future development

[Just_a_fan]

there is nothing worth recovering unless the PU is running at high % power
as in F1 or the aircraft or torpedo boats or trucks that recoverd power

ie people should buy 20 hp engines in Golfs not 120 hp engines

Interesting point about the required engine power. We used to have cars with less power that were just as quick/exciting to drive - but they got heavy. And that's the real issue with road cars. Take the VW Golf (if only because it's been mentioned before). The car has just about doubled in weight from the Mk1 to the current Mk8 and the power has either doubled or trebled too. The Base Golf is now 110PS with the top performing model about 300PS. Back in the day, the base model would have been around 45PS and the GTi around 110PS.

Why cars are heavier is two-fold. One is safety - the cars have a lot more metal in them to protect the occupants in a crash. The other is equipment - modern cars have powered seats, windows, steering, climate control, lots of gadgets, "luxury trim", etc. All add weight.

If cars could be made lighter, we could use less powerful engines, which would use less fuel. Also, the energy in a crash would be lower. Reduce the mass of the car by 25% and you reduce the crash energy by 25%. (Yes, slowing cars down would be a bigger win in crash energy terms but short of reducing speed limits on all roads (not necessarily a political win), there's not much can be done about that.)

So perhaps car manufacturers should be concentrating on making lighter cars - not just aluminium chassis because that's actually a red herring - but by making the stuff in them lighter. Why is an aluminium chassis a red herring? Because aluminium's specific strength is the same as steels meaning they use more aluminium to match the strength of the steel that used to be used. Look at an aluminium crash leg on a car and compare to a steel version. The aluminium one is much chunkier and thus weights much the same.

The "make it lighter" mantra could be applied to F1 - a lighter car needs less power and has less energy in a given crash.

[Jolle]

there is nothing worth recovering unless the PU is running at high % power
as in F1 or the aircraft or torpedo boats or trucks that recoverd power

ie people should buy 20 hp engines in Golfs not 120 hp engines

Interesting point about the required engine power. We used to have cars with less power that were just as quick/exciting to drive - but they got heavy. And that's the real issue with road cars. Take the VW Golf (if only because it's been mentioned before). The car has just about doubled in weight from the Mk1 to the current Mk8 and the power has either doubled or trebled too. The Base Golf is now 110PS with the top performing model about 300PS. Back in the day, the base model would have been around 45PS and the GTi around 110PS.

Why cars are heavier is two-fold. One is safety - the cars have a lot more metal in them to protect the occupants in a crash. The other is equipment - modern cars have powered seats, windows, steering, climate control, lots of gadgets, "luxury trim", etc. All add weight.

If cars could be made lighter, we could use less powerful engines, which would use less fuel. Also, the energy in a crash would be lower. Reduce the mass of the car by 25% and you reduce the crash energy by 25%. (Yes, slowing cars down would be a bigger win in crash energy terms but short of reducing speed limits on all roads (not necessarily a political win), there's not much can be done about that.)

So perhaps car manufacturers should be concentrating on making lighter cars - not just aluminium chassis because that's actually a red herring - but by making the stuff in them lighter. Why is an aluminium chassis a red herring? Because aluminium's specific strength is the same as steels meaning they use more aluminium to match the strength of the steel that used to be used. Look at an aluminium crash leg on a car and compare to a steel version. The aluminium one is much chunkier and thus weights much the same.

The "make it lighter" mantra could be applied to F1 - a lighter car needs less power and has less energy in a given crash.

It might be the next stage in driverless car systems/active safety that will prevent cars to crash enough so dial back a lot of the structural safety features. I have this vision you are in full control inside a "box/window". If you exceed the window, the system will steer/brake/etc you back inside the safe window. This would not only work at speeds where today's safety features are designed for (quite low speed at 50-60km/h but also at higher speeds.

[J.A.W.]

No, F1 is nowadays about speed/distance on a specific fuel quantum, hence the DQ penalty so
recently applied by failure to comply with this very basic parametric requirement.

The avoirdupois coincidence between comfort/safety & power/speed continuums of F1/public car
usage is a simple perceived need/efficiency/physics trade-off which is a curious conflation indeed..

Even in Moto GP - where the riders also have a battle to be small enough to 'fit' the machine, yet have
strength/stamina to 'work' the ride over race distance on a big/heavy (for a GP bike) & keep up pace
for a win ('combat' costs on tyres/fuel included) is an added (& essentially overblown) - aspect today.

[Jolle]

No, F1 is nowadays about speed/distance on a specific fuel quantum, hence the DQ penalty so
recently applied by failure to comply with this very basic parametric requirement.

The avoirdupois coincidence between comfort/safety & power/speed continuums of F1/public car
usage is a simple perceived need/efficiency/physics trade-off which is a curious conflation indeed..

Even in Moto GP - where the riders also have a battle to be small enough to 'fit' the machine, yet have
strength/stamina to 'work' the ride over race distance on a big/heavy (for a GP bike) & keep up pace
for a win ('combat' costs on tyres/fuel included) is an added (& essentially overblown) - aspect today.

Vettel wasn’t disqualified because he used to much fuel. Cars can only use 110kg, but are allowed to carry more (for instance 115, for inlaps and that one L for analysis). In the “good old days” this was also the rule (started around the NA years in 1989 when they banned special fuels). Those years also had a max fuel tank size.

On most tracks cars on relative long races underfuel and have to save gas, it’s the fastest way from start to finish. Most likely last weekend none of the cars had 110kg fuel on board.

What do you mean with the rest? Can’t really make heads or tails from it.

[mzso]

And what if by doing so you halved the payload?

I doubt that's a realistic scenario.
Not sure about axle load and such regulations. But you could add more wheels, to deal with it.

[J.A.W.]

No, F1 is nowadays about speed/distance on a specific fuel quantum, hence the DQ penalty so
recently applied by failure to comply with this very basic parametric requirement.

The avoirdupois coincidence between comfort/safety & power/speed continuums of F1/public car
usage is a simple perceived need/efficiency/physics trade-off which is a curious conflation indeed..

Even in Moto GP - where the riders also have a battle to be small enough to 'fit' the machine, yet have
strength/stamina to 'work' the ride over race distance on a big/heavy (for a GP bike) & keep up pace
for a win ('combat' costs on tyres/fuel included) is an added (& essentially overblown) - aspect today.

Vettel wasn’t disqualified because he used to much fuel. Cars can only use 110kg, but are allowed to carry more (for instance 115, for inlaps and that one L for analysis). In the “good old days” this was also the rule (started around the NA years in 1989 when they banned special fuels). Those years also had a max fuel tank size.

On most tracks cars on relative long races underfuel and have to save gas, it’s the fastest way from start to finish. Most likely last weekend none of the cars had 110kg fuel on board.

What do you mean with the rest? Can’t really make heads or tails from it.

Its basic Newtonian physics, force required to overcome mass inherent inertia.

DQ was due to failure to provide the mandatory fuel reserve, as rules required,
whether by omission (lighter load) or, by commission (more energy/force expended).

[Zynerji]

It's for sample testing.

Honestly, 1L is ALOT for a test. Could easily be 1cc. I mean, they do DNA from a swab!

[henry]

Its basic Newtonian physics.

In frilly knickers

[J.A.W.]

Its basic Newtonian physics.

In frilly knickers

That's a tad ah, ruff - isn't it? (Or was the ruff fashionable earlier, in Tudor times, way
back when artillerymen had no idea of the havoc that energy/mass/inertia/G caused)?

[Jolle]

No, F1 is nowadays about speed/distance on a specific fuel quantum, hence the DQ penalty so
recently applied by failure to comply with this very basic parametric requirement.

The avoirdupois coincidence between comfort/safety & power/speed continuums of F1/public car
usage is a simple perceived need/efficiency/physics trade-off which is a curious conflation indeed..

Even in Moto GP - where the riders also have a battle to be small enough to 'fit' the machine, yet have
strength/stamina to 'work' the ride over race distance on a big/heavy (for a GP bike) & keep up pace
for a win ('combat' costs on tyres/fuel included) is an added (& essentially overblown) - aspect today.

Vettel wasn’t disqualified because he used to much fuel. Cars can only use 110kg, but are allowed to carry more (for instance 115, for inlaps and that one L for analysis). In the “good old days” this was also the rule (started around the NA years in 1989 when they banned special fuels). Those years also had a max fuel tank size.

On most tracks cars on relative long races underfuel and have to save gas, it’s the fastest way from start to finish. Most likely last weekend none of the cars had 110kg fuel on board.

What do you mean with the rest? Can’t really make heads or tails from it.

Its basic Newtonian physics, force required to overcome mass inherent inertia.

DQ was due to failure to provide the mandatory fuel reserve, as rules required,
whether by omission (lighter load) or, by commission (more energy/force expended).

Every team knows for decades that they need to haul an extra liter of fuel for the end of the race. Why is this a physics problem all of the sudden?