2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[wuzak]

I would expect this to be particularly relevant to race pace since qualifying pace is more dependant on stored energy. So I think the difference between qualy and race pace is likely to be larger than we have now.

I think that will be very different to the all out qualifying laps as we know them now, simply because to maximise the ERS they will have to lift for corners early.

[Vanja #66]

***
Both RB and Audi are new PU manufacturers who hired a bunch of F1 people. Who do you think is filling these job listings that Audi posted: https://www.motorsportjobs.com/us/jobs? ... a_level_1=

F1 people. Is Audi not allowed to hire F1 people either l'est there new manufacturer status be revoked?
****
I think I would like to continue the discussion somewhere, but I think it will be a bit off topic to continue it here.

Agreed, maybe this is a good place.

Anyways, let's talk realistically. Does anyone (other than HC RB fans) trully believe RBPT didn't have a deep look into Honda PU, documentation and other? They started their preparations for RBPT as soon as Honda anounced they will quit F1, drawing Honda personnel as well as others. They made plans to manufacture their engines and made huge steps towards that, both with infrastructure, IP and personnel.

They established themselves as manufacturer in 2021, before the engine freeze came into play. 2022 engine development freeze was a milestone change of engine rules, like 2014 was and like 2026 will be. So if you establish yourself as a manufacturer before 2022 rule change, why should you be considered as new manufacturer in 2026?

[saviour stivala]

. . . developments efforts were concentrated fully on combustion efficiency. . . .

Not "Combustion efficiency" - "Thermal efficiency".
There is a difference, read Tommy's posts - he is correct.

There might be a difference. But I was talking about combustion efficiency, while others were as is usual talking and pushing forward 101 different things. For an example of 'combustion high efficiency needs' Audi advertised included an application for combustion process development engineer for their forthcoming F1 ICE, ''Applicant task was declared as "development of high performance/high 'EFFICIENCY' COMBUSTION PROCESS''.

[henry]

. . . developments efforts were concentrated fully on combustion efficiency. . . .

Not "Combustion efficiency" - "Thermal efficiency".
There is a difference, read Tommy's posts - he is correct.

There might be a difference. But I was talking about combustion efficiency, while others were as is usual talking and pushing forward 101 different things. For an example of 'combustion high efficiency needs' Audi advertised included an application for combustion process development engineer for their forthcoming F1 ICE, ''Applicant task was declared as "development of high performance/high 'EFFICIENCY' COMBUSTION PROCESS''.

I would suggest recruitment copy writer didn’t understand the difference between combustion efficiency, ITE and BTE. But I’m guessing the candidates and interviewers did.

[saviour stivala]

Audi's recruitment copy writer known perfectly well what he was stating in his stated application ''development of high performance/high efficiency combustion process'' meaning (The rate at which an engine converts fuel into energy) This process is the starting point of any and all other possible efficiency processes that follows.

[godlameroso]

Combustion efficiency is/should be a thing. The speed of your combustion without pre-igniting, or severe detonation, should reflect the efficiency of the combustion process.

[saviour stivala]

Combustion efficiency is/should be a thing. The speed of your combustion without pre-igniting, or severe detonation, should reflect the efficiency of the combustion process.

Exactly. ''The speed of combustion without pre-ignition, or severe detonation'' - At the best rate which said combustion converts fuel into energy. This - the combustion efficiency process is the very start 'process' that triggers all other efficiency calculations. This to me is like the 'front wing' part of all of the aero downforce process. The front wing is the part the fronts the air, as such it more or less conditions the rest of the aero downforce process.

[AR3-GP]

***
Both RB and Audi are new PU manufacturers who hired a bunch of F1 people. Who do you think is filling these job listings that Audi posted: https://www.motorsportjobs.com/us/jobs? ... a_level_1=

F1 people. Is Audi not allowed to hire F1 people either l'est there new manufacturer status be revoked?
****
I think I would like to continue the discussion somewhere, but I think it will be a bit off topic to continue it here.

Agreed, maybe this is a good place.

Anyways, let's talk realistically. Does anyone (other than HC RB fans) trully believe RBPT didn't have a deep look into Honda PU, documentation and other? They started their preparations for RBPT as soon as Honda anounced they will quit F1, drawing Honda personnel as well as others. They made plans to manufacture their engines and made huge steps towards that, both with infrastructure, IP and personnel.

They established themselves as manufacturer in 2021, before the engine freeze came into play. 2022 engine development freeze was a milestone change of engine rules, like 2014 was and like 2026 will be. So if you establish yourself as a manufacturer before 2022 rule change, why should you be considered as new manufacturer in 2026?

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

It looks like the dispute was not with regards to the ICE/MGU-K (which as I've been saying before, Honda would never let anyone have a look. The engines were being shipped in crates from Sakura), and rather it was with the energy store (which is stuff that is manufactured by 3rd parties). Honda is not a battery manufacturer.



and with that said, Audi has vast experience with ERS systems from the FIA WEC championship. It's interesting that this is overlooked.

[saviour stivala]

The FIA could as well have kept the whole process more simple and paid any new manufacturer to enter instead of first going all out to placate them by asking them in what way they would like the new power unit rule to be like and than offering all this complicated benefit schemes which looks and sounds more like a supermarket points redemption system.

[FW17]

***
Both RB and Audi are new PU manufacturers who hired a bunch of F1 people. Who do you think is filling these job listings that Audi posted: https://www.motorsportjobs.com/us/jobs? ... a_level_1=

F1 people. Is Audi not allowed to hire F1 people either l'est there new manufacturer status be revoked?
****
I think I would like to continue the discussion somewhere, but I think it will be a bit off topic to continue it here.

Agreed, maybe this is a good place.

Anyways, let's talk realistically. Does anyone (other than HC RB fans) trully believe RBPT didn't have a deep look into Honda PU, documentation and other? They started their preparations for RBPT as soon as Honda anounced they will quit F1, drawing Honda personnel as well as others. They made plans to manufacture their engines and made huge steps towards that, both with infrastructure, IP and personnel.

They established themselves as manufacturer in 2021, before the engine freeze came into play. 2022 engine development freeze was a milestone change of engine rules, like 2014 was and like 2026 will be. So if you establish yourself as a manufacturer before 2022 rule change, why should you be considered as new manufacturer in 2026?

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

It looks like the dispute was not with regards to the ICE/MGU-K (which as I've been saying before, Honda would never let anyone have a look. The engines were being shipped in crates from Sakura), and rather it was with the energy store (which is stuff that is manufactured by 3rd parties). Honda is not a battery manufacturer.



and with that said, Audi has vast experience with ERS systems from the FIA WEC championship. It's interesting that this is overlooked.

Honda can make a battery, it is the cell they do not make just like most other manufacturers.

[AR3-GP]

Agreed, maybe this is a good place.

Anyways, let's talk realistically. Does anyone (other than HC RB fans) trully believe RBPT didn't have a deep look into Honda PU, documentation and other? They started their preparations for RBPT as soon as Honda anounced they will quit F1, drawing Honda personnel as well as others. They made plans to manufacture their engines and made huge steps towards that, both with infrastructure, IP and personnel.

They established themselves as manufacturer in 2021, before the engine freeze came into play. 2022 engine development freeze was a milestone change of engine rules, like 2014 was and like 2026 will be. So if you establish yourself as a manufacturer before 2022 rule change, why should you be considered as new manufacturer in 2026?

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

It looks like the dispute was not with regards to the ICE/MGU-K (which as I've been saying before, Honda would never let anyone have a look. The engines were being shipped in crates from Sakura), and rather it was with the energy store (which is stuff that is manufactured by 3rd parties). Honda is not a battery manufacturer.



and with that said, Audi has vast experience with ERS systems from the FIA WEC championship. It's interesting that this is overlooked.

Honda can make a battery, it is the cell they do not make just like most other manufacturers.

I think we are discussing semantics here.

[godlameroso]

I'm starting to see why the turbo has been regulated the way it has. I imagine that no one will need to use 4.8 Bar in order to have max power. Nor will they need to have the compressor go to its maximum allowable speed. The compressor only needs to be capable of flowing ~100lbs/min or ~.9kg/sec of air. Do you get that more efficiently from a smaller faster turbo, or a larger, slower turbo?

The regulations give you plenty of freedom regarding compressor trim, and blade geometry. Surprised they didn't specify a minimum compressor wheel root thickness. You can gain a lot of surface area by making the compressor wheel root thinner. So even if the compressor exducer is specified, the one that makes the wheel root thinner will get more surface area all else being equal.

[Vanja #66]

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

As with the cost cap cheating, this FIA decision is malarkey. RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before. They were preparing to make their own units ASAP. Can't think of any other Universe where RBPT would be considered as anything close to a new manufacturer...

[gruntguru]

Combustion efficiency is/should be a thing. The speed of your combustion without pre-igniting, or severe detonation, should reflect the efficiency of the combustion process.

Combustion efficiency is indeed a "thing." It is the efficiency with which chemical energy in the fuel is converted to heat energy in the combustion chamber. Combustion efficiency is very close to 100% in the lean-burn F1 engine. It was probably 95% or more in previous designs like the last of the old generation Honda turbos (running lambda 1.02). More recent NA designs running lambda less than 1.00 have combustion efficiency that falls in line with lambda. (eg an engine running lambda 0.9 will have a combustion efficiency of less than 90% - there is only enough air to burn 90% of the fuel.

(Brake) Thermal efficiency is the efficiency with which fuel chemical energy is converted to mechanical energy at the flywheel. The old generation Honda turbo had BTE of 32%. If you improved the combustion efficiency of that engine from 95% to 100%, the BTE would increase from 32% to 33.7%

The latest engines have BTE greater than 50% lets say 55%. Of those 23 percentage points improvement (from 32% to 55%) no more than 1 - 2 percentage points were the result of improving "combustion efficiency".

[AR3-GP]

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

As with the cost cap cheating, this FIA decision is malarkey. RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before. They were preparing to make their own units ASAP. Can't think of any other Universe where RBPT would be considered as anything close to a new manufacturer...

Yes I suspected you will be very cynical

The point of a "new manufacturer" is a manufacturer who has not engineered a power unit for an F1 car and operated their own design in a F1-Championship. This is actually the reason that RBPT did not get concession for ERS. They were assembling the battery pack in Milton-Keynes.

Porsche built an F1 engine in 2017! Audi are using the bones of that engine. Both have vast sums of V6 turbo hybrid experience,almost a decade worth of experience. They are still a "new manufacturer" because those developments were never operated in an F1 championship.