2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[vorticism]

RDEs as they currently exist are reacting fuel with pure oxygen, like most rockets, not compressed air. Can the RD part be performed in the presence of a nitrogen dilution (air)? What pressures would this require if so? Otherwise, you're carrying fuel and oxidizer on board and using the RDE tech as-is (as a liquid fuel rocket) in order to produce the jet that turns the MGUH. Ultimately it's a question of (for a series hybrid) what's the most mass efficient way to burn the chemical fuel. ChatGPT is not to be taken seriously.

a free-piston engine with linear MG ?

Conceptually it seems like this would have a lot to offer; some OEMs have researched it. However it is 1:1 ratio w/ piston travel whereas rotary MGUs in practice (in F1 and in EVs) are usually operating at much higher speeds relative to typical ICEs. If the linear motor can be solved for the application I would think the piston speed could be extremely high without connecting rods and bearings.

[mzso]

16kg (minimum) for 350kW motors for 2026 PU regulations. So two of them - one front, one rear, would give 700kW (938hp) for around 32kg, not including cables, and controllers.

16kg sound like a stretch, and you still need to double that weight, since you need equal amount of generation in this series hybrid setting. Also you need a cooling system for such motors, radiators pipes, fluid. Even if they would be 95% efficient (unlikely) you need to transfer 18kW of heat and quickly, because motors are not as tolerant for heat as engines.

All of this in an 8cm x 5cm circular silicon-carbide puck.

8*5cm for ~700kW? Doesn't seem to be in line with the laws of physics.

And about the manufacturers in F1. What I know is that F1 can never go 100% electric, as FE has that contract. F1 will always need some form of fossil/synthetic fuel burn for power. A gas/electric turbine turning an electric drive train is the inevitable future.

Ultimately it's a question of (for a series hybrid) what's the most mass efficient way to burn the chemical fuel.

It's more efficient not to burn fuel. But use it in a fuel cell instead. Which avoids doubling the electric capacity, since no generation is necessary. I sooner expect this happening then a series hybrid.

[Zynerji]

16kg (minimum) for 350kW motors for 2026 PU regulations. So two of them - one front, one rear, would give 700kW (938hp) for around 32kg, not including cables, and controllers.

16kg sound like a stretch, and you still need to double that weight, since you need equal amount of generation in this series hybrid setting. Also you need a cooling system for such motors, radiators pipes, fluid. Even if they would be 95% efficient (unlikely) you need to transfer 18kW of heat and quickly, because motors are not as tolerant for heat as engines.

All of this in an 8cm x 5cm circular silicon-carbide puck.

8*5cm for ~700kW? Doesn't seem to be in line with the laws of physics.

And about the manufacturers in F1. What I know is that F1 can never go 100% electric, as FE has that contract. F1 will always need some form of fossil/synthetic fuel burn for power. A gas/electric turbine turning an electric drive train is the inevitable future.

Ultimately it's a question of (for a series hybrid) what's the most mass efficient way to burn the chemical fuel.

It's more efficient not to burn fuel. But use it in a fuel cell instead. Which avoids doubling the electric capacity, since no generation is necessary. I sooner expect this happening then a series hybrid.

That last part violates FE's monopoly on full electric, no matter how you mathmetize it.

[Chuckjr]

I don’t know how we progress as a society without radical, and what may seem to some as absurd ideas. Copernicus and Galileo were mocked/killed for their radical ideas. Tesla had radical ideas about free energy. The coanda exhaust seemed nutty at first to many.

Simplifying the current PU option while increasing efficiency with less moving parts seems at least like something to consider — if not parts of it to make something else better. My god, what’s the problem with that? Didn’t they just start using jet tech in radiators?

Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean others can’t see better than you. Heck, that’s what an artist spends their life rendering — so others can see what they see clearly.

[mzso]

That last part violates FE's monopoly on full electric, no matter how you mathmetize it.

A. That's anecdotical info. Even if true, it might not apply to fuel cells EVs. Only BEVs.
B. You can always add a 1cc wankel.engine, if you must have an ICE.

[wuzak]

16kg (minimum) for 350kW motors for 2026 PU regulations. So two of them - one front, one rear, would give 700kW (938hp) for around 32kg, not including cables, and controllers.

16kg sound like a stretch, and you still need to double that weight, since you need equal amount of generation in this series hybrid setting. Also you need a cooling system for such motors, radiators pipes, fluid. Even if they would be 95% efficient (unlikely) you need to transfer 18kW of heat and quickly, because motors are not as tolerant for heat as engines.

I was just talking about the motors, which are the spec for the 2026 PU regulations.

I did talk about the generation earlier in the post.

[Carbon13674]

Hey everyone

Sorry to disrupt the flow of conversation

So I've been browsing the 2026 fuel regs lately (like many of y'all) and I'd like to understand the development implications of the regs themselves

I'm currently curious about this table regarding the composition of the fuels: it looks to be biased towards unsaturated HCs and I'm wondering how that will affect the fuel's performance.



As I understand it, unsaturated HCs are less "energy dense" (lower heat of combustion) than their saturated counterparts, so I'm wondering if this will "incentivise" teams to make their PUs more thermally efficient (specifically, more than it would have otherwise)

I might be wrong in reducing the "energy" of a fuel to ΔH°comb so feel free to correct me on that!

[wuzak]

Hey everyone

Sorry to disrupt the flow of conversation

So I've been browsing the 2026 fuel regs lately (like many of y'all) and I'd like to understand the development implications of the regs themselves

I'm currently curious about this table regarding the composition of the fuels: it looks to be biased towards unsaturated HCs and I'm wondering how that will affect the fuel's performance.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=310

As I understand it, unsaturated HCs are less "energy dense" (lower heat of combustion) than their saturated counterparts, so I'm wondering if this will "incentivise" teams to make their PUs more thermally efficient (specifically, more than it would have otherwise)

I might be wrong in reducing the "energy" of a fuel to ΔH°comb so feel free to correct me on that!

The LHV of the fuel must be between 38.0 and 41.0 MJ/kg, which I would think is quite a bit less than the current fuels.

That means that they will have between 73.17 and 78.95 kg/h fuel flow, but only have around 2/3 the power output (400kW assuming 48% thermal efficiency).

The current power units have higher efficiency when they run as a turbo-compound.

[Carbon13674]

Hey everyone

Sorry to disrupt the flow of conversation

So I've been browsing the 2026 fuel regs lately (like many of y'all) and I'd like to understand the development implications of the regs themselves

I'm currently curious about this table regarding the composition of the fuels: it looks to be biased towards unsaturated HCs and I'm wondering how that will affect the fuel's performance.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=310

As I understand it, unsaturated HCs are less "energy dense" (lower heat of combustion) than their saturated counterparts, so I'm wondering if this will "incentivise" teams to make their PUs more thermally efficient (specifically, more than it would have otherwise)

I might be wrong in reducing the "energy" of a fuel to ΔH°comb so feel free to correct me on that!

The LHV of the fuel must be between 38.0 and 41.0 MJ/kg, which I would think is quite a bit less than the current fuels.

That means that they will have between 73.17 and 78.95 kg/h fuel flow, but only have around 2/3 the power output (400kW assuming 48% thermal efficiency).

The current power units have higher efficiency when they run as a turbo-compound.

So just less performant engines all around?

[Tommy Cookers]

....I'm currently curious about this table regarding the composition of the fuels: it looks to be biased towards unsaturated HCs and I'm wondering how that will affect the fuel's performance.....

The LHV of the fuel must be between 38.0 and 41.0 MJ/kg, which I would think is quite a bit less than the current fuels.

the rules are presumably written around (non-traditional) alcohols and derivatives thereof
with a dash of the FIA favourite - 'commercial intent'

[AR3-GP]

Would it be appropriate to start a Red Bull Ford Power Unit thread to compile the development tidbits that are known currently?

[aleks_ader]

Possibly not IMO. Still too early i think.

[mzso]

Would it be appropriate to start a Red Bull Ford Power Unit thread to compile the development tidbits that are known currently?

I don't think we'll know anything solid of any of the PUs until they hit the track in 2026 testing.

[AR3-GP]

Would it be appropriate to start a Red Bull Ford Power Unit thread to compile the development tidbits that are known currently?

I don't think we'll know anything solid of any of the PUs until they hit the track in 2026 testing.

We were told they started the single cylinder engine and the V6 engines in benches in the summer last year. I think it could be interesting to chart the milestones (that come to light).

[wuzak]

So this is a Rotating Detonation Engine