2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Tommy Cookers]

any other method to generate by the MGU-K OTHER than under braking will be considered as 'extra harvesting by the rule makers, As was the case before.

untrue

extra harvesting is harvesting more than 2 MJ/lap
(this done by turning MGUK-generated electrical energy into MGUH-generated electrical energy before storage)

non-brake harvesting was/is allowed provided the total harvest doesn't exceed 2 MJ/lap


this thread is about the 2026-rules cars
continuing a 5 year sterile argument about 2014-rules cars isn't useful

[wuzak]

this thread is about the 2026-rules cars
continuing a 5 year sterile argument about 2014-rules cars isn't useful

And the 2026 rules definitely allow energy recovery in more ways than just under braking.

[saviour stivala]

TC. Do not fall into the same ''STERIL'' arguments yourself, Just go ahead and quote prof that the rules and spirits of the rules allows MGU-K NON-BRAKE harvesting.

[AR3-GP]

I thought it was mentioned than an additional 30kg of fuel was permitted for generating electricity?

[saviour stivala]

I thought it was mentioned than an additional 30kg of fuel was permitted for generating electricity?

The '30kg of additional fuel to generate electricity was quoted as 'mentioned' in regards the new for 2026 power unit regulations.

[wuzak]

Assuming 10s of braking at maximum recovery power per lap, that gives 3.5MJ of energy.

The revised energy recovery allowed is 8.5MJ.

That leaves 5MJ per lap to be recovered from burning fuel.

Assuming an average efficiency of 45% during recovery, that means 11.1MJ of fuel energy needs to burned per laps for electricity recovery.

The allowed energy density for the fuel is 38 to 41MJ/kg.

The worst case is 38MJ/kg.

11.1MJ/38MJ/kg = 0.29kg per lap.

50 lap race = 14.6kg
60 lap race = 17.5kg

[mzso]

. . .
AMuS (Gruner) has quite recently written that the F1 cars use 30% of the fuel to generate electricity

No doubt he means 15%.
50% - waste heat
35% - power to drive wheels
15% - generate electricity

As I said any fuel burned to generate electricity at present is done by the MGU-H/said electricity generated is generated by MGU-H only "capturing and making use of exhaust energy that would otherwise have gone to waste". AND also agree that it is done when/while the ICE is operating/running at its peak efficiency "producing the highest percentage of the potential energy in the fuel and delivering it to the crankshaft''. That 'electricity produced' is a plus to the 2mj maximum permitted per-lap that can be produced under braking by the MGU-K "capturing and making use of brake energy that could otherwise have gone to waste''. Of course all this is as the system is at present.

True. But also irrelevant to the point of recovering by K.

[saviour stivala]

"True but also irrelevant to the point of recovering by 'K'''. Cannot but agree that after all mine was a contribution to an irrelevant point to a subject at hand post. The problem is that while 'irrelevant' to the point at hand at a certain point in time post are a norm, They are so only up to when it doesn't suits one, This is no different from. while one is contributing to the point at hand at the time, in the same breath he throws in ''This tread is supposed to be about the 2026 formula and not the present one''. Which to me it sounds like '' While contributing to your raised point with an irrelevant point,"i am not liking what i am reading, ''this is supposed to be about 2026 and not the present''.

[Tommy Cookers]

I'm told there is a new F1 design proposed - called the Stivala

designed to comply with rules that don't exist ....
it has rear wheel drive from the ICE and front wheel drive and recovery from the MGU-K .....
so preventing any generation from ICE power

... seems good to me !!

[saviour stivala]

Seems good to me too. But than we will both be risking being told by those that so suits them to do so, that it is neither present nor the original one at hand, the new for 2026 formula. and plus to all that, it still would not have contributed any evidence as to the questions asked in regards the rules allowing harvesting by the 'K' other than under braking.

[michl420]

Most people here think mguk harvest under acceleration and/or full throttle is going on now and of corse will in the 2026 regulation. Because it makes sense and, it is not forbidden in the rule book if I am not overlook something.

[gruntguru]

I'm told there is a new F1 design proposed - called the Stivala

designed to comply with rules that don't exist ....
it has rear wheel drive from the ICE and front wheel drive and recovery from the MGU-K .....
so preventing any generation from ICE power

Why not drive the rear wheels with the ICE and simultaneously harvest from the front wheels. This "stivala" thing will be easy to circumvent - unless the teams decide to suddenly start abiding by the "guiding design principles" (which they have never done).

[saviour stivala]

As I said, this here new idea seems good to me too, But as I also said, the original thread is being diverted away from not only the 'already diverted, that of the present formula but also from the original one of 2026. But then, it seems OK if done by some but not some others when arguments dry's-up. This tactic seems to work wounders for accumulations of up-votes.

[mzso]

Most people here think mguk harvest under acceleration and/or full throttle is going on now and of corse will in the 2026 regulation. Because it makes sense and, it is not forbidden in the rule book if I am not overlook something.

I don't think many think it's going on now. It's much better to use the H, because that recovers otherwise unusable energy.

[mzso]

"True but also irrelevant to the point of recovering by 'K'''. Cannot but agree that after all mine was a contribution to an irrelevant point to a subject at hand post. The problem is that while 'irrelevant' to the point at hand at a certain point in time post are a norm, They are so only up to when it doesn't suits one, This is no different from. while one is contributing to the point at hand at the time, in the same breath he throws in ''This tread is supposed to be about the 2026 formula and not the present one''. Which to me it sounds like '' While contributing to your raised point with an irrelevant point,"i am not liking what i am reading, ''this is supposed to be about 2026 and not the present''.

You achieved unintelligibility.
Anyway even before you kept rambling all around the place without keeping to a point. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue for or against anymore.