2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[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.

[saviour stivala]

The probable problem of a guy saying that he can't read you is, He wants to have control of the situation and doesn't think he does. He wants to know how you're feeling and what you want and doesn't. He should sit dawn and ask you his question or just be patient. It's ok for him to have work and want to know you better. It also most probably means you are keeping him off balance and can't figure out how to move on you.

[wuzak]

About override power, I presume the aim would be for the driver to hit the override button at the point where the normal MGUK power starts to fall (290km/h), rather than using the button at higher speed, where the boost in power could be as much as 237.5kW (at 337.5km/h).

It would be a 50kW jump if the button is pressed at 300km/h.

Could we see a situation where the teams work out, as they did with KERS, that using the override at specific locations every lap gives the best overall performance?

[wuzak]

Just checking the part throttle fuel flow:

5.4.5 At partial load, the fuel energy flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:

• EF (MJ/h) = 380 when the engine power is equal to or below ‐50kW
• EF (MJ/h) = 9.78 x engine power (kW) + 869 when the engine power is above ‐50kW

I think that the term engine power is correct. Perhaps it should be PU power demand?

Anyway, using the second formalu gives a lot more fuel flow than the standard fuel flow curve.

For example, at 5,000rpm the maximum fuel flow is 1,151MJ/h, which equates to 189kW, assuming 45% thermal efficiency.

Pluggong 189kW into the partial load formula, you get a fuel flow of 2,717MJ. With the same 45% efficiency, that equates to 340kW. So enables 151kW of regeneration.

But that seems to be in conflict with the other fuel flow rules:
5.4.3 Fuel energy flow must not exceed 3000MJ/h.
5.4.4 Below 10500rpm the fuel energy flow must not exceed EF(MJ/h)=0.27*N(rpm)+ 165

45% efficieny with 3,000MJ/h gives maximum ppower of 375kW.
At partial power demand of 375kW the fuel flow can be 4536.5MJ/h, more than 50% above the maximum. (full power demand in this scenario would be 375kW ICE + 350kW MGUK below 290km/h).

So, is the fuel flow defined in 5.4.5 bound by 5.4.4 and 5.4.3?
If so, that wouldn't that make 5.4.5 pointless?

Edit: I had thought that the rule 5.4.5 was introduced to limit the amount of energy that could be recovered at part throttle, but running the numbers it appears to be the opposite and is intended to maximise part throttle regeneration.

[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

[deadhead]

Is Aramco supposed to be the sole fuel supplier for the new formula?

[saviour stivala]

Formula 2 and 3 up to now but not formula 1 yet, The formula 1 fuel and oil used situation as is up to now is that all customer teams use manufacturers (4) specified fuel and oils regardless of fuel/oil sponsors advertised on car by teams.

[wuzak]

Is Aramco supposed to be the sole fuel supplier for the new formula?

No.

There will be multiple fuel suppliers.

[wuzak]

I wonder if they will be able to have a reverse setting for the MGUK from 2026.

Just saw Leclerc do a a half spin turn, got it into reverse, then drove forward again, but could not get reverse again because the clutch was cooked.

With the more powerful MGUK they should be able to stop the ICE, put it in 1st and use the MGUK to reverse.

[saviour stivala]

So "with the more powerful MGU-K they should be able to stop the ICE, put it in 1st and use the MGU-K to reverse'' Good this, very good indeed.

[wuzak]

Assuming that rotating the engine in reverse doesn't hurt it.

[Tommy Cookers]

I wonder if they will be able to have a reverse setting for the MGUK from 2026.
With the more powerful MGUK they should be able to stop the ICE, put it in 1st and use the MGUK to reverse.

that would be 4 quadrant capability of the power electronics
(what we have at present is 2 quadrant)
someone said that the extra 'cost' would be trivial

we could then throw away the ICE-driven mechanical reverse
will hybrid road cars ever throw it away ?

[CaribouBread]

As the regulation for the '26 Hybrid PU is about to be finalized, Domenicali is already speculating on the subsequent rule change for '30.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... /10611063/

And in what could be a dramatic change of approach for F1 after what by then will have been more than 15 years of turbo hybrid engines, Domenicali has hinted that one option could be to abandon the current concept altogether.

“As soon as the 2026 regulations are defined, we will start to think about what the next steps will be, such as the 2030 engine,” said Domenicali.

“It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available."

[wuzak]

As the regulation for the '26 Hybrid PU is about to be finalized, Domenicali is already speculating on the subsequent rule change for '30.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... /10611063/

And in what could be a dramatic change of approach for F1 after what by then will have been more than 15 years of turbo hybrid engines, Domenicali has hinted that one option could be to abandon the current concept altogether.

“As soon as the 2026 regulations are defined, we will start to think about what the next steps will be, such as the 2030 engine,” said Domenicali.

“It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available."

It is not up to FOM. The rules belong to the FIA.

[Cs98]

As the regulation for the '26 Hybrid PU is about to be finalized, Domenicali is already speculating on the subsequent rule change for '30.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-r ... /10611063/

And in what could be a dramatic change of approach for F1 after what by then will have been more than 15 years of turbo hybrid engines, Domenicali has hinted that one option could be to abandon the current concept altogether.

“As soon as the 2026 regulations are defined, we will start to think about what the next steps will be, such as the 2030 engine,” said Domenicali.

“It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available."

It is not up to FOM. The rules belong to the FIA.

FOM has got the FIA on a leash. The 2022 rules, the brainchild of the FIA? No. The brainchild of Ross Brawn and his team, hired by FOM. 2026, 2030, no different.