2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[michl420]

Not sure what you are getting at there Wuzak. Is it the following?

My understanding is the power reduction rate limits only apply to "un-commanded" power reduction. So driver demand can reduce instantaneously if required and switching that surplus power to MGU-K recovery (genset mode) can also be instantaneous.

This power reduction rate is for full trottle recovery.
Question would be, if it isn't more lap time efficient to just go to part trottle an go immediatly to full harvest, or even have a button to start harvesting.
But such a button is most definitely forbidden by rules although the reduction would be technical be "driver demand".

[DenBommer]

So from next year on, are they going to burn fuel to charge the battery?

Which is technologically the most efficient: burning fuel to charge the battery, or adding a front MGU with the disadvantage of extra weight?

[Tommy Cookers]

So from next year on, are they going to burn fuel to charge the battery?
Which is technologically the most efficient: burning fuel to charge the battery, or adding a front MGU with the disadvantage of extra weight?

F1 cars were 'burning fuel to charge the battery' from 1.1.2014
as did the Prius from 1996 or something

what's efficient ???
F1 races had 3 to 8 corners per 5km lap - now they have 18 corners (to stop 800 hp cars going fast)

if the WDC was on the circle track at Bonneville salt flats (other salt flats are available globally) .....
there would be no electrical recovery (under braking) because there would be no braking and ....
there would be no electrical 'boost' (under acceleration) because there would be (more or less) no acceleration ....
but the cars would be efficient

[karana]

Not sure what you are getting at there Wuzak. Is it the following?

My understanding is the power reduction rate limits only apply to "un-commanded" power reduction. So driver demand can reduce instantaneously if required and switching that surplus power to MGU-K recovery (genset mode) can also be instantaneous.

This power reduction rate is for full trottle recovery.
Question would be, if it isn't more lap time efficient to just go to part trottle an go immediatly to full harvest, or even have a button to start harvesting.
But such a button is most definitely forbidden by rules although the reduction would be technical be "driver demand".

But under partial throttle (well, technically it says partial load, but I'm relatively sure it means basically partial throttle) there is the rule that limits fuel flow, which will effectively limit recovery to at best around 200kW.

C5.2.5 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

While I think it will be generally pre-programmed when the MGU-K starts harvesting, a button to start harvesting at 250kW under full throttle should probably still be allowed. There might be an argument such a button is disallowed by

C8.6.4 Accelerator Pedal
The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a
single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the Survival Cell.

but this rule also exists in the current (or rather old) regulations and "overtake buttons" that increase torque are currently allowed.

[wuzak]

Not sure what you are getting at there Wuzak. Is it the following?

My understanding is the power reduction rate limits only apply to "un-commanded" power reduction. So driver demand can reduce instantaneously if required and switching that surplus power to MGU-K recovery (genset mode) can also be instantaneous.

I'm asking if the statement "Unless the electrical DC power of the ERS-K is negative" means that the ramp down rate of 50kW/s or 100kW/s doesn't apply when the MGUK is recovering energy.

[karana]

Not sure what you are getting at there Wuzak. Is it the following?

My understanding is the power reduction rate limits only apply to "un-commanded" power reduction. So driver demand can reduce instantaneously if required and switching that surplus power to MGU-K recovery (genset mode) can also be instantaneous.

I'm asking if the statement "Unless the electrical DC power of the ERS-K is negative" means that the ramp down rate of 50kW/s or 100kW/s doesn't apply when the MGUK is recovering energy.

I mean, what else should it mean?

In other news, there has been an update for all 2026 regulations. One change I noticed: "Full throttle" was replaced by "power limited pending" or "power limited". The definition is sadly not included in the regulations.

C5.12.4 Except for conforming to Article C5.2.8, the driver maximum power demand cannot be reduced by
more than 150kW at the start of any (full Throttle) power limited pending period, and the power
reduction will remain fixed for a minimum of 1s. Further exceptions are permitted for specified
circuit sectors, subject to Article B7.2.1.
C5.12.5 The driver maximum power demand cannot be increased during any (full Throttle) power limited
pending or power limited period, except when the overtake mode is selected by the driver, or, subject to Article B7.2.1, when a reset of any power reduction is permitted.

[michl420]

While I think it will be generally pre-programmed when the MGU-K starts harvesting, a button to start harvesting at 250kW under full throttle should probably still be allowed. There might be an argument such a button is disallowed by

C8.6.4 Accelerator Pedal
The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a
single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the Survival Cell.

but this rule also exists in the current (or rather old) regulations and "overtake buttons" that increase torque are currently allowed.

When such a button is allowed, wouldn`t the whole rampe down under full trottle just be theoretical, because I would think to harvest late, short, and maxiumum is the most lap time friendly way to do it?

[karana]

While I think it will be generally pre-programmed when the MGU-K starts harvesting, a button to start harvesting at 250kW under full throttle should probably still be allowed. There might be an argument such a button is disallowed by

C8.6.4 Accelerator Pedal
The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a
single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the Survival Cell.

but this rule also exists in the current (or rather old) regulations and "overtake buttons" that increase torque are currently allowed.

When such a button is allowed, wouldn`t the whole rampe down under full trottle just be theoretical, because I would think to harvest late, short, and maxiumum is the most lap time friendly way to do it?

Well, the rules regarding the ramp down and maximum power reduction still apply, whether the driver presses a button or not. The point is that when the MGU-K has already stopped deploying, you can switch to -250kW (but not -350kW!) immediately because of the "Unless the electrical DC power of the ERS-K is negative" part. This can happen without driver input as part of the deployment mode or (maybe?) with driver input because the driver wants to harvest more energy to prepare for an overtake.

Basically my guess is that the fastest way around the track is by staying at full throttle as long as possible and then braking as hard as possible (though maybe there are driving styles that require longer braking zones?)

[madridista]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ho ... /10784997/

"Among the news leaking out about the new power unit is that the Recovery System will no longer be produced in Europe, because Honda intends to introduce the solid-state battery: this component was developed and manufactured in Japan.

Although the guy reporting(franco nugnes) messed up some stuff in the past, this might be true as a different journalist, Ralf Bach, reported something similar in july, claiming he has heard that honda has gone a "different direction with their battery compared to Mercedes, Ferrari, and RBPT"

What could the perks of this Solid State Battery in the context of f1 be? I thought that they could maybe run a smaller battery, if the storage is more energy dense than regular batteries. I admit im not very well versed on the engine regs, so it would be interesting to hear what (if any) benefit this could potentially offer.

Also interesting:

SHANGHAI, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Taiwanese battery maker ProLogium Technology Co on Thursday said it has signed a cooperation agreement with Daimler AG's (DAIGn.DE), opens new tab Mercedes-Benz to build test vehicles equipped with co-developed solid-state batteries in the coming years.

this was in January 22. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/t ... 022-01-27/

[wuzak]

C5.19.1 Only cells approved by the FIA Technical Department may be used in the ES. Subject for provision of the Article C18.2.5, the approval of the FIA Technical Department is conditional upon the PU manufacturer, intending to use such parts during a Championship season undertaking not to conclude any Exclusivity Agreement for the supply of such parts with the supplier of these parts. The approval request form must be sent by the PU Manufacturer to the FIA before the 1st of November of the preceding year.

[quincalla]

Interesting bit from the latest Formel Schmidt. (I don't speak german so I just machine-translated the transcription):

It was already relatively clear [before 2014] that Mercedes would probably deliver the best power unit, which was indeed the case, both in terms of reliability and power. But this time we're really completely in the dark.

If he doesn't know then I guess nobody does.

[DoctorRadio]

Allsopp adds that solid-state battery technology is also in its infancy, which means that plenty of work needs to be done to make a solid-state battery as safe, reliable and power-dense as the existing liquid-electrolyte batteries used in F1.

“With the way the technical regulations are written for 2026, it's still very much a power-based [battery] that you need.

“I would never say ‘never’; it depends on what the technical regulations drive. For the next round of regulations, I would be surprised if someone arrives with a solid-state.

“With the EQS, range is super important: enough power and great range. Solid state has good power density, but really good energy density, that's what gives you that opportunity for the increase in range. So, it's very specific to the height of commitment you're going for. And that's why it's not an easy ‘yes or no’ to answer your question,” said Allsopp.

Mercedes on solid state batteries in March 2025

https://www.raceteq.com/articles/2025/0 ... battery-f1

[mzso]

Don't forget, this is not fuel that was pulled out of the ground. It's sustainable fuel...To a certain degree, they don't care how much of it they need to burn.

It doesn't matter what they actually burn. The efficiency of the technology is what matters.

Not sure you understand, in 2026 you will have less downforce, normal braking will just take more meters because if you brake harder, you'll just lock up the wheels. The late brakers have the ability to stop later that others and still not lock up the tires. That will not change. Just late braking in 2026 will not be as late as it was in 2025. You still need the "touch" to perform the late braking and if you have it, you'll still be able to make use of it.

In the context, it seemed to me that he meant that late brakers will have less power available, due to reduced regen.

What does less power have to do with braking late?

With regards to efficiency...I meant the FIA don't care how much fuel you burn over a race(fuel efficiency). There is no fuel tank size limit, just a flow limit. The fuel itself isn't considered creating CO2 emissions. I'm not talking about from a racing perspective. Obviously, from a racing perspective, the more fuel you have to carry, the slower you'll be. The fuel flow limit is measured in energy. We did the calculations a couple of weeks ago in these pages. Full throttle for 1.5 hours, you can easily burn through 150 liters. The ICE will work harder next year off full throttle to make up for a lack of MGU-H. Let's say the PU power comes 50% from the MGU-K and 50% ICE. Anything 50% and less will come the ICE only. If the demand for power is 30%, the ICE will be working at Max power with 30% going to drive and the other 20% to spin the MGU-K to charge the battery. All this to say, next year it's gonna be interesting to see on a track that normally was 65% full throttle, how much more of the time the ICE will be at 100%!. A track like Monza that was like 75% full throttle in 2025 will the ICE be at 100% for 95% of the race?

Well, if there's less brake distance there's less energy recovered, so less energy to power acceleration. Or at least that is what was proposed, if understood correctly.

I wasn't thinking about racing either. They can point at how efficient their engine tech is as marketing. What fuel they burn for that is meaningless, whatever they emit is insignificant compared to the rest of the planet.

[mzso]

Let me ask a basic question , kindly help me :

My understanding about 2014 to 2025
a) brake pedal pressure affects the hydraulic pressure and decides the 'force' pressing the brake pads to the disc, which decides lockup or no lockup and this is the 'feel/touch' that drivers need to have
b) steering button/switch selectable software/firmware settings control the 'fierceness' of engine braking / recharge by choosing different voltage for the stator windings in MGU-K

What about 2026 regs ?
a) of course, yes
b) will it remain simple like previous era where the only choice the driver has is 'different static rates' for braking/recharge OR whether pedal pressure / travel can also modulate the braking/recharging 'rate' of MGU-K via 'dynamic stator voltage control' ? OR whether the 'pedal modulation' is going to be limited to a basic 'step function' reaction to pedal pressure/travel ? (reason for Q : rotational inertia offered by ICE will be much lesser and physical brakes are also going to be smaller)

I very much doubt that it is this crude. I think it works as a proper brake, modulated by the brake pedal, and preferentially applied of course.

[diffuser]

Well, if there's less brake distance there's less energy recovered, so less energy to power acceleration. Or at least that is what was proposed, if understood correctly.

I wasn't thinking about racing either. They can point at how efficient their engine tech is as marketing. What fuel they burn for that is meaningless, whatever they emit is insignificant compared to the rest of the planet.

Think you're agreeing with me.

It's gonna be longer braking distance. Don't know if that was the goal or if the goal was to reduce drag to make easier to push the car around the track with less energy and braking distance was just the fall out of that.