2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

Just so I understand you guys clearly, are you saying that 'pedal travel/pressure based' modulation of rate of energy recovery from MGU-K (instead of just 'steps' based on static selection) existed right from 2014 itself ?

Well, yes. Any reason to think it wasn't like that?

[diffuser]

Just so I understand you guys clearly, are you saying that 'pedal travel/pressure based' modulation of rate of energy recovery from MGU-K (instead of just 'steps' based on static selection) existed right from 2014 itself ?

Well, yes. Any reason to think it wasn't like that?

The rules haven't changed with regards to recovering energy under braking since 2014. As someone already mentioned, there wasn't even a hydraulic peddle with KERS, pre 2014.

[vorticism]

Regarding battery tech posted here and elsewhere: The pack weight and capacities are regulated so the ES performance differentiation should presumably arrive via durability & cost (budget cap) unless the minimum pack weight and maximum charge/discharge rates are hard to achieve.

Minimum ES weight
2025: 20kg
2026: 35kg

ES usable capacity/lap
2025: 1.1kWh
2026: 1.1kWh

ES total recharge/lap via MGUK
2025: 0.6kWh + unregulated MGUH recharge
2026: 2.5kWh

ES total discharge/lap
2025: 1.1kWh
2026: unregulated

ES mass increase: 75%
ES max recharge/lap increase: 125%
ES max deployment increase: infinite (1.1kWh to the now unlimited amount)

It’s a larger pack put through greater charge-discharge cycles per lap, although the increases are not numerically identical. Solving for the lattermost figures above may be where any development race occurs. Max total discharge/lap is not regulated but the total recharge/lap is, so that is the primary confine. It will allow a difference between max recharge and what the driver chooses to deploy, as some here have alluded to. As it relates to this post, that extra discharge relative to the peak recharge rate may be another development differentiator.

Kind of sad ....

Energy density Wh/kg.

Given Energy capacity: 4 MJ
Battery mass: 35 kg

Convert MJ → Wh

4MJ = 4,000,000J
1Wh = 3,600J
4,000,000÷3,600=1,111Wh

Energy density
1,111Wh ÷ 35kg = 31.7Wh/kg

If we look at the batteries for the Audi e-tron S6, the energy density of those batteries are 130 or 135Wh/kg. FIA aren't asking for cutting edge of battery technology.


If my calculations are right, they could have made the min battery weight easily 10KG.



hmmm but the F1 Batteries can be discharged over two times per lap (9MJ charge limit per lap) so maybe that's playing into it. Don't think you could do that with the AUDI e-tron batteries.

One thing to keep in mind is that the battery capacity is likely higher than 4MJ, only the difference in SOC must be at most 4MJ. I think I remember there being discussions about this somewhere on this forum.

Also, the 35kg applies to the entire ES main enclosure, not just the ES itself. The ES main enclosure in the old regulations had a minimum weight of 31kg.

Thanks for this correction. That alters the mass increase % comparison in my post. I notice that the cell mass share of the 35kg enclosure weight seems to not be listed. In 2025 it was 20kg of the 31kg enclosure. Unless it's listed elsewhere this might be another area of differentiation i.e. what percentage of the enclosure mass is cell mass.

Revised key figures:
ES enclosure mass increase: 12%
ES cell mass increase: unknown
ES max recharge/lap increase: 125%
ES max deployment increase: infinite (1.1kWh to the now unlimited amount)
ES max charge & discharge rate increase: 290% (120 to 350kW)

The point remains: note the pack weight increase vs the total deployment and energy flow rates. This could be an area of differentiation if it's a challenge to reach these figures. I added the charge-discharge rate increase, it further illustrates how much more intensely these not-much-larger packs will be used.

[wuzak]

The weight increase between the 2025 ES and the 2026 ES is likely mostly in the control electronics, which have to deal with nearly 3 times the power.

The cell weight probably hasn't changed much, if at all, between the different regulations.

[wuzak]

This is the sort of thing that annoyed me about reporting of the 2026 regulations - simply reading headline numbers, and not checking what was included in the total.

The example that occurred most was that many outlets stated that the PU was going from 151kg to 185kg.

Reading the regulations would reveal that the PU minimum weight for 2026 includes the 35kg ES, and for 2025 does not.

Comparing like-for-like, the PU without ES is 151kg for 2025 and 150kg for 2026.

[dren]

The weight increase between the 2025 ES and the 2026 ES is likely mostly in the control electronics, which have to deal with nearly 3 times the power.

The cell weight probably hasn't changed much, if at all, between the different regulations.

And associated cooling requirements. I'm not sure it's a 1 to 1 swap for MGUH cooling and increased K and battery requirements.

[haza]

Mercedes PU sounds completely different to there previous gen PU

https://x.com/mercedesamgf1/status/2001 ... 10261?s=46

[FW17]

Will we be seeing silicon carbide batteries in F1 power pack?

It is sad F1 has restricted battery packs to placed within the monocoque, could have been better if they were left free to teams.

[diffuser]

Mercedes PU sounds completely different to there previous gen PU

https://x.com/mercedesamgf1/status/2001 ... 10261?s=46

Sounds the same to me. God knows I've heard it enough on tge onboards.....what's different for you?

[diffuser]

Will we be seeing silicon carbide batteries in F1 power pack?

It is sad F1 has restricted battery packs to placed within the monocoque, could have been better if they were left free to teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJpkfWWcsc&t=38s

Thing about the F1 batteries is that they're charged/discharged more times in a race weekend that most cell phones would be in a year. Not sure that thing is up to snuff.

Placing them in the monocoque is certainly for the protection of the batteries in an accident. We don't want a fire.

[FW17]

Will we be seeing silicon carbide batteries in F1 power pack?

It is sad F1 has restricted battery packs to placed within the monocoque, could have been better if they were left free to teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJpkfWWcsc&t=38s

Thing about the F1 batteries is that they're charged/discharged more times in a race weekend that most cell phones would be in a year. Not sure that thing is up to snuff.

Placing them in the monocoque is certainly for the protection of the batteries in an accident. We don't want a fire.

But we also want batteries that dont catch fire. Teams should be allowed to choose chemistry that are safe, does not need protective cases and can be placed anywhere or unsafe chemistry that is confined to a protective case within the monocoque.

[wuzak]

Will we be seeing silicon carbide batteries in F1 power pack?

It is sad F1 has restricted battery packs to placed within the monocoque, could have been better if they were left free to teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJpkfWWcsc&t=38s

Thing about the F1 batteries is that they're charged/discharged more times in a race weekend that most cell phones would be in a year. Not sure that thing is up to snuff.

Placing them in the monocoque is certainly for the protection of the batteries in an accident. We don't want a fire.

But we also want batteries that dont catch fire. Teams should be allowed to choose chemistry that are safe, does not need protective cases and can be placed anywhere or unsafe chemistry that is confined to a protective case within the monocoque.

They'd likely put them in the same place, as it is the best place to put the weight.

[diffuser]

Thing about the F1 batteries is that they're charged/discharged more times in a race weekend that most cell phones would be in a year. Not sure that thing is up to snuff.

Placing them in the monocoque is certainly for the protection of the batteries in an accident. We don't want a fire.

But we also want batteries that dont catch fire. Teams should be allowed to choose chemistry that are safe, does not need protective cases and can be placed anywhere or unsafe chemistry that is confined to a protective case within the monocoque.

They'd likely put them in the same place, as it is the best place to put the weight.

Yep, that too....

There isn't a restriction, that I am aware of, with regards to the battery chemistry, just the min weight and energy storage.

[haza]

Mercedes PU sounds completely different to there previous gen PU

https://x.com/mercedesamgf1/status/2001 ... 10261?s=46

Sounds the same to me. God knows I've heard it enough on tge onboards.....what's different for you?

Low revs has the reminiscent merc sound but the high revs and coast sounds a lot like Indycar same with the Honda clip on power it’s indycar to a tee but with the characteristic Honda gurgle I have a feeling a lot of the pu’s are going to sound more in line with indycar with the removal of the mgu h not a bad thing love the sound of Indy

[Holm86]

Just weeks before the new F1 cars hit the track for the first time, it has emerged that at least two manufacturers may be exploiting a grey area in the rules that could help them eke out a decent performance advantage.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/tric ... ntroversy/