2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[diffuser]

what does all this really mean, from a 30k ft overview perspective ?

- new 2026 era regulations, by increasing the share of battery power from 20% to 50% while keeping total power the same are anyway going to make the cars slower - we can say this without doing any complex analysis and without reading a giant document describing the regulations. because the track layouts are going to remain the same. IF we are to see same/similar laptimes (given the overall weight reduction from previous era isn't huge), it points to an impossible 'IF', because :
(a) weight penalty of battery is prohibitive
&
(b) the opportunities to refill the battery with electrically recovered mechanical energy aren't numerous/long enough, neither efficient enough, to compensate for the electrical energy that would get 'used up' for even a decently paced race stint lap.

For example, lets say the 'PU system' is capable of 1000 units over a qualifying lap, lets see how much is possible over a race stint lap -
2014 to 2025 : 700(ICE)+100(battery) to the wheels, 100(ICE)+50(braking) to restore 100 units to the battery via MGU_K, ie to maintain electrical energy equilibrium while fuel supply is availabe 'unrestricted'
2026 onwards : 300(ICE)+200(battery) to the wheels, 200(ICE)+50(braking) to restore 200 units to the battery via MGU_K, ie to maintain electrical energy equilibrium while fuel supply is availabe 'unrestricted'.
Even though this example generously assumes the new MGU-K is going to be much superior in terms of efficiency in recharge mode (200/250 = 0.8 is an improvement over 100/150 = 0.66), we can clearly see that only 500 is sent to the wheels while 800 was sent to the wheels in the previous era. The cars are going to be ridiculosuly slower(this is without even considering the fact that MGU-H a.k.a free energy, is completely gone now) or may be 'considerably slower' (severity reduced from 'ridiculous' owing to overall less heavy cars), over a race stint. Qualifying laps maybe faster , since there is no need to recharge the battery and the higher share of the 'faster source of energy' may be put to use.

In other words, it all boils down to the simple undergrad-level concept :
- energy density.
We can't yet match (forget surpass) the energy density of fossil fuel via an ion exchange system because, while both systems are essentially extracting energy from chemical bonds, the battery system needs to store all contributing chemicals, while the fuel system gets a portion of the 'chemical' from oxygen in air that comes 'free' without any storage required. Given the high energy conversion efficiency of super-optimized ICE used in F1, this 'energy density penalty' becomes really stark.

I can't remember a regulation change that had the newer regulation faster than the old regulation. Part of reg change has always been to slow cars down only to have the speed return by endless upgrades over the years in the new reg.

[hollus]

While from the point of view of energy density and PU the new regs make the cars slower, they also take away drag, which makes the cars faster (likely also in part by increasing cornering downforce, as one compromise has been removed).
So even Steven?
Even Steven in lap time (likely not in 2026,but in 2028?)
Possibly faster in the corners, is they can afford a high downforce mode that does not neet to be dragged along in the straights.
Potentially faster in the straigts with less terminal drag equalling higher terminal velocity, but like mostly hidden by constan clipping and LiCo.

My overall veredict is... facebook would be proud... it's complicated.

It's going to be superweird to see overtakes by one battery giving up in a very visible way!

[diffuser]

While from the point of view of energy density and PU the new regs make the cars slower, they also take away drag, which makes the cars faster (likely also in part by increasing cornering downforce, as one compromise has been removed).
So even Steven?
Even Steven in lap time (likely not in 2026,but in 2028?)
Possibly faster in the corners, is they can afford a high downforce mode that does not neet to be dragged along in the straights.
Potentially faster in the straigts with less terminal drag equalling higher terminal velocity, but like mostly hidden by constan clipping and LiCo.

My overall veredict is... facebook would be proud... it's complicated.

It's going to be superweird to see overtakes by one battery giving up in a very visible way!

I can see it already ...GP2 Battery GP2 battery!!!!

[wuzak]

While from the point of view of energy density and PU the new regs make the cars slower, they also take away drag, which makes the cars faster (likely also in part by increasing cornering downforce, as one compromise has been removed).
So even Steven?
Even Steven in lap time (likely not in 2026,but in 2028?)
Possibly faster in the corners, is they can afford a high downforce mode that does not neet to be dragged along in the straights.
Potentially faster in the straigts with less terminal drag equalling higher terminal velocity, but like mostly hidden by constan clipping and LiCo.

My overall veredict is... facebook would be proud... it's complicated.

It's going to be superweird to see overtakes by one battery giving up in a very visible way!

I can see them being faster in slow corners due to lower weight and smaller wheelbase.

But they won't have more downforce in high downforce mode than the 2025 cars had, except, maybe, with Monza wings.

So they'll be slower in medium and fast corners.

Though, I wonder, if an evolution of the rules would allow a mid-downforce setting, as many high speed corners don't require all the downforce.

[diffuser]

While from the point of view of energy density and PU the new regs make the cars slower, they also take away drag, which makes the cars faster (likely also in part by increasing cornering downforce, as one compromise has been removed).
So even Steven?
Even Steven in lap time (likely not in 2026,but in 2028?)
Possibly faster in the corners, is they can afford a high downforce mode that does not neet to be dragged along in the straights.
Potentially faster in the straigts with less terminal drag equalling higher terminal velocity, but like mostly hidden by constan clipping and LiCo.

My overall veredict is... facebook would be proud... it's complicated.

It's going to be superweird to see overtakes by one battery giving up in a very visible way!

I can see them being faster in slow corners due to lower weight and smaller wheelbase.

But they won't have more downforce in high downforce mode than the 2025 cars had, except, maybe, with Monza wings.

So they'll be slower in medium and fast corners.

Though, I wonder, if an evolution of the rules would allow a mid-downforce setting, as many high speed corners don't require all the downforce.

Even with the reduced power at high speed...will they not be faster down the straights with DRS front and rear wings?

[wuzak]

While from the point of view of energy density and PU the new regs make the cars slower, they also take away drag, which makes the cars faster (likely also in part by increasing cornering downforce, as one compromise has been removed).
So even Steven?
Even Steven in lap time (likely not in 2026,but in 2028?)
Possibly faster in the corners, is they can afford a high downforce mode that does not neet to be dragged along in the straights.
Potentially faster in the straigts with less terminal drag equalling higher terminal velocity, but like mostly hidden by constan clipping and LiCo.

My overall veredict is... facebook would be proud... it's complicated.

It's going to be superweird to see overtakes by one battery giving up in a very visible way!

I can see them being faster in slow corners due to lower weight and smaller wheelbase.

But they won't have more downforce in high downforce mode than the 2025 cars had, except, maybe, with Monza wings.

So they'll be slower in medium and fast corners.

Though, I wonder, if an evolution of the rules would allow a mid-downforce setting, as many high speed corners don't require all the downforce.

Even with the reduced power at high speed...will they not be faster down the straights with DRS front and rear wings?

That depends on whether they can reduce drag sufficiently.

[NL_Fer]

What just keep popping up in my mind:

Will the 2026 engines really have that much difference between them?

I mean the current 1.6 V6 had the unlimited transfer of energy between MGU-H and MGU-K. This opened a giant pathway to find ways to extract as much energy from the exhaust with the MGU-H. This lead to extreme turbocharger design, jet-ignition development, new fuels, etc and any discovery was very effective.

The older V8 V10 for a long time had unlimited revs and engineers trying to find higher limits and extract more power.

This new engine formula seems much more limited already. On the combustion side, they can find new things, but how much more power will result at the crank? Without the MGU-H, engineers can still increase combustion efficiency, but it wont be that effective and result in limited more crank power.

Also on the electric side, there is already allot of knowledge out there, how much more efficient can they get?

So, probably combined, there are some gains, also from recharge-deployment strategies. But i doubt it would be very much. Maybe the aero is still the bigger differentiator.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... ways to extract as much energy from the exhaust with the MGU-H. This lead to extreme turbocharger design, jet-ignition development, new fuels, etc

Without the MGU-H, engineers can still increase combustion efficiency, but it wont be that effective ...

well yes .....

the factors mentioned above tend to lower the energy state of the exhaust and so tend to reduce the MGU-H output
as Honda said in recent years

notice the fuel apparently will now have a far lower alcohol content than before

significant fuel will always leave the cylinder uncombusted - ie some further combustion occurred ahead of the MGU-H

[mzso]

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

It's silicon-carbon, not carbide. They've been talking about silicon this and that in the anode for many years. It never really came to pass. Best I remember is Tesla adding some silicon.
In any way a proper solid-state battery is better. It has neither silicon nor carbon, just lithium metal.

Are SSB's anywhere near advanced enough to be considered for use in F1? I believe Mercedes, who are the only relevant manu here that has also conducted real life prototyping and testing, say they are at least still 4 years away, from producing EVs using SSB'S. I believe it was developed in-house, in conjunction with HPP.

I think everyone and their mother are developing solid-state batteries. And I think many have tested it as well.

Ultimately they don't need to be mass market viable to be included in F1. Loosening the battery pack limits is easy, if they want better energy density.

[mzso]

AMuS more or less confirmed what I mentioned a couple of days ago: Being in Slipstream of another car might be preferable in many race situations over being in clean air.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... verlierer/

It is even possible, that situations arise, where the leading car might let itself get overtaken and stay behind for some laps, in order to gain an advantage later on.

I think it will be ridiculous when it devolves down to be a race to be second on track.

[gruntguru]

(a) weight penalty of battery is prohibitive
&
(b) the opportunities to refill the battery with electrically recovered mechanical energy aren't numerous/long enough, neither efficient enough, to compensate for the electrical energy that would get 'used up' for even a decently paced race stint lap.

For example, lets say the 'PU system' is capable of 1000 units over a qualifying lap, lets see how much is possible over a race stint lap -
2014 to 2025 : 700(ICE)+100(battery) to the wheels, 100(ICE)+50(braking) to restore 100 units to the battery via MGU_K, ie to maintain electrical energy equilibrium while fuel supply is availabe 'unrestricted'
2026 onwards : 300(ICE)+200(battery) to the wheels, 200(ICE)+50(braking) to restore 200 units to the battery via MGU_K, ie to maintain electrical energy equilibrium while fuel supply is availabe 'unrestricted'.
Even though this example generously assumes the new MGU-K is going to be much superior in terms of efficiency in recharge mode (200/250 = 0.8 is an improvement over 100/150 = 0.66), we can clearly see that only 500 is sent to the wheels while 800 was sent to the wheels in the previous era. The cars are going to be ridiculosuly slower(this is without even considering the fact that MGU-H a.k.a free energy, is completely gone now) or may be 'considerably slower' (severity reduced from 'ridiculous' owing to overall less heavy cars), over a race stint. Qualifying laps maybe faster , since there is no need to recharge the battery and the higher share of the 'faster source of energy' may be put to use.

(a) Overall weight will decrease by ~30kg.
(b) If ICE energy sent to the wheels is to fall from 700 units to 300 as you say, the 2026 ICE max power must be less than 300/700 (43%) x 2025 ICE max power. (In energy terms, the delivery for each ICE will be the same when demand is equal or less than the 2026 max power.) At a rough guess, your numbers would put 2026 max power at 35%-40% of 2025 max power! I don't see anyone predicting that! In fact ICE power is predicted to be more than 375 KW - down from 630 KW (so 60% not 35%)

Many are predicting more than 375 KW, putting peak PU output greater than 2025 in a lighter, more slippery car. These cars will accelerate harder and have a higher top speed. High speed cornering will be slower.

[venkyhere]

[(a) Overall weight will decrease by ~30kg.
(b) If ICE energy sent to the wheels is to fall from 700 units to 300 as you say, the 2026 ICE max power must be less than 300/700 (43%) x 2025 ICE max power. (In energy terms, the delivery for each ICE will be the same when demand is equal or less than the 2026 max power.) At a rough guess, your numbers would put 2026 max power at 35%-40% of 2025 max power! I don't see anyone predicting that! In fact ICE power is predicted to be more than 375 KW - down from 630 KW (so 60% not 35%)

Many are predicting more than 375 KW, putting peak PU output greater than 2025 in a lighter, more slippery car. These cars will accelerate harder and have a higher top speed. High speed cornering will be slower.

My numbers were just heuiristics, but even then, I was talking about 'energy units' , not horsepower.
The peak horsepower from ICE was 800hp in 2025, the same is going to be 500hp in 2026, as the regulations clearly say (80% share to 50% share). I am not sure how you arrived at 35% (I never claimed any peak HP number) from my 'energy units' numbers. My claim is - because the share of the fuel+charge energy split has removed the bias towards fuel, it's has a double whammy effect - not only is the fuel's overall contribution weakend, it has to spend much more than in 2025, towards recharging the battey - a doulble whammy, resulting in a much lesser contribution by fuel to the wheels. Hence, while the ICE may still produce 500bhp peak power at some instances over a race stint lap; the per lap average 'wheel energy' contribution from fuel can come down drastically, from (a heuristic number) say, 700 to 200 (while the wheel energy contribution from battery has gone up from 100 to 200), because the battery cannot be fully drained in a 'stint lap' and whatever it spends, has to be restored back to it IN THE SAME LAP ITSELF. This is what I was trying to convey, by saying that while the fuel energy is a 'free flowing tap', electrical energy is never so - only less than 50% of peak storage can be spent in a 'stint-lap', because the 'recharging' can never 'rate-match' the deployment. Even if we take into account the 'recharging' contribution from braking and engine-braking, this <50% limit can probably increase to <55% limit. But thats it. Moving the energy towards electrical, is not only making <50%(or 55) of whats electrically available to be used, it's also hurting the 'other guy'(fuel) by weakening his 'already reduced' contribution even further. If the ICE were a person, its like taxing someone $200 when he earns $500, compared to to taxing him $100 when he earns $800.
And the reduction in weight (30 kg as you say) and the reduction in drag (smaller car with less downforce) isn't going to compensate for this massive reduction in 'per lap energy usable at the wheels'. Laptimes are going to increase massively and the only locations where we can see the cars moving faster (w.r.t 2025) are probably only slow corners/hairpins etc.

[wuzak]

(a) Overall weight will decrease by ~30kg.
(b) If ICE energy sent to the wheels is to fall from 700 units to 300 as you say, the 2026 ICE max power must be less than 300/700 (43%) x 2025 ICE max power. (In energy terms, the delivery for each ICE will be the same when demand is equal or less than the 2026 max power.) At a rough guess, your numbers would put 2026 max power at 35%-40% of 2025 max power! I don't see anyone predicting that! In fact ICE power is predicted to be more than 375 KW - down from 630 KW (so 60% not 35%)

Many are predicting more than 375 KW, putting peak PU output greater than 2025 in a lighter, more slippery car. These cars will accelerate harder and have a higher top speed. High speed cornering will be slower.

(a) some may struggle to get down to the minimum weight early in the regulation cycle. As it was for many in 2022, including Red Bull.

(b) Energy fuel flow is down by around 1/3. Expect to see them drop power by about the same amount.

The fuel flow limit produces 400kW @ 48% TE. This was one of the early estimates for ICE power, and about 1/3 less than the 2025 ICE (without using MGUH/MGUK compounding).

[wuzak]

It's silicon-carbon, not carbide. They've been talking about silicon this and that in the anode for many years. It never really came to pass. Best I remember is Tesla adding some silicon.
In any way a proper solid-state battery is better. It has neither silicon nor carbon, just lithium metal.

Are SSB's anywhere near advanced enough to be considered for use in F1? I believe Mercedes, who are the only relevant manu here that has also conducted real life prototyping and testing, say they are at least still 4 years away, from producing EVs using SSB'S. I believe it was developed in-house, in conjunction with HPP.

I think everyone and their mother are developing solid-state batteries. And I think many have tested it as well.

Ultimately they don't need to be mass market viable to be included in F1. Loosening the battery pack limits is easy, if they want better energy density.

Is it energy density or power density required?

There is already multiple times the energy storage than the regulations allow (4MJ) for the cell weight allowed.

[venkyhere]

There is already multiple times the energy storage than the regulations allow (4MJ) for the cell weight allowed.

Is it future proofing for a possible modification in the regulations later, where more discharge would be allowed from battery ?