Concept power units from 2030

[Hoffman900]

The MGU-H adds to efficincies, but as does variable intake manifold runners, and running in-situ pressure sensors to control it all. All of which are banned.

A lot of green washing in this sport.

[saviour stivala]

The 2026 power unit will be more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even with a less powerful ICE, it cannot be less efficient when using 30% less fuel during a race when producing the same power output.

The 2026 power unit is less thermally efficient than the 2014-25 power unit.

-some sources suggest the MGU-H alone contributes around 5% to the total efficiency, while allowing the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to operate at even higher efficiencies, pushing the entire system past the 50% mark.

But of course nobody wants to say this and it is all covered up with net zero mumbo jumbo. More electricity means less carbon and all of that but that doesn't change the fact that it is less thermally efficient.

On the contrary, The 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient then the 2014-2025 power unit, It will use 30% less of 100% sustainable fuel during a race by reduced fuel flow from 100 to 70 kg, this while producing the same power, even with all the discontinued items (MGU-H, Variable length intake, and pressure sensors) to control above systems. Honestly cannot understand how the new power unit formula can be called ''Green washing of the sports''. But than I do remember the same level of negativity thrown at the introduction of the 2014 power unit that has turned to be championed today.

[mzso]

Dragging it back to the topic of concept engines…

https://www.cosworth.com/news/cat-gen-filling-the-void/

This, but scaled up 3-4 times? (obviously 35KW is not sufficient), with front & rear KERS (single MGU at the rear twin MGU at the front (axial hub drive?).
…

The software development aspect for control systems and drive is directly transferable to road car development (whether BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, Alt ICE or whatever motive system eventually is settled on post 2035).

Well, people dismissed micro-turbines, when I brought it up a while ago, for being inefficient and the mass of a large, heavy generator, an even even heavier motors and some necessary batteries adding up.
As I recall someone calculated around 300-400 hp continuous power to supply the motors at the same power as nowadays, at least on power hungry circuits.
I don't see efficiency stated, there's probably no revolution there.

Using a fuel cell seems more viable to me. It wouldn't need 1,5+ times the electric M/G capacity and mass.
Of course that wouldn't provide noise, but I suspect the usual group of people would be just as loud complaining about the the loss of "proper" piston engine sound when moving to microturbines.

I’ll try again & hope that my internet doesn’t disappear again…

I’ve not done the math, but a GT type ‘generator’ with a constant output of 140-150kW along with 700kW of recovery under braking should give a healthy power supply. The GT wouldn’t need to be 4 times the size (or weight) of the Cosworth unit.
I think that what is missed when these comparisons are done is that the power curve of an ICE with 7-800bhp is very different to that of an electric drivetrain.

Hm, I can't really find the exact post where the power was calculated. This (and comments around this) is as close to the discussion I could find.
450kW is used, but I can't find the source post of that value. 450kW for ice generation and and the same amount for electric recovery is a fair amount of weight. Even if you calculate with the most power dense (YASA) motors and most power dense ICEs. Plus the weight of the even more powerful traction motors, ~750kW/1000HP.
Not sure what you're getting at with the power curve.

The issue with a gas turbine is not the power density, but the efficiency. Which requires a lot more fuel and a fair bit of negative PR.

A fuel cell setup, I expect would be lighter. It would only need the cell, and a bit of ES to buffer its energy during breaking, plus regen energy via the traction motor(s). But that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever...
Ultimately I think we will be stuck with a hybrid V engine setup for a long while. If the FIA is not just BS-ing and actually cares for weight and size. They might go towards a decreased minimum weight for the PU and maybe V4-s with proportional weight/size saving. I wouldn't be surprised if they backtracked on the MGU-H removal, after this reg runs its course...

I wonder when the sudden focus on having the super-high (stupid high imo) top speeds for F1 started. Historically they rarely exceeded 200mph (it was achievement at Monza!), 180-195mph was more normal.
Being the fastest race series was never important (LeMans & Indy were always faster), being the quickest was always more important.
Lower top speeds mean that the cars can be lighter (& therefore more agile), due to lower energy dissipation requirements of crash structures.
500kW plus lighter, nimbler cars would make for a very exciting race series with lots of technical interest.

That would be even more of a reason to stick witch underbody downforce, which they're abandoning... You minimize wings, let the floor generate overwhelmingly the desired amount of DF with much better aerodynamic efficiency, then you can decrease the power and weight as well, if your aim is lower top speeds.

[DenBommer]

I’m curious how axial-flux technology will develop. They can now build an axial-flux motor (in a laboratory, I assume) that produces 1,000 hp while weighing only 12.7 kg. They also suggest in the article removing the rear brakes: https://www.electrive.com/2025/12/03/ya ... eel-motor/

Maybe we could even see in-wheel motors in F1 after all: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024202 ... ersteller/

[wuzak]

I’ve not done the math, but a GT type ‘generator’ with a constant output of 140-150kW along with 700kW of recovery under braking should give a healthy power supply. The GT wouldn’t need to be 4 times the size (or weight) of the Cosworth unit.
I think that what is missed when these comparisons are done is that the power curve of an ICE with 7-800bhp is very different to that of an electric drivetrain.

What is this "GT type 'generator'"?

I wonder when the sudden focus on having the super-high (stupid high imo) top speeds for F1 started. Historically they rarely exceeded 200mph (it was achievement at Monza!), 180-195mph was more normal.
Being the fastest race series was never important (LeMans & Indy were always faster), being the quickest was always more important.
Lower top speeds mean that the cars can be lighter (& therefore more agile), due to lower energy dissipation requirements of crash structures.
500kW plus lighter, nimbler cars would make for a very exciting race series with lots of technical interest.

The highest speed at Monza in the V10 era was around 230mph.

The increase in top speed is to counteract loss of time in corners with low downforce, and is alos a consequence of drastically reducing the drag for new cars.

[mzso]

What is this "GT type 'generator'"?

I interpreted it as gas turbine.

[wuzak]

What is this "GT type 'generator'"?

I interpreted it as gas turbine.

OK.

I thought he was talking about some GT racing category!

[TeamKoolGreen]

The 2026 power unit will be more efficient than the 2025 power unit, even with a less powerful ICE, it cannot be less efficient when using 30% less fuel during a race when producing the same power output.

The 2026 power unit is less thermally efficient than the 2014-25 power unit.

-some sources suggest the MGU-H alone contributes around 5% to the total efficiency, while allowing the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to operate at even higher efficiencies, pushing the entire system past the 50% mark.

But of course nobody wants to say this and it is all covered up with net zero mumbo jumbo. More electricity means less carbon and all of that but that doesn't change the fact that it is less thermally efficient.

On the contrary, The 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient then the 2014-2025 power unit, It will use 30% less of 100% sustainable fuel during a race by reduced fuel flow from 100 to 70 kg, this while producing the same power, even with all the discontinued items (MGU-H, Variable length intake, and pressure sensors) to control above systems. Honestly cannot understand how the new power unit formula can be called ''Green washing of the sports''. But than I do remember the same level of negativity thrown at the introduction of the 2014 power unit that has turned to be championed today.

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier. Fuel has more energy density than batteries. Therefore the old PU is more thermally efficient

[saviour stivala]

The 2026 power unit is less thermally efficient than the 2014-25 power unit.

-some sources suggest the MGU-H alone contributes around 5% to the total efficiency, while allowing the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to operate at even higher efficiencies, pushing the entire system past the 50% mark.

But of course nobody wants to say this and it is all covered up with net zero mumbo jumbo. More electricity means less carbon and all of that but that doesn't change the fact that it is less thermally efficient.

On the contrary, The 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient then the 2014-2025 power unit, It will use 30% less of 100% sustainable fuel during a race by reduced fuel flow from 100 to 70 kg, this while producing the same power, even with all the discontinued items (MGU-H, Variable length intake, and pressure sensors) to control above systems. Honestly cannot understand how the new power unit formula can be called ''Green washing of the sports''. But than I do remember the same level of negativity thrown at the introduction of the 2014 power unit that has turned to be championed today.

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier. Fuel has more energy density than batteries. Therefore the old PU is more thermally efficient

Yes, the 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient as will also be the car as a whole.

[wuzak]

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier.

No, it is not.

2025 PU - ICE + Turbo + MGUK + MGUH = 151kg
2025 ES = 31kg
2025 Total = 182kg

2026 PU - ICE + Turbo + MGUK = 150kg
2026 ES = 35kg
2026 Total = 185kg

The PU, including ES/battery, is 3kg more than in 2025.

This does not take into account any items that are added or removed from the minimum mass determination when compared to 2025.

I am convinced many outlets just read the minimum weight for the 2026 PU, which is 185kg, and compared it to the 2025 PU minimum weight of 151kg, not accounting for the fact that the 2025 PU minimum weight did not include the battery, and the 2026 PU does.

[Tommy Cookers]

The 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient then the 2014-2025 power unit, It will use 30% less of 100% sustainable fuel during a race by reduced fuel flow from 100 to 70 kg, this while producing the same power ....

Yes, the 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient as will also be the car as a whole.

thermal efficiency is the ratio of mechanical energy (work) output to heat energy input
ie (output power x output time) relative to (input power x input time)
(peak power input relative to peak power output is not efficiency)

so it will not be more thermally efficient
ok it may be more Stivala efficient


the fuel mass flow rate is not reduced by 30% - the fuel heat flow rate is reduced by 30%
the fuel mass is now unlimited
ie more (total) fuel mass can be used to make more (total) electrical work within the fuel heat flow rate limit

[vorticism]

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier.

...
I am convinced many outlets just read the minimum weight for the 2026 PU, which is 185kg, and compared it to the 2025 PU minimum weight of 151kg, not accounting for the fact that the 2025 PU minimum weight did not include the battery, and the 2026 PU does.

" 35kg HEAVIER " is a meme at this point, has to be the most misunderstood part of these regulation and wuzak is single-handedly responsible for dispelling this myth online, lol.

[TeamKoolGreen]

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier.

...
I am convinced many outlets just read the minimum weight for the 2026 PU, which is 185kg, and compared it to the 2025 PU minimum weight of 151kg, not accounting for the fact that the 2025 PU minimum weight did not include the battery, and the 2026 PU does.

" 35kg HEAVIER " is a meme at this point, has to be the most misunderstood part of these regulation and wuzak is single-handedly responsible for dispelling this myth online, lol.

So far nobody claiming that the 2026 PU is not 34 kg heavier hasn't produced a single source to prove it.

My source is The Race

The power units are getting a lot heavier again. The MGU-K is increasing from 7kg to 20kg total, and the battery from around 20-25kg to a minimum weight of 35kg. Even with no MGU-H, which is a saving of 4kg, some other ancillary part changes will up the total weight of the engine from 151kg to 185kg in 2026.



https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/what ... rovements.

[TeamKoolGreen]

On the contrary, The 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient then the 2014-2025 power unit, It will use 30% less of 100% sustainable fuel during a race by reduced fuel flow from 100 to 70 kg, this while producing the same power, even with all the discontinued items (MGU-H, Variable length intake, and pressure sensors) to control above systems. Honestly cannot understand how the new power unit formula can be called ''Green washing of the sports''. But than I do remember the same level of negativity thrown at the introduction of the 2014 power unit that has turned to be championed today.

The battery and PU is 35 kg heavier. Fuel has more energy density than batteries. Therefore the old PU is more thermally efficient

Yes, the 2026 power unit will be significantly more thermally efficient as will also be the car as a whole.

No. The 2026 PU is not more thermally efficient than the 2014-25 PU. And if you think it is , post your sources.

[BassVirolla]

...
I am convinced many outlets just read the minimum weight for the 2026 PU, which is 185kg, and compared it to the 2025 PU minimum weight of 151kg, not accounting for the fact that the 2025 PU minimum weight did not include the battery, and the 2026 PU does.

" 35kg HEAVIER " is a meme at this point, has to be the most misunderstood part of these regulation and wuzak is single-handedly responsible for dispelling this myth online, lol.

So far nobody claiming that the 2026 PU is not 34 kg heavier hasn't produced a single source to prove it.

My source is The Race

The power units are getting a lot heavier again. The MGU-K is increasing from 7kg to 20kg total, and the battery from around 20-25kg to a minimum weight of 35kg. Even with no MGU-H, which is a saving of 4kg, some other ancillary part changes will up the total weight of the engine from 151kg to 185kg in 2026.



https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/what ... rovements.

Referring to the rulebook (5.7.1 - 5.7.3 - 5.20.7 and Appendix 3 in which the operational groups are defined), ICE + TC + MGUK equates to 150kg.

The 35kg are defined in 5.19.9 as the ES Main Enclosure. Appendix 3 defines ES Main Enclosure as:

- Enclosure
- Energy storage
- Control electronics
- All electric ancilliaries related to ES

So, minimum "engine" (ICE + TC + MGUK) mass is 150 kg.