RB VCARB 03

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
dialtone
dialtone
127
Joined: 25 Feb 2019, 01:31

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

Badger wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:05
AR3-GP wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 23:52
wiktor977 wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 21:59
In 2026 you have almost 3x electrical power output from battery and MGU-K and much more energy recovery than before, so cooling requirements are also higher, also operating temperatures of those components are much lower than ICE. So even tho there is less heat energy produced by electrical part of the PU, it can be difficult to get rid of it when operating temperatures are not that higher than ambient air temperatures which you use to cool it down.
1) Cars reach their top speeds much faster now, therefore there's a big increase in the cooling power around the lap.

https://i.postimg.cc/zfk604cN/image.png
I don't trust that graph at all. The engines have the same amount of power at full deployment, so why would the difference be that massive below 250 kph? Drag isn't that much, and the 2026 engine starts to taper quite early.
Yeah a 40kph difference at 280kph compared to last years' engines is downright wild. According to that graph the new cars have a full 1.1g in extra acceleration at 220-300kph, and on ERS override somehow that acceleration will keep on going until 340kph more or less linearly. Any 5-6s long straight will be absolutely full beans by the end of it. This graph just cannot be true because in this setting the cars would be multiple seconds per lap faster than the old generation, and we know, or at least that's what was declared so far, that they are slower instead.

wiktor977
wiktor977
33
Joined: 27 Jan 2024, 17:33

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:58
Lindblads spin caught on camera. Yes it's cold and wet. But there is 55% less downforce

https://x.com/i/status/2013719714933916152

We never see spins at shakedowns. We barely seen spins at full on testing in 2022.

This spin could be a sign of things to come. People thought porpoising was bad...
It's most likely related to the engine breaking or energy recovery, not downforce.

dialtone
dialtone
127
Joined: 25 Feb 2019, 01:31

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:58
Lindblads spin caught on camera. Yes it's cold and wet. But there is 55% less downforce

https://x.com/i/status/2013719714933916152

We never see spins at shakedowns. We barely seen spins at full on testing in 2022.

This spin could be a sign of things to come. People thought porpoising was bad...
That spin seems more of a rookie mistake than anything else.

I've never seen a car spin on the opposite direction of a corner, and he clearly goes on the throttle as he starts to spin, I think he just made a mistake on corner entry, probably due to the cold temperature and wet asphalt.

f1316
f1316
87
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 18:36

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

dialtone wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 01:08
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:58
Lindblads spin caught on camera. Yes it's cold and wet. But there is 55% less downforce

https://x.com/i/status/2013719714933916152

We never see spins at shakedowns. We barely seen spins at full on testing in 2022.

This spin could be a sign of things to come. People thought porpoising was bad...
That spin seems more of a rookie mistake than anything else.

I've never seen a car spin on the opposite direction of a corner, and he clearly goes on the throttle as he starts to spin, I think he just made a mistake on corner entry, probably due to the cold temperature and wet asphalt.
If the cars are nervous and difficult to drive, this doesn’t seem like such a bad thing imho - it’s not the same as porpoising which was much more, let’s say, ‘unnatural’ behaviour. Cars of prior eras often had a lot less downforce and we saw drivers fighting the car more + spinning more, and that’s no bad thing if it separates the great from the very good.

GhostF1
GhostF1
110
Joined: 30 Aug 2016, 04:11

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

wiktor977 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:42
Emag wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:12
wiktor977 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:09



MGU-H name is misleading, it didn't take any heat out of the system. I would say that on its own it was another heat source in PU. MGU-H used the kinetic energy of the exhaust gases that propelled the turbocharger to charge the battery or it could dump the energy from the battery to spool up the turbocharger to reduce the turbo lag.
Well I tried to simplify it. And it's true that the MGU-H didn't literally remove heat from the exhaust. As you said, it converts turbine kinetic energy to electricity. However, this indirectly reduces energy going into waste heat downstream. So I don't believe the assessment of exhausts requiring more cooling without the mguh is wrong.
True, that it reduce exhaust gases temperature but I don't think it would be that different with or without MGU-H when it comes to the cooling requirements of the turbocharger, but I might be wrong.
As you mentioned, the MGU-H did not really convert literal heat energy into electricity, it was kinetic energy from the turbo/compressor shaft. The MGU-H itself though, generated a significant amount of heat operating often at over 120,000rpm, while swapping between harvesting and motoring constantly and required its own cooler and associated cooling circuit. All teams had their own method of integrating this. Losing it does reduce cooling demands there, but the increase in electrical demand from the battery, which requires precise thermal management for optimum efficiency (which affects regen and deploy duration) will likely make teams want to "over-do" the cooling setup at first. It's likely the cars cooling could shrink throughout the season as they get more and more data from physically running the cars.

Better to start in excess and refine rather than be risky and then chasing your tail finding the sweet spot which might ruin other design aspects. .

mzso
mzso
72
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

wiktor977 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 01:05
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:58
Lindblads spin caught on camera. Yes it's cold and wet. But there is 55% less downforce

https://x.com/i/status/2013719714933916152

We never see spins at shakedowns. We barely seen spins at full on testing in 2022.

This spin could be a sign of things to come. People thought porpoising was bad...
It's most likely related to the engine breaking or energy recovery, not downforce.
Or active aero, and a wet track producing an unpredictable car for the driver.

Emag
Emag
119
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:51

Exhaust cooling isn't really a thing. Teams are trying to trap the heat inside the exhaust to prevent it from radiating into the engine cover compartment. Sometimes there are wraps to trap the heat inside the pipes.

https://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp- ... RA618H.jpg
What you described in your second sentence is essentially what exhaust cooling is.
By cooling requirements, you don't necessarily mean that the structure itself needs to cool down to function properly. But because everything is packed so tightly in a Formula 1 car, you're worried about residual heat that leaks from component to component. So you need to take care of that somehow or it can result in various issues, from reliability concerns to efficiency concerns depending on where the heat is "leaking" to.

The mguh was a device that diverted energy that would otherwise contribute to exhaust and engine-bay heat and converted it into another form of energy (electrical charge in the battery). Or said more simply, it removes some of the energy that now ends up going into the exhaust system which is a much more spatially expansive component in an area that is usually tried to be kept as tight as possible in F1.
Now the mguh in itself, needed to be cooled down, however compared to what goes on in the rest of the system, the heat output of the mguh was not the main headache source. In any case, teams dealt with it with various ways, especially by the end of the regulation cycle, they probably got more and more clever with it. It's not comparable with the first year of a brand new regulation cycle that has different demands.
Last edited by Emag on 21 Jan 2026, 01:41, edited 1 time in total.
Developer of F1InsightsHub

Emag
Emag
119
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

GhostF1 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 01:18
wiktor977 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:42
Emag wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:12


Well I tried to simplify it. And it's true that the MGU-H didn't literally remove heat from the exhaust. As you said, it converts turbine kinetic energy to electricity. However, this indirectly reduces energy going into waste heat downstream. So I don't believe the assessment of exhausts requiring more cooling without the mguh is wrong.
True, that it reduce exhaust gases temperature but I don't think it would be that different with or without MGU-H when it comes to the cooling requirements of the turbocharger, but I might be wrong.
As you mentioned, the MGU-H did not really convert literal heat energy into electricity, it was kinetic energy from the turbo/compressor shaft. The MGU-H itself though, generated a significant amount of heat operating often at over 120,000rpm, while swapping between harvesting and motoring constantly and required its own cooler and associated cooling circuit. All teams had their own method of integrating this. Losing it does reduce cooling demands there, but the increase in electrical demand from the battery, which requires precise thermal management for optimum efficiency (which affects regen and deploy duration) will likely make teams want to "over-do" the cooling setup at first. It's likely the cars cooling could shrink throughout the season as they get more and more data from physically running the cars.

Better to start in excess and refine rather than be risky and then chasing your tail finding the sweet spot which might ruin other design aspects. .
I generally agree with this. The electrical system is what's going to be more tricky to manage.
And it's true that teams start to tighten things up as they learn more about everything on-track. It's been the case with most regulation cycles. The tightest cars come at the end of each. (Mercedes W13 is an exception, but you could argue there is a continuity in Power Unit from 2021 where they already had a very efficient cooling solution).

In any case, what VCARB has done with this car is not something I expect top teams to have. I will be extremely surprised if RedBull has the same airbox.
Developer of F1InsightsHub

matteosc
matteosc
30
Joined: 11 Sep 2012, 17:07

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

karana wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:10
matteosc wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 22:19
wiktor977 wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 21:59


In 2026 you have almost 3x electrical power output from battery and MGU-K and much more energy recovery than before, so cooling requirements are also higher, also operating temperatures of those components are much lower than ICE. So even tho there is less heat energy produced by electrical part of the PU, it can be difficult to get rid of it when operating temperatures are not that higher than ambient air temperatures which you use to cool it down.
Actually I would argue that there is more heat coming from the PU. If I am not mistaken the fuel flow should be approximately the same (with the caviat of being energy-based rather than volume-based), but the power is reduced, mainly through a lower compression ratio. This means that less mechanical power is produced with the same amount of energy in the fuel, therefore the thermal losses must be higher.
The electrical part will contribute, but a ~90% energy conversion (electric) produces less heat than a ~45% one (thermal engine).
The fuel energy flow is reduced quite a lot, from ~4300MJ/hr to 3000MJ/hr, that's where the power reduction comes from.
Good point, I tought it was kept very similar, my bad. In this case there could be indeed a reduction in the overall heat generated, but definitely less than (4300-3000)/4300 =~ 30%.

User avatar
FW17
173
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

BorisTheBlade wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 19:25
FW17 wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 18:55
The battery and control electronics which has to charge and discharge at 350kw almost the entire duration of the race

regulations dont allow for phase change cooling, maybe would have been more efficient than water cooling.
This is almost negligible.
With a rather pessimistic TE of 90% we are talking about 35 KW for half a lap at most. Compare this to around 420 KW with 50% TE for a 2026 ICE. This is within a few percent +/- the same as 2025.
Most of the engines heat leaves as the exhaust. The battery and CE does not have such extraction. Battery and CE are not metals (not conductive to heat), tightly packaged with limited cooling channels. Relatively will need a lot of cooling.

User avatar
BorisTheBlade
40
Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 11:15

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

Good points.
As the MGU-H was already able to extract 120 KW of the waste energy of the exhaust, the total might amount to 300-400 KW. If that is a good ballpark figure then yes, the increased cooling demand of the electrical side might be not that insignificant.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-5
Joined: 22 Feb 2024, 01:49

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

f1316 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 01:15
dialtone wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 01:08
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 00:58
Lindblads spin caught on camera. Yes it's cold and wet. But there is 55% less downforce

https://x.com/i/status/2013719714933916152

We never see spins at shakedowns. We barely seen spins at full on testing in 2022.

This spin could be a sign of things to come. People thought porpoising was bad...
That spin seems more of a rookie mistake than anything else.

I've never seen a car spin on the opposite direction of a corner, and he clearly goes on the throttle as he starts to spin, I think he just made a mistake on corner entry, probably due to the cold temperature and wet asphalt.
If the cars are nervous and difficult to drive, this doesn’t seem like such a bad thing imho - it’s not the same as porpoising which was much more, let’s say, ‘unnatural’ behaviour. Cars of prior eras often had a lot less downforce and we saw drivers fighting the car more + spinning more, and that’s no bad thing if it separates the great from the very good.
Well speaking of unnatural , the only reason the cars don't have venturi tunnels now is because they were made illegal. If they were allowed like they should be , everyone would have them.

CMSMJ1
CMSMJ1
Moderator
Joined: 25 Sep 2007, 10:51
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

Guys..

Exhaust chatter is great and worth it's salt, but it's not for this thread.

Let's stay on topic please
IMPERATOR REX ANGLORUM

michl420
michl420
24
Joined: 18 Apr 2010, 17:08
Location: Austria

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

Badger wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 19:37
Anti-squat geometry.https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... bulls.webp
But interestingly not at the front (anti-dive), in contrast to the cadillac.

Badger
Badger
12
Joined: 22 Sep 2025, 17:00

Re: RB VCARB 03

Post

michl420 wrote:
21 Jan 2026, 09:24
Badger wrote:
20 Jan 2026, 19:37
Anti-squat geometry.https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... bulls.webp
But interestingly not at the front (anti-dive), in contrast to the cadillac.
I should clarify, it’s not anti-squat, it’s anti-lift. And you are correct, very limited anti-dive at the front. Both these choices I would suspect have to do with the reintroduction of rake. You want the front to dive a little bit during braking but you don’t want the rear to lift.