2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[Farnborough]

It may be interpreted either way, IMO.

I think the wording is crystal clear. No using the K between starting and 50 km/h. But charging before start is fine.

Maybe to optimize the battery temperature. It might cool more than is desired since the last braking opportunity.

Lithium batteries don't need warming to work normally. Not as long as they don't race in freezing temperatures.

There's potential (if it can be reconciled with regulations) to run the ICE against the generator as anti-lag to spool up the turbo immediately before clutch release at start, if there's storage capacity to do such.

Example of arrival at grid with % depleted battery target, then to run against generator in final seconds of 5 red lights to spool turbo prior to traction need.

This is more interesting. However that might be hard to orchestrate, since the time to start is variable, and if the charge is fully I don't thin there's a practical, or legal way to run the K and use up the electricity.
Question is whether that power is needed below 50 k/mh at all. After that you have the K to fill in lag.

I was thinking more of, hypothetical scenario of target 75% E storage through formation lap, wait for start of 5 red light sequence (always fixed duration, from variable start in time) run ICE against "brake" generator, with output into E store to generate boost.

One if the controlling aspect of boost is that under no load, a ICE will require small throttle opening to say reach and maintain 7000 ram ...... as opposed to against a brake, at which it could potentially have the throttle at virtually full open, which will build maximum boost.

[mzso]

I was thinking more of, hypothetical scenario of target 75% E storage through formation lap, wait for start of 5 red light sequence (always fixed duration, from variable start in time) run ICE against "brake" generator, with output into E store to generate boost.

One if the controlling aspect of boost is that under no load, a ICE will require small throttle opening to say reach and maintain 7000 ram ...... as opposed to against a brake, at which it could potentially have the throttle at virtually full open, which will build maximum boost.

As long as the PU can be (legally) programmed to automatically have the K automatically generating at a standstill, and a different charging strategy for warm-up laps is also possible. As far as I know the driver can't adjust such things and I didn't hear of multiple engine modes coming back. Assuming you need the extra power below 50 km/h.

[Farnborough]

There was talk around a 50 sec spool up for boost min to max from idle, and that lag bring problematic particularly at start sequence. It would be no surprise to find teams looking at this extensively.

Previous rules have had manipulation of recharge strat by driver, often at demand of engineer over radio comms.

Has that been deleted from this rules set ?

[diffuser]

https://autoracer.it...rezza-alla-fia/



A source reveals that increasing the compression ratio is considerable: “It can reach +6/7% of the ICE power, +3/4% overall PU.
“We all have the skills to do it, it's not allowed. The FIA must be able to check it almost in real time” Binotto.

As already revealed by AutoRacer , Audi is the team pushing hardest to check Brixworth's engine , and Mattia Binotto made no secret of this during his presentation: "If what they're talking about were actually true, the performance gap would be significant ," he admitted bluntly. Significant is exactly the right word, a term also used by another engine specialist well before Binotto spoke in the past few hours. As we've already reported , moving from a compression ratio of 16 to 18 would guarantee an advantage of more than 40 hp, with further benefits for the Power Unit in terms of efficiency, energy recovery, and other values ​​that explain Binotto's strong concern. Audi Technical Director James Key also briefly commented on the matter. "I think it would be like bypassing the purpose of the regulations, which are somehow intended to control this area. We trust the FIA ​​because no one wants to go through a season where someone has a significant advantage and there's no solution, since the Power Unit is homologated. We hope the FIA ​​makes the right decision." With the FIA ​​likely to fail to intervene very soon, the teams would have no choice but to protest in Australia, moving from words to action. However, it's not that easy: "You can protest if you know what you're protesting against," Mattia Binotto stated.

The thing is how do you do it ? I don't think it is possible.

The regulations specify allowable materials for construction. For nearly all Formula One internal combustion engine (ICE) applications, the cylinder head must be machined from a single, homogeneous block of the selected material. This requirement precludes the use of dissimilar materials within the head—such as combining steel and aluminum—to exploit differential thermal expansion as a means of increasing the effective compression ratio (CR).

Even if compression ratios at those levels were mechanically achievable, a recent interview with Honda emphasized that current FIA-mandated fuel formulations are not optimized for the fast-burn combustion characteristics required at extremely high CRs.

Seems like they have to go in another direction to get performance that CRs.

[PlatinumZealot]

I miss the sound of the MGUH engines somewhat.

[johnnycesup]

Interesting article from autoracer with an interview with Enrico Gualteri, Ferrari engine chief.

https://autoracer.it/gualtieri-presenta ... des-shell/

[Badger]

What happened with the total fuel load? I remember a while back there was talk about raising it by quite a bit to accomodate fuel burn for harvesting essentially. Do we know what happened with that?

[Tommy Cookers]

What happened with the total fuel load?....

it's unlimited

[venkyhere]

What happened with the total fuel load?....

it's unlimited

I saw a video in which Craig Scarborough said "fuel load for a race this year is down to 70kgs from the previous 100+" , and didn't know whether to believe him or not, since even though weight/drag are down from last regs, the energy for entire race has to come from fuel itself, and was left wondering whether the weight/drag will reduce so much.

[Badger]

What happened with the total fuel load?....

it's unlimited

Should be interesting then to see how much they load up with. I think they will be fuel burning at the end of the straight by harvesting the 350 kW whilst still on full throttle. I doubt 70 kg will be enough for the race to run like that.

[BorisTheBlade]

"It's unlimited" as an answer is kind of a "reductio ad absurdum".
While there is no limit of how much cars are allowed to carry, there is a limit of energy usage per hour. For a typical race that translates to around 70 kg of fuel and that is what Scarbs meant.

[Tommy Cookers]

.. there is a limit of energy usage per hour. For a typical race that translates to around 70 kg of fuel and that is what Scarbs meant.

it doesn't translate to around 70 kg per race
it translates to around 100 kg per race
the limit to what could be used

the heat rate per hour has been cut by 30% but the kg per heat rate has been raised eg by 15%

[vorticism]

Good point, pretty sure I'm guilty of equating the fuel flow rate with what the total amount of fuel used will be. Less what the slightly lower vehicle mass, unknown peak system efficiency potential, and active aero can supply, the total amount of energy required to move a roughly equal vehicle around a track at approximately the same average speed, does not change much. For publicity will they simply state the increase in electrical power? And not mention the fuel consumption short of it involving synthetic fuel.

[BassVirolla]

.. there is a limit of energy usage per hour. For a typical race that translates to around 70 kg of fuel and that is what Scarbs meant.

it doesn't translate to around 70 kg per race
it translates to around 100 kg per race
the limit to what could be used

the heat rate per hour has been cut by 30% but the kg per heat rate has been raised eg by 15%

Could be fun if they ditch the energy max flow.

Some crazy last stints vs. fuel saving through the full race.

Nevertheless, as always, simulations should point to an optimum fuel load.

[dialtone]

.. there is a limit of energy usage per hour. For a typical race that translates to around 70 kg of fuel and that is what Scarbs meant.

it doesn't translate to around 70 kg per race
it translates to around 100 kg per race
the limit to what could be used

the heat rate per hour has been cut by 30% but the kg per heat rate has been raised eg by 15%

Could be fun if they ditch the energy max flow.

Some crazy last stints vs. fuel saving through the full race.

Nevertheless, as always, simulations should point to an optimum fuel load.

The right approach should have been to regulate the max fuel load, not the fuel flow, let the driver and team handle the race strategy and allow them to run out of fuel at the end like the good old times.