It's already 60/40. because since intial advertising MGU-K decreased from 400 to 350 kw and 400kw for ICE was FIA/F1 prudential estimations but they are likely already above.franbatista123 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 17:58They should just change the power split to 60/40 or similar. Regardless, Australia is probably going to be one of the worst tracks for recharging so at least we should reserve judgement for a few races.
You wouldn't think it but I would posit these two laps were driven in the same engine mode with the same power judging by the acceleration curves and general deployment. I think this highlights how much better or worse the same engine can look with a different chassis. The more kinetic energy you can retain through the corners the less you need to accelerate the less energy starved you become.I think the weight difference is shown here as well, in the acceleration phaseBadger wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 20:51In the midst of Aston's annus horribilis we have lost sight of another disaster... Williams. Here's Albon on a race sim vs Russell.https://i.postimg.cc/59K27WKJ/speed(1).png You wouldn't think it but I would posit these two laps were driven in the same engine mode with the same power judging by the acceleration curves and general deployment. I think this highlights how much better or worse the same engine can look with a different chassis. The more kinetic energy you can retain through the corners the less you need to accelerate the less energy starved you become.
Yes. By "chassis" I mean all of that. Downforce, weight, drag. On first inspection the Williams looks like it's missing 50 HP, but it's really the chassis that is lacking and forcing them to "stop-start" all the time, which is inefficient from an energy perspective.johnnycesup wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 20:56I think the weight difference is shown here as well, in the acceleration phaseBadger wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 20:51In the midst of Aston's annus horribilis we have lost sight of another disaster... Williams. Here's Albon on a race sim vs Russell.https://i.postimg.cc/59K27WKJ/speed(1).png You wouldn't think it but I would posit these two laps were driven in the same engine mode with the same power judging by the acceleration curves and general deployment. I think this highlights how much better or worse the same engine can look with a different chassis. The more kinetic energy you can retain through the corners the less you need to accelerate the less energy starved you become.
I guess that they could just about do this with the fuel limited to 70/80kgs this year?SB15 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 18:1370/30 looks more reasonable.franbatista123 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 17:58They should just change the power split to 60/40 or similar. Regardless, Australia is probably going to be one of the worst tracks for recharging so at least we should reserve judgement for a few races.
You just need 20kg in excess...Badger wrote: ↑06 Mar 2026, 20:51In the midst of Aston's annus horribilis we have lost sight of another disaster... Williams. Here's Albon on a race sim vs Russell.https://i.postimg.cc/59K27WKJ/speed(1).png You wouldn't think it but I would posit these two laps were driven in the same engine mode with the same power judging by the acceleration curves and general deployment. I think this highlights how much better or worse the same engine can look with a different chassis. The more kinetic energy you can retain through the corners the less you need to accelerate the less energy starved you become.
FIA removes zone 4 (T8 to T9) of active aerodynamics opening. Some drivers and teams expressed concern over loss of downforce in those corners under certain conditions, such as following other cars. The actual front aero downforce data is lower than simulated. It's a safety issue. It has been communicated to teams this morning. They will have to make changes to car setups. It will be even more complicated in terms of energy management.
There have been rumors of problems with the new standard ECU since pre-season. Many teams suffered stoppages related to faults in this device.