Possible solutions to improve the 2026 Engine Regulations

[gearboxtrouble]

Temporary solution to eliminate clipping, limiting the delivery power to 200kW and using the recovery power at 350kW (OK for C5.12.4).
No clipping but power limitation below 200kW on some curves.

200KW would be the number at Suzuka. It would make more sense to set it per track so that you never need to superclip. Some tracks like Vegas, Baku and Monza it would likely be lower, maybe even as low as 150KW. Other tracks like Singapore, Monaco and Hungary there might be enough brake energy available for a higher limit eg 300KW. As a stop gap for the rest of 2026 this makes a lot of sense. For 27 they could recover the missing power with ICE changes including more fuel.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Temporary solution to eliminate clipping, limiting the delivery power to 200kW and using the recovery power at 350kW (OK for C5.12.4).
No clipping but power limitation below 200kW on some curves.

200KW would be the number at Suzuka. It would make more sense to set it per track so that you never need to superclip. Some tracks like Vegas, Baku and Monza it would likely be lower, maybe even as low as 150KW. Other tracks like Singapore, Monaco and Hungary there might be enough brake energy available for a higher limit eg 300KW. As a stop gap for the rest of 2026 this makes a lot of sense. For 27 they could recover the missing power with ICE changes including more fuel.

This seems like a workable stop-gap to me.

[F1NAC]

Temporary solution to eliminate clipping, limiting the delivery power to 200kW and using the recovery power at 350kW (OK for C5.12.4).
No clipping but power limitation below 200kW on some curves.

They’ should have done this for this year. And for next think about increasing ice power. This simulated pace is on 2013 speeds with similar top speeds. 310-315

[SharkY]

I tried to run some numbers as to the energy recovered from MGU-K. I used China (as this was supposed to be a track slightly favouring the hybrid system) and Hamilton Quali lap telemetry from f1insightshub.com (I wanted to use Mercedes as an example, but unfortunately both of them had some glitches in the telemetry).
I used the change in speed, when the brakes were applied to calculate the kinetic energy expended (assuming mass of 770kg). Now, I assumed 55-45 brake bias, so the rear wheels could recover only 45% of that, while MGU-K being capped at 350kW.
However, I didn't include any effect of the drag on the braking force.

The result is that the total recovered energy from the MGU-K is 3,5 MJ (from the total recoverable 10,5 MJ). Mercedes had higher straight line speeds, so for them that figure could be just over 4,0 MJ. It still is less than half of the permissable recovery (9MJ for quali).
I mean, I know that the data and my calculations are inaccurate, but I doubt it was greatly more than that.
Superclipping at 250kW would roughly add 3MJ to that and that would leave 2,5 MJ for partial throttle recovery.

Would the teams change the brake bias to favor energy recovery?

Interestingly, a 150kW front MGU-K could recover 2,2 MJ and 220 kW would be needed to offset superclipping.

[BorisTheBlade]

Pretty sure Teams change braking bias for MGU-K recovery in order to maximize it. This IMHO is the main reason for all the rear lock-ups, because it is difficult to get right.
At the begining of an end of straight braking event, max. braking power on the rear axle should be in the ballpark of 1000 KW. As the car slows down, brake bias and mechanical vs. ERS-K needs to be adjusted timely.

[.poz]

Honestly, I don't understand why, during this forced month-long break, an extraordinary collective testing session isn't organized in Barcelona or at some other European track to experiment with different power mixes for the electrical component, charging limits, super-clipping, etc.

[PlatinumZealot]

2 liter v8+Turbo +syntetic fuels (no limit on fuel flow rate)+ hybrid system like today's but more battery capacity

2 liter turbo v8 with unlimited fuel flow would be absolutely insane. The best of the 1.5L turbo engines in the 1980s produced up to 1400 horsepower in quali. Modern materials would push that to 2000+.

I'm not really interested in another set of turbo engines. Why stay with turbo if you have one last chance to fix this and we all knew the NA V10 was the peak of the spectacle!! Just go NA V10 and add a bit mild hybrid and viola!

[lucafo]

200KW would be the number at Suzuka. It would make more sense to set it per track so that you never need to superclip. Some tracks like Vegas, Baku and Monza it would likely be lower, maybe even as low as 150KW. Other tracks like Singapore, Monaco and Hungary there might be enough brake energy available for a higher limit eg 300KW. As a stop gap for the rest of 2026 this makes a lot of sense. For 27 they could recover the missing power with ICE changes including more fuel.

This seems like a workable stop-gap to me.

Looks very reasonable!
Or scaling the battery and electric output to work as a combustion engine - with a power x rpm curve (or something related to gears) and limited % of battery to lap number.
Just playing around some crazy ideas...

[Tommy Cookers]

... Or scaling the battery and electric output to work as a combustion engine .....

since 2014 the ICE has been forced to work like an electric machine ....
the fuel rate being mandated to give essentially constant torque for all rpm

[PlatinumZealot]

200KW would be the number at Suzuka. It would make more sense to set it per track so that you never need to superclip. Some tracks like Vegas, Baku and Monza it would likely be lower, maybe even as low as 150KW. Other tracks like Singapore, Monaco and Hungary there might be enough brake energy available for a higher limit eg 300KW. As a stop gap for the rest of 2026 this makes a lot of sense. For 27 they could recover the missing power with ICE changes including more fuel.

This seems like a workable stop-gap to me.

Looks very reasonable!
Or scaling the battery and electric output to work as a combustion engine - with a power x rpm curve (or something related to gears) and limited % of battery to lap number.
Just playing around some crazy ideas...

That's exactly what we have and what brought on this mess. They were trying to have 50/50 electrical output and still have 1,000hp at full throttle on the straights light the previous generation. The dropping of the MGUH and 50/50 power split was to appease to electrification sympathies to attract green spectacled manufacturers. FIA subsequently realized in simulations that the vehicles would quickly run out energy if going at the full clip 1,000hp, and then they came up with the straight line mode to help save energy instead of backing down - too much embarrassment was at stake.The change was too little too late, but they decided to throw it at the wall and hope it stuck anyway. It didn't.

[Tommy Cookers]

Pretty sure Teams change braking bias for MGU-K recovery in order to maximize it. This IMHO is the main reason for all the rear lock-ups, because it is difficult to get right.
At the begining of an end of straight braking event, max. braking power on the rear axle should be in the ballpark of 1000 KW. As the car slows down, brake bias and mechanical vs. ERS-K needs to be adjusted timely.

well yes but ......
adjusting brake bias within a braking episode isn't allowed ?

but (IMO and FWIW) the MG 'braking' torque will act rather like ABS because if ....
there's under-rotation (ie sudden increase in rate of rpm fall) the MG torque will fall to maintain MG synchrony
regardless of MG torque rise calculated to maintain 350 kW as the speed falls in any one gear

[Farnborough]

Maybe they should have conceived it starting with 50kw deployment in 1st gear (even at the start) then adding 50 more for each successive upchange .... reaching 350 in 7th

[BorisTheBlade]

Pretty sure Teams change braking bias for MGU-K recovery in order to maximize it. This IMHO is the main reason for all the rear lock-ups, because it is difficult to get right.
At the begining of an end of straight braking event, max. braking power on the rear axle should be in the ballpark of 1000 KW. As the car slows down, brake bias and mechanical vs. ERS-K needs to be adjusted timely.

well yes but ......
adjusting brake bias within a braking episode isn't allowed ?

but (IMO and FWIW) the MG 'braking' torque will act rather like ABS because if ....
there's under-rotation (ie sudden increase in rate of rpm fall) the MG torque will fall to maintain MG synchrony
regardless of MG torque rise calculated to maintain 350 kW as the speed falls in any one gear

Yep, not sure about it and haven't read all the relevant rules.But as they are allowed to very dynamically vary the mechanical : MGU-K braking bias, they'll surely have come up with a solution to maximize the braking recovery under different types of corners, conditions, etc.
Wouldn't be shocked to realize that they implemented some kind of dynamic front : rear bias as well.

[eyelid]

2 liter v8+Turbo +syntetic fuels (no limit on fuel flow rate)+ hybrid system like today's but more battery capacity

2 liter turbo v8 with unlimited fuel flow would be absolutely insane. The best of the 1.5L turbo engines in the 1980s produced up to 1400 horsepower in quali. Modern materials would push that to 2000+.

I'm not really interested in another set of turbo engines. Why stay with turbo if you have one last chance to fix this and we all knew the NA V10 was the peak of the spectacle!! Just go NA V10 and add a bit mild hybrid and viola!

It was just revs making the noise. Do the turbo rules engines revving to 18 000rpm and we're done. Still dodging the facts that we need NA V10 to have noise as we can have the noise on Turbos also, but some stupid people capped these to 10 500rpm preventing the spectacle.

[bananapeel23]

That's exactly what we have and what brought on this mess. They were trying to have 50/50 electrical output and still have 1,000hp at full throttle on the straights light the previous generation. The dropping of the MGUH and 50/50 power split was to appease to electrification sympathies to attract green spectacled manufacturers. FIA subsequently realized in simulations that the vehicles would quickly run out energy if going at the full clip 1,000hp, and then they came up with the straight line mode to help save energy instead of backing down - too much embarrassment was at stake.The change was too little too late, but they decided to throw it at the wall and hope it stuck anyway. It didn't.

That is all true, but it doesn't imply some kind of fundamental flaw with the 50/50 split in theory. It's entirely possible to make it work without turning the ICE into a glorified generator. The teams just decided to play politics, which ruined the much more viable concept of front and rear axle harvesting + MGU-H. Sure, it would likely have added another 20kg, but it would've made 50/50 more or less fine.

2.1 seconds of deployment per second on the brakes (400kW front + 350kW rear), combined with the constant charging from the MGU-H would've made it possible for the cars to constantly deploy where it matters. Sure, they would've been power starved at high speed, but active aero (despite being a bit of a cheap trick) helps mask the fact that they are power starved, since the current ICE alone can sustain well over 350 km/h with active aero.

Active aero is also great for sustainability, since it both decreases the amount of fuel wasted on fighting drag, but also reduces the need for massively different, track-specific packages and prevents the manufacturing of Monza spec spares that will almost certainly not be used. Now they can mostly run the same package everywhere, with most differences being purely about cooling. This saves both development time and money for the teams, while being somewhat environmentally friendly. Active aero is just a straight up win in all respects in my opinion.