2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[peewon]

The sin was that a fantastic F1 innovation was abandoned.

It was officially pitched as removing an entry barrier for new OEMs. Maybe it was successful in that regard. But there were plenty of options available to mitigate that loss. But alas, they wanted a very specific formula. And thats the risk of catering to a power center in F1 that doesnt care about the sport but its own success instead. The warnings were loud and clear, especially from Red Bull in particular. Forget MGU-h, they have almost eliminated the driver.

[De Wet]

The usual suspects at play again... Money & Politics.

[diffuser]

The sin was that a fantastic F1 innovation was abandoned.

It was officially pitched as removing an entry barrier for new OEMs. Maybe it was successful in that regard. But there were plenty of options available to mitigate that loss. But alas, they wanted a very specific formula. And thats the risk of catering to a power center in F1 that doesnt care about the sport but its own success instead. The warnings were loud and clear, especially from Red Bull in particular. Forget MGU-h, they have almost eliminated the driver.

I don’t think they were aiming for a very specific formula. I think this one emerged as the path of least resistance. I agree that, right now, the driver’s ability has been reduced in terms of influence on race outcomes, but that always happens when power unit regulations change. The importance of the power unit rises to the forefront until reliability and performance become more uniform again. If you look back into F1 history, Formula 1 has often been dominated by innovation, so even though the driver was celebrated, they were not always the main reason for the victories.


I think they understand that the driver ability needs to make a difference. The PU will get better and they'll tweak the formula and it will return.

[peewon]

I don’t think they were aiming for a very specific formula. I think this one emerged as the path of least resistance. I agree that, right now, the driver’s ability has been reduced in terms of influence on race outcomes, but that always happens when power unit regulations change. The importance of the power unit rises to the forefront until reliability and performance become more uniform again. If you look back into F1 history, Formula 1 has often been dominated by innovation, so even though the driver was celebrated, they were not always the main reason for the victories.


I think they understand that the driver ability needs to make a difference. The PU will get better and they'll tweak the formula and it will return.

They have openly talked about the 50/50 split as an aim while setting the regs. Front axle regen was a mitigating solution that was shot down. Even independent youtubers could predict the cars running out of battery on straights simply by using math...



This was two years ago. Horner and Verstappen explained in accurate details, the exact same scenarios that are playing out now but they were ignored. And we know the engineers in the FIA are not dumb so why how could they allow such a scenario to happen? Well because they wanted the software management of battery and recharge to be the deciding factor. Which was the team which was adamant about not making any changes and dismissing any concerns about the super clipping scenario? Who shot down the front axel regen idea? The team which coincidently happened to have the best software battery management and regen system developed in formula E.

I agree that F1 has always been a technology centered sport and the driver is second. But the driver was still a big part. The limit of the car could only be reached through driving ability. Now the limit is reached by software algorithms and decision making. The fact that overtakes are happening without the driver intending to is shambolic. It would be hard to argue how its a real sport at this point.

[diffuser]

I don’t think they were aiming for a very specific formula. I think this one emerged as the path of least resistance. I agree that, right now, the driver’s ability has been reduced in terms of influence on race outcomes, but that always happens when power unit regulations change. The importance of the power unit rises to the forefront until reliability and performance become more uniform again. If you look back into F1 history, Formula 1 has often been dominated by innovation, so even though the driver was celebrated, they were not always the main reason for the victories.


I think they understand that the driver ability needs to make a difference. The PU will get better and they'll tweak the formula and it will return.

They have openly talked about the 50/50 split as an aim while setting the regs. Front axle regen was a mitigating solution that was shot down. Even independent youtubers could predict the cars running out of battery on straights simply by using math...



This was two years ago. Horner and Verstappen explained in accurate details, the exact same scenarios that are playing out now but they were ignored. And we know the engineers in the FIA are not dumb so why how could they allow such a scenario to happen? Well because they wanted the software management of battery and recharge to be the deciding factor. Which was the team which was adamant about not making any changes and dismissing any concerns about the super clipping scenario? Who shot down the front axel regen idea? The team which coincidently happened to have the best software battery management and regen system developed in formula E.

I agree that F1 has always been a technology centered sport and the driver is second. But the driver was still a big part. The limit of the car could only be reached through driving ability. Now the limit is reached by software algorithms and decision making. The fact that overtakes are happening without the driver intending to is shambolic. It would be hard to argue how its a real sport at this point.

They adjusted the rules based on what they said. it's where all that stuff limiting the deployment at different speeds came out of. The overpass stuff.

Your mixing up the FIA having to work with what they're givin, with them wanting this. I don't thing the 2 are the same. Honda had the perfect MGU-H, in that it was 1 piece with the turbo, compressor and axle. They could have easily took that and made it a standard part that they all had to use.

[Holm86]

I don’t think they were aiming for a very specific formula. I think this one emerged as the path of least resistance. I agree that, right now, the driver’s ability has been reduced in terms of influence on race outcomes, but that always happens when power unit regulations change. The importance of the power unit rises to the forefront until reliability and performance become more uniform again. If you look back into F1 history, Formula 1 has often been dominated by innovation, so even though the driver was celebrated, they were not always the main reason for the victories.


I think they understand that the driver ability needs to make a difference. The PU will get better and they'll tweak the formula and it will return.

They have openly talked about the 50/50 split as an aim while setting the regs. Front axle regen was a mitigating solution that was shot down. Even independent youtubers could predict the cars running out of battery on straights simply by using math...



This was two years ago. Horner and Verstappen explained in accurate details, the exact same scenarios that are playing out now but they were ignored. And we know the engineers in the FIA are not dumb so why how could they allow such a scenario to happen? Well because they wanted the software management of battery and recharge to be the deciding factor. Which was the team which was adamant about not making any changes and dismissing any concerns about the super clipping scenario? Who shot down the front axel regen idea? The team which coincidently happened to have the best software battery management and regen system developed in formula E.

I agree that F1 has always been a technology centered sport and the driver is second. But the driver was still a big part. The limit of the car could only be reached through driving ability. Now the limit is reached by software algorithms and decision making. The fact that overtakes are happening without the driver intending to is shambolic. It would be hard to argue how its a real sport at this point.

They adjusted the rules based on what they said. it's where all that stuff limiting the deployment at different speeds came out of. The overpass stuff.

Your mixing up the FIA having to work with what they're givin, with them wanting this. I don't thing the 2 are the same. Honda had the perfect MGU-H, in that it was 1 piece with the turbo, compressor and axle. They could have easily took that and made it a standard part that they all had to use.

I don't believe it was the mechanical part of the MGU-H that new manufactures feared, it was all the data and software the current teams had on deployment/harvesting strategies

[gearboxtrouble]

The MGUH would have been like using a band aid to treat a gunshot wound. It wouldn't have been able to harvest nearly enough energy to allow anywhere near full MGU-K deployment at every instance of full throttle and the 80hp or so it would have (best case) added when direct driving the MGU-K would have been minimal compared to to 450hp loss between full power and ICE only which is causing all these safety issues. Thats not even accounting for the 30% lower thermal output of the ICE to harvest. It would have added cost and complexity without addressing the fundamental problems with these regs - the main driver of energy starvation is the lack of energy from the ICE and the only solution to that is to massively increase the ICE's output. The power output of the old engines at full throttle was between 1010 hp and 930 hp which resulted in still noticeable levels of clipping but hardly the disaster we see with these engines where the full throttle output is between 1030 hp (Mercedes) for at best 11s lap, 580 hp when running ICE only and 280 hp while super clipping.

[diffuser]

The MGUH would have been like using a band aid to treat a gunshot wound. It wouldn't have been able to harvest nearly enough energy to allow anywhere near full MGU-K deployment at every instance of full throttle and the 80hp or so it would have (best case) added when direct driving the MGU-K would have been minimal compared to to 450hp loss between full power and ICE only which is causing all these safety issues. Thats not even accounting for the 30% lower thermal output of the ICE to harvest. It would have added cost and complexity without addressing the fundamental problems with these regs - the main driver of energy starvation is the lack of energy from the ICE and the only solution to that is to massively increase the ICE's output. The power output of the old engines at full throttle was between 1010 hp and 930 hp which resulted in still noticeable levels of clipping but hardly the disaster we see with these engines where the full throttle output is between 1030 hp (Mercedes) for at best 11s lap, 580 hp when running ICE only and 280 hp while super clipping.

Even without any improvements in energy recovery relative to 2025, the system could harvest on the order of 1 MJ during a full-throttle straight. Applying a one-third reduction to account for the lower ICE output expected in 2026 still yields approximately 0.67 MJ, equivalent to ~2 seconds of MGU-K deployment at maximum power down the same straight. Even when the battery is completely depleted, it could directly drive the MGU-K with about 100MJ/130HP while the ICE is at full throttle.

Extrapolated over a full lap, this corresponds to roughly 4 MJ of recoverable energy, which translates to ~12 seconds of additional 350 kW (≈470 hp) MGU-K deployment. That's something.

[Tommy Cookers]

...Even without any improvements in energy recovery relative to 2025, the system ....Even when the battery is completely depleted, it could directly drive the MGU-K with about 100MJ/130HP while the ICE is at full throttle.

yes it could
by raising the exhaust pressure
so robbing the ICE of power at the crankshaft

[gearboxtrouble]

The MGUH would have been like using a band aid to treat a gunshot wound. It wouldn't have been able to harvest nearly enough energy to allow anywhere near full MGU-K deployment at every instance of full throttle and the 80hp or so it would have (best case) added when direct driving the MGU-K would have been minimal compared to to 450hp loss between full power and ICE only which is causing all these safety issues. Thats not even accounting for the 30% lower thermal output of the ICE to harvest. It would have added cost and complexity without addressing the fundamental problems with these regs - the main driver of energy starvation is the lack of energy from the ICE and the only solution to that is to massively increase the ICE's output. The power output of the old engines at full throttle was between 1010 hp and 930 hp which resulted in still noticeable levels of clipping but hardly the disaster we see with these engines where the full throttle output is between 1030 hp (Mercedes) for at best 11s lap, 580 hp when running ICE only and 280 hp while super clipping.

Even without any improvements in energy recovery relative to 2025, the system could harvest on the order of 1 MJ during a full-throttle straight. Applying a one-third reduction to account for the lower ICE output expected in 2026 still yields approximately 0.67 MJ, equivalent to ~2 seconds of MGU-K deployment at maximum power down the same straight. Even when the battery is completely depleted, it could directly drive the MGU-K with about 100MJ/130HP while the ICE is at full throttle.

Extrapolated over a full lap, this corresponds to roughly 4 MJ of recoverable energy, which translates to ~12 seconds of additional 350 kW (≈470 hp) MGU-K deployment. That's something.

Imho 12s a lap of extra full throttle seems a tad too optimistic and even if it was realistic we'd still only cover 20-40% of the full throttle time around a lap. Would it help with the current formula? yes. Would it be the solution that fixes it? absolutely not. You're still left with 550-580 hp ICEs for most of the lap and thats the biggest driver of all of the main problems with this ruleset from the yo yo overtakes to the closing speeds to the sacrifice of cornering performance to boost harvesting. The problem remains energy starvation from the lack of energy input. At this stage, adding a spec MGU-H would be too complex, costly and provide far too little extra energy. The only realistic fix doable by 2027 is to boost the ICE to at least 75% of the 1000hp target and lower the MGU-K by 60% to ensure that brake energy alone is all that is needed to have full power available nearly all the time. A 750hp ICE would require a fuel flow boost and some material but manageable changes to the internals, turbo and chassis to handle the extra fuel - something modders do to their cars every day.

[diffuser]

...Even without any improvements in energy recovery relative to 2025, the system ....Even when the battery is completely depleted, it could directly drive the MGU-K with about 100MJ/130HP while the ICE is at full throttle.

yes it could
by raising the exhaust pressure
so robbing the ICE of power at the crankshaft

It also spins up the compressor at low rpm to boost ICE power.

[bananapeel23]

Imho 12s a lap of extra full throttle seems a tad too optimistic and even if it was realistic we'd still only cover 20-40% of the full throttle time around a lap. Would it help with the current formula? yes. Would it be the solution that fixes it? absolutely not. You're still left with 550-580 hp ICEs for most of the lap and thats the biggest driver of all of the main problems.

This idea that the cars need to deploy constantly is weird to me. The issue isn’t that they run out of energy. The issue is that they run the ICE as a generator instead of just running the remaining ICE power with active aero.

These cars don’t slow down on the straights ans yoyo because they run out of battery, they do it because they run out of battery and then decide to harvest. Sure, running out of battery slows you down, but it doesn’t make you decelerate. The only place where running out of power creates easy passes is in traction zones.

Where yoyo passes happen, the following cars usually aren’t even deploying very much due to the inefficiency of high speed deployment. The other car is just superclipping.

[michl420]

What people are complaining about superclipping now is more or less the same they have done about normal clipping and the MGUH in 2014. As the teams understand the engines better in the next half of a year, superclipping will become less and people will accept it more.
What I do not like is that the drivers have so little control about all of it.
The PU itself and how it works is quite interesting for me.
I can understand that becoming slower under full trottle is strange, but it is part of a classic hybrid layout.
However, minor adjustments are certainly desirable.

[gearboxtrouble]

What people are complaining about superclipping now is more or less the same they have done about normal clipping and the MGUH in 2014. As the teams understand the engines better in the next half of a year, superclipping will become less and people will accept it more.
What I do not like is that the drivers have so little control about all of it.
The PU itself and how it works is quite interesting for me.
I can understand that becoming slower under full trottle is strange, but it is part of a classic hybrid layout.
However, minor adjustments are certainly desirable.

There is a massive difference. The old engines dropped from ~1000hp to ~900hp while clipping because the ICE was a 850hp monster and the MGUH could send at least 80hp to the MGUK directly. These engines go from ~1000hp to ~250hp because the ICE is only 550hp and superclipping diverts 300hp to charge the battery. A 100hp loss is an inconvenience, a 700+ hp loss is a disaster thats impossible to hide. F1 can attempt to hide it by cutting away from onboards while its going on but the criticism will be never ending.

The PU is interesting in isolation because its made up of so many compromises to meet purely performative marketing led benchmarks. It does not belong in F1 and has made a mockery of the sport. Motorsports formulas should be fairly simple. FE is about pushing BEV technology and should always be all electric. WEC should be about maximizing efficiency and hybrids are ideal for this purpose. F1 should be about going as fast as is safe for the drivers and a full ICE (maybe with a small electric push to pass) is the only solution able to guarantee that.

[diffuser]

The MGUH would have been like using a band aid to treat a gunshot wound. It wouldn't have been able to harvest nearly enough energy to allow anywhere near full MGU-K deployment at every instance of full throttle and the 80hp or so it would have (best case) added when direct driving the MGU-K would have been minimal compared to to 450hp loss between full power and ICE only which is causing all these safety issues. Thats not even accounting for the 30% lower thermal output of the ICE to harvest. It would have added cost and complexity without addressing the fundamental problems with these regs - the main driver of energy starvation is the lack of energy from the ICE and the only solution to that is to massively increase the ICE's output. The power output of the old engines at full throttle was between 1010 hp and 930 hp which resulted in still noticeable levels of clipping but hardly the disaster we see with these engines where the full throttle output is between 1030 hp (Mercedes) for at best 11s lap, 580 hp when running ICE only and 280 hp while super clipping.

Even without any improvements in energy recovery relative to 2025, the system could harvest on the order of 1 MJ during a full-throttle straight. Applying a one-third reduction to account for the lower ICE output expected in 2026 still yields approximately 0.67 MJ, equivalent to ~2 seconds of MGU-K deployment at maximum power down the same straight. Even when the battery is completely depleted, it could directly drive the MGU-K with about 100MJ/130HP while the ICE is at full throttle.

Extrapolated over a full lap, this corresponds to roughly 4 MJ of recoverable energy, which translates to ~12 seconds of additional 350 kW (≈470 hp) MGU-K deployment. That's something.

Imho 12s a lap of extra full throttle seems a tad too optimistic and even if it was realistic we'd still only cover 20-40% of the full throttle time around a lap. Would it help with the current formula? yes. Would it be the solution that fixes it? absolutely not. You're still left with 550-580 hp ICEs for most of the lap and thats the biggest driver of all of the main problems with this ruleset from the yo yo overtakes to the closing speeds to the sacrifice of cornering performance to boost harvesting. The problem remains energy starvation from the lack of energy input. At this stage, adding a spec MGU-H would be too complex, costly and provide far too little extra energy. The only realistic fix doable by 2027 is to boost the ICE to at least 75% of the 1000hp target and lower the MGU-K by 60% to ensure that brake energy alone is all that is needed to have full power available nearly all the time. A 750hp ICE would require a fuel flow boost and some material but manageable changes to the internals, turbo and chassis to handle the extra fuel - something modders do to their cars every day.

I started talking about the MGU-H because we’ve begun to see a rethinking of it in production cars and motorcycles. The latest iteration is a three-cylinder Honda motorcycle engine. I thought it was a shame that arguably the most famous Formula 1 innovation was removed from the formula. My argument was never that it was the solution to our current woes, although it clearly wouldn’t hurt.