2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[De Wet]

Sorry but all formulae are artificially "slowed". Always has been and especially so now that it is possible to build cars with a g-force envelope beyond human endurance.

Why switch F1 to electric at all if you already have FE. This is just silly duplication.

You know, I just keep repeating myself.

One reason to switch to full electric is cause it faster. If it isn't then we shouldn't. Another reason is to keep it relevant. F1 should always be relevant. I'm just against going backwards to normally aspirated V8s.

I saw this new 2 Stroke ICE, which looked really interesting that will run all kinds of fuel alphaotto.

https://youtu.be/5czHDU6pK8E?si=QPC2y_6mwryDYknn

It's Faster... Great... Again... Go to FE.

Keep F1 ICE or merge with FE...

[Cold Fussion]

But that's because of battery density. In the real world, battery density will improve at an average of 50% year after year.

50% per year? How can you seriously make that claim unsupported.

[diffuser]

But that's because of battery density. In the real world, battery density will improve at an average of 50% year after year.

50% per year? How can you seriously make that claim unsupported.

I'm finding out that there is a difference between cell density and then tge density when you add in cooling and packaging, etc.

[Cold Fussion]

But that's because of battery density. In the real world, battery density will improve at an average of 50% year after year.

50% per year? How can you seriously make that claim unsupported.

I'm finding out that there is a difference between cell density and then tge density when you add in cooling and packaging, etc.

It doesn't matter what density you use, I would be surprised if you could find any year in the last 50 where shipping batteries had a 50% density improvement over the prior year.

[mzso]

2026 ICE = 130kg.

130kg * 2.5kW/kg = 325kW.

So, down about 100kW compared to 2026 ICE that has a severe fuel flow limitation.

325kW/7.5kW/L = 43L.

Length of 2026 ICE = 480mm.

Cross section area = 43L/480mm = 0.29m².

The question is, how much fuel does it use for a race distance?

Cool, but this is just the fuel cell power. It needs a bit of a battery to buffer energy from the cell and regen braking for the straights. Full drive power would be fuel-cell + battery.

And how big is the battery?

Good question. Preferably large enough to supply power all through on the longest straight of most circuits*. Maybe not heavier than what we have now. I remember someone calculating an estimate on this forum, but I haven't bookmarked it.
Optimistically with cutting/bleeding edge batteries, 4 wheel regen and savings on cooling, transmission, fuel weight less then what to current drivetrain weighs by some margin. (And hopefully the number for the cell are just a starting point)

*Doesn't make much sense to include outliers like Monza, Spa, Baku when sizing these. They can go with somewhat limited power there.

[gruntguru]

So if we had 250 Wh/kg batteries 10 years ago, and we had 500 Wh/kg batteries 3 years ago, why is the gravimetric energy density of Formula E batteries only around 165 Wh/kg? Why is the new Gen 4 FE battery only around 160 Wh/kg? Are they stupid? Backwards? They didn’t find the right phone number in the yellow pages? They wanted their cars to be extra heavy and energy constrained?

The problem is you guys throw out numbers with no understanding of the other factors at play. Was it a single cell lab test? What’s the C rate? Did it degrade after 100 cycles? Swelling? Cooling requirements? What’s the fire hazard in case of a crash?

We are talking about a high performance race car here, all these factors matter and the demands are different than for a home appliance. There’s a reason why FE has relatively low energy density in their battery packs and it’s not because they are idiots.

Here is your answer from AI.
.
The seemingly low energy density of Formula E batteries (roughly 135–140 Wh/kg for the Gen3 pack) is a deliberate engineering trade-off. Unlike a road car battery, which is designed for maximum energy density (how much energy it can store), a Formula E battery is optimized for extreme power density (how fast it can dump and take in energy).
.
1. Power vs. Energy Trade-off. Battery design is a "zero-sum" game between range and performance. Road Cars: Prioritize range. They use "energy cells" that store a lot of power but can only release it slowly without overheating.
.
Formula E: Prioritize throughput. A Formula E car must discharge up to 350 kW of power instantly and, more importantly, absorb up to 600 kW during regenerative braking.
.
The Result: To handle these "violent" bursts of energy without exploding or melting, the internal chemistry and physical structure (thicker current collectors, robust cooling) must be much heavier than a standard cell.
.
2. Extreme Thermal Management. Charging and discharging at 600 kW generates massive amounts of heat. Formula E batteries require complex liquid cooling systems integrated directly into the pack to keep the cells within a narrow temperature window. This cooling hardware adds significant dead weight that doesn't store energy, dragging down the overall Wh/kg of the total pack.
.
3. Reliability and Durability. Formula E batteries are standardized components (currently supplied by WAE) that must survive an entire season of high-speed racing and vibration. Safety Over Speed: They use specialized NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) chemistries that are more stable under racing stress but slightly less dense than the "bleeding-edge" chemistries used in prototypes that only need to last one lap. Cycle Life: Unlike an F1 battery, which is tiny (1.1 kWh) and can be replaced frequently, these packs are meant to be robust enough to maintain performance across multiple E-Prix events.

4. Comparison to Other EVs.
Vehicle Type. . . . . . . . . Approx Energy Density (Pack Level). . . . . . Primary Goal
Tesla Model 3. . . . . . . . 160–170 Wh/kgLong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highway Range
Formula E Gen3. . . . . . .135–140 Wh/kg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .600 kW Power Throughput
F1 Hybrid Battery. . . . . .35–50 Wh/kg (Estimated). . . . . . . . . . . . . Immediate Burst (Energy is secondary)

Yes yes, that’s exactly what I am talking about. There are other factors at play here besides pure theoretical cell density. Batteries are a compromise between all these factors and the motorsport use case pushes it towards high discharge, high cooling, high reliability, high safety, which is antithetical to high density. Yet a motorsport like F1 would obviously need ultra high density for a full electric drivetrain to be even remotely viable.

Some people here will keep daydreaming and reading hype articles about big power density numbers achieved in labs under ideal circumstances and without context for any other relevant factors, and they will pretend it’s “just around the corner” for F1. They are uninformed and deluding themselves. F1 needs to remain anchored in reality and not drift off into La La Land again like we did with this current reg set.

Worth noting that point 1. Power vs Energy Trade-off becomes less ncessary as battery capacity increases. For example if Formula E (or F1) specified a capacity double that of the current battery in order to double the range, the bigger battery would have double the power capability i.e. 1200 KW. This is clearly more than required so the "Power Density" could be traded down for a higher "Energy Density" resulting in a lighter battery (i.e. less than double the mass of the current Formula E battery)

[gruntguru]

The only VALID reason not switch to full electric is if ICE is faster. Right now it is, that will change in the near future.

Sorry but all formulae are artificially "slowed". Always has been and especially so now that it is possible to build cars with a g-force envelope beyond human endurance.

Why switch F1 to electric at all if you already have FE. This is just silly duplication.

I don't recall saying F1 should switch to full electric.

[gruntguru]

But that's because of battery density. In the real world, battery density will improve at an average of 50% year after year.

50% per year? How can you seriously make that claim unsupported.

Probably a typo. The actual number over the last 20 years is about 5%.

[mzso]

Sorry but all formulae are artificially "slowed". Always has been and especially so now that it is possible to build cars with a g-force envelope beyond human endurance.

Why switch F1 to electric at all if you already have FE. This is just silly duplication.

You know, I just keep repeating myself.

One reason to switch to full electric is cause it faster. If it isn't then we shouldn't. Another reason is to keep it relevant. F1 should always be relevant. I'm just against going backwards to normally aspirated V8s.

I saw this new 2 Stroke ICE, which looked really interesting that will run all kinds of fuel alphaotto.

https://youtu.be/5czHDU6pK8E?si=QPC2y_6mwryDYknn

I think it's just as likely that I get to see this engine as some of the more miraculous battery tech. None at all.

[Tommy Cookers]

battery 'trade-offs' .....eg Power vs Energy vs 'Instantaneous Burst' .....

seem to be in practice also worsened by the (unprecedented) 'trade-offs' of current vs voltage ....
that some now advocate to increase generation etc 'simply' via the front axle independent of gearbox

but 'gearbox' awd/awg needs only 1 MGU-K etc and operates it at ideal voltage .....
the supposedly 'simple' schemes don't