2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[hollus]

But nothing in a F1 hybrid unit, per-se, is limiting those G forces.
The way the current rules balance both types of kW, maybe (somewhate less average power available than before), the storage allowance vs track needs, sure, it reduces some corner entry speeds. And the skinny rear wings a bit too (but only due to said unblanced allowance).
You've seen normall-ish Gs in Miami, you will see 100% normal Gs in Monaco and you will probably see normal Gs in most tracks in 2027.

Please don't turn everyting into an I-want-electric-no-I-don't-want-electric debate.

[bananapeel23]

They driving this battery since 2014. With the development that battery technology has made in 12 years, 25 % more storage must be possible.

A 4MJ battery capable of delivering 120kW and a 4MJ battery capable of delivering 350kW are two very different things. The latter will be much heavier.

Still, F1 should be the pilot project for solid-state battery tech, and the fact that battery weight is even regulated is perplexing to me. If F1 wants to be at all road relevant, it should open tje battery regs. The battery is the number one truly road relevant part of the F1 powertrain, and heavy R&D and development towards weight savings (and thus increased energy/power density) in a competitive setting between some of the most talented engineers in the world would do wonders for the tech.

Yes, it would cause a spending war among non-F1 engineering teams within the PU manufacturers, since that isn’t cost capped. But frabkly, who cares. Ferrari, Audi, Mercedes, Ford, Honda and GM have tons of money to blow, and it will have huge trickle down benefits.

[diffuser]

They driving this battery since 2014. With the development that battery technology has made in 12 years, 25 % more storage must be possible.

A 4MJ battery capable of delivering 120kW and a 4MJ battery capable of delivering 350kW are two very different things. The latter will be much heavier.

Still, F1 should be the pilot project for solid-state battery tech, and the fact that battery weight is even regulated is perplexing to me. If F1 wants to be at all road relevant, it should open tje battery regs. The battery is the number one truly road relevant part of the F1 powertrain, and heavy R&D and development towards weight savings (and thus increased energy/power density) in a competitive setting between some of the most talented engineers in the world would do wonders for the tech.

Yes, it would cause a spending war among non-F1 engineering teams within the PU manufacturers, since that isn’t cost capped. But frabkly, who cares. Ferrari, Audi, Mercedes, Ford, Honda and GM have tons of money to blow, and it will have huge trickle down benefits.

A contradiction forms with increase R&D in F1 and close racing. The more wide open R&D is, the larger the variance betwee difference car's performance. Often leading to domination. They attempt to strike a balance by limiting scope.

[bananapeel23]

They driving this battery since 2014. With the development that battery technology has made in 12 years, 25 % more storage must be possible.

A 4MJ battery capable of delivering 120kW and a 4MJ battery capable of delivering 350kW are two very different things. The latter will be much heavier.

Still, F1 should be the pilot project for solid-state battery tech, and the fact that battery weight is even regulated is perplexing to me. If F1 wants to be at all road relevant, it should open tje battery regs. The battery is the number one truly road relevant part of the F1 powertrain, and heavy R&D and development towards weight savings (and thus increased energy/power density) in a competitive setting between some of the most talented engineers in the world would do wonders for the tech.

Yes, it would cause a spending war among non-F1 engineering teams within the PU manufacturers, since that isn’t cost capped. But frabkly, who cares. Ferrari, Audi, Mercedes, Ford, Honda and GM have tons of money to blow, and it will have huge trickle down benefits.

A contradiction forms with increase R&D in F1 and close racing. The more wide open R&D is, the larger the variance betwee difference car's performance. Often leading to domination. They attempt to strike a balance by limiting scope.

That is true. But battery output and capacity remains the same, making battery pack weight and packaging the sole differentiator. On the high end we're dealing with perhaps 10kg of weight savings possible, with the majority of it likely being relatively easy to unlock. As far as effect from saving 10kg goes, it's just about the least effective possible place to save weight, since it would shift CoG upwards in exchange for lower overall weight. 10kg of weight isn't really all that much either.

If one team R&Ds their way to 2-3kg lower weight than the rest, it won't be a massive performance differentiator, but still one a team with frontrunning aspirations will pursue. It creates a strong incentive to invest in battery tech that will be massively impactful once it hits the market.

[diffuser]

That is true. But battery output and capacity remains the same, making battery pack weight and packaging the sole differentiator. On the high end we're dealing with perhaps 10kg of weight savings possible, with the majority of it likely being relatively easy to unlock. As far as effect from saving 10kg goes, it's just about the least effective possible place to save weight, since it would shift CoG upwards in exchange for lower overall weight. 10kg of weight isn't really all that much either.

If one team R&Ds their way to 2-3kg lower weight than the rest, it won't be a massive performance differentiator, but still one a team with frontrunning aspirations will pursue. It creates a strong incentive to invest in battery tech that will be massively impactful once it hits the market.

With the amount of money being put into battery R&D, I doudt F1 can speed it up much.

[JordanMugen]

it's a 'solution' to what should be a non-existent problem (pretending that 300 hp road cars are acceptable)
and it wouldn't be able to beat ICE-only on a track
the lightest car in a WDC F1 race weighed 490 lb

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you are talking about.

Do you mean 300hp ICE only road cars are unacceptable (e.g., Civic Type R), 300hp+ hybrid road cars are unacceptable (e.g., Honda NSX) or 300hp+ battery EV road cars are unacceptable (MG4, BYD, Polestar/Zeekr, Tesla et cetera).

Pinnacle of technology would be to use the most advanced tech.

How can it be the "pinnacle of technology" when the power unit is heavily prescribed in every aspect of minutiae?

Surely you would have a turbine engine (or would a V-twin or V4 be better?) running at a constant rpm as the most efficient generator possible in open regulations with an energy flow rate and nothing else BUT if I understand correctly Formula One is not allowed to use generator engines only, since Formula E has exclusive rights to pure electric drive?

Surely that will always be a hindrance to F1: that the engine must be connected to the wheels, due to this agreement with Formula E?

This proposed formula doesn't accomplish anything. Neither small, fast and light cars, nor cutting edge technology use. It's meaningless.

I propose a turbo ban and doubling of the 1.6L V6 engine to 3.2L V12 for 2031. Accomplishment: fans are entertained!

I think the extra 20-40kg of the V12 over the V8 would be acceptable for the exclusivity. Flatplane V8 engines are found everywhere in motorsport -- be it Radical-Hyabusas or hillclimb specials with NME-modified Cosworth V8s to old Formula 3000s or GP2s at hillclimbs to the hundreds of historic F1 cars with DFVs-- so using V12s instead would give F1 a unique calling card.

And the fact of the matter is a lot of fans DO associate the wailing high-pitched sound of a Ferrari, Honda or Lamborghini V12 with Formula One, even though it has not been the case for a (very) long time (and we were lucky to get it in the first place, as there is no reason that turbos had to be banned in 1989), so why not lean into that?

Why not leverage the hype around exotic V12-powered Aston Martins, Gordon Murray Automotives, and Paganis into Formula One cars which are even more exotic.

You can still use sustainable fuels, have a energy flow limit (i.e., favour lean combustion techniques, not withstanding (please correct me) that this increases NOx and is not necessarily that clean & green...) and have a small hybrid system after all.

Furthermore the 2031 V12 F1 power unit could be fitted with a catalytic converter and Otto particulate filter, unlike 2026-2030 units, to further improve green credentials.

A consideration lacking from the 2026 regulations (or 2014 regulations) is the notion of combustion engines (antiquated and polluting as they are) being entertainment.

While some fans have alternate views, many fans are not finding differences of electric deployment of several hundred horsepower leading to cars breezing past each other on straights (even after running off the track onto the wet on the corner exit!) as being entertaining within 2026 regulations.

[FW17]

No clue what you are trying to say, but the rate of progress from Formula E is insane.

Trying to do a reality check.

FE Gen 4 may be able to do 40% of an F1 race distance at, possibky, F2 speed.

At this rate the Gen 5 car will likely be recharging at 2 MW and harvesting under braking at ~1 MW, likely with a ~80-100 kWh battery.

Formula E went from 47kWh in Gen 3 to 55kWh and gained 172kg.

Sure, some of that is in the new chassis and additional safety, but adding capacity will add weght.

But not just in the batteries - they will require additional cooling and chassis weight will go up to keep them safe.

The Gen 4 car looks to have a 600kW pit charging capability. Which would give 5kWh in 30s.

I’d be shocked if Gen 5 doesn’t also bring solid state batteries, which could achieve all of these improvements while maintaining or driving down weight.

I don't know if solid state batteries will be a big enough improvement, if at all.

Unless F1 goes full late 2010s aero insanity again (this time with SM), Formula E could pose a genuine threat to F1 lap times, at least in quali.

Realistically F1 will need ever more active aero to keep up after gen 5, especially if people want to dehybridize the PU and lose the additional torque. Fan cars would be amazing though.

F1's active aero is due to the increased electrification and the neutering of the ICE.

The current chassis with the 2025 PU would likely not need active aero to be faster than this year's cars.

F1 has been slowed down for much of its existence. Only in 1966 and 2017 have they deliberately made the rules to go faster.

With regards to the battery pack weight.

FE battery made by Williams for 2014 - 2018 period
- weight 320 kgs
- capacity 32kwh (usable 28kwh)
- Weight of cells 191 kgs
- accessories and battery case 129 kgs
- pack volume 320 liters

FE battery made by Mclaren for 2019 - 2022 period
- weight 385 kgs
- capacity 56 kwh (usable 54kwh)
- weight of cells 234 kgs
- accessories and battery case 151 kgs
- pack volume 320 liters

FE battery made by Williams for 2023 - current period
- weight 284 kgs
- capacity 51kwh (usable 47 kwh)
- Weight of cells 173 kgs
- accessories and battery case 111 kgs
- pack volume 320 liters

As you can see the cell weight alone is not so bad, it the casing and accessories on the casing that adds up significantly.

[bananapeel23]

That is true. But battery output and capacity remains the same, making battery pack weight and packaging the sole differentiator. On the high end we're dealing with perhaps 10kg of weight savings possible, with the majority of it likely being relatively easy to unlock. As far as effect from saving 10kg goes, it's just about the least effective possible place to save weight, since it would shift CoG upwards in exchange for lower overall weight. 10kg of weight isn't really all that much either.

If one team R&Ds their way to 2-3kg lower weight than the rest, it won't be a massive performance differentiator, but still one a team with frontrunning aspirations will pursue. It creates a strong incentive to invest in battery tech that will be massively impactful once it hits the market.

With the amount of money being put into battery R&D, I doudt F1 can speed it up much.

The idea isn’t really that F1 would provide any significant money to the field. It’s more so that it would provide incentive for battery developers to finally take the SSBs out of labs and put them in something the public can see. The large automakers are all working on them anyway. Might aswell show them off in F1 as a pilot project, while also getting some real world experience with them.

[Badger]

That is true. But battery output and capacity remains the same, making battery pack weight and packaging the sole differentiator. On the high end we're dealing with perhaps 10kg of weight savings possible, with the majority of it likely being relatively easy to unlock. As far as effect from saving 10kg goes, it's just about the least effective possible place to save weight, since it would shift CoG upwards in exchange for lower overall weight. 10kg of weight isn't really all that much either.

If one team R&Ds their way to 2-3kg lower weight than the rest, it won't be a massive performance differentiator, but still one a team with frontrunning aspirations will pursue. It creates a strong incentive to invest in battery tech that will be massively impactful once it hits the market.

With the amount of money being put into battery R&D, I doudt F1 can speed it up much.

The idea isn’t really that F1 would provide any significant money to the field. It’s more so that it would provide incentive for battery developers to finally take the SSBs out of labs and put them in something the public can see. The large automakers are all working on them anyway. Might aswell show them off in F1 as a pilot project, while also getting some real world experience with them.

There is already enormous incentive to be first to market with SSB, even in a limited use case. The battery company that did that would sky rocket in value. The reason they are not taking them out of the lab is because it’s not ready. And if it’s not ready for a simpler use case it’s definitely not ready for F1.

F1 doesn’t need to gamble, it can afford to be patient and make moves at the right time when the technology is proven.

[Ferry]

And the fact of the matter is a lot of fans DO associate the wailing high-pitched sound of a Ferrari, Honda or Lamborghini V12 with Formula One,

Despite the fact that only 2 WCC and 4 WDC has been won by a V12. I wonder if a sound generator could be the way to go. It might be fake sound, but that can also be said about any NA engine if the main purpose is to make more sound than a turbo.

[dren]

You had no point. Trying to suggest that high G force doesn't get people excited because the eye can't read out a G number That's like saying it doesn't matter what speed the car is going because the eye isn't a speedometer.

If you can't appreciate speed, acceleration, and sound you should go watch FE.

You're rambling without any particular connection to what you respond to, or what the conversation was about.
And besides, no-one cares about the g-force values. People care about fast cars, and action.

Seeing F1 cars trackside I can swear that you really appreciate G-forces. In the flesh, the F1 cars look much faster than "physically" feasible (a.k.a. with only gravity related grip, non aero).

The older cars in the Schumacher era were quite impressive track side when braking.

[dren]

Entertainment is being able to push a car in the corners, it's being able to brake at 6G from 300 kph. What we have now is a watered down product. As for the noise I don't care too much if it's a V6 or a V8, just as long as it makes some kind of noise. Having no noise (like FE) is kind of like watching a movie on mute.

As for everyone beside you we can't measure g force by looking, so it doesn't get us excited.
I see entertainment mainly on on track action, and amusement in modern/pioneering technology. NA V8/V10 is just outright regressive, backward.

Removal of the MGUH was clearly a step backwards. "Sustainable" fuels is something that is newer tech, though. The PU regs are entirely too tight. I get the reasoning, but I'd be a lot more exciting on the tech front to open them up.

[bananapeel23]

With the amount of money being put into battery R&D, I doudt F1 can speed it up much.

The idea isn’t really that F1 would provide any significant money to the field. It’s more so that it would provide incentive for battery developers to finally take the SSBs out of labs and put them in something the public can see. The large automakers are all working on them anyway. Might aswell show them off in F1 as a pilot project, while also getting some real world experience with them.

There is already enormous incentive to be first to market with SSB, even in a limited use case. The battery company that did that would sky rocket in value. The reason they are not taking them out of the lab is because it’s not ready. And if it’s not ready for a simpler use case it’s definitely not ready for F1.

F1 doesn’t need to gamble, it can afford to be patient and make moves at the right time when the technology is proven.

It’s not like slightly tweaking the weight rules around the battery pack would fundamentally change the formula. It would just require a separation of the battery weight from the overall PU weight, with no minimum battery weight and a flexible car weight limit that varies depending on the weight of the battery you homologate.

[venkyhere]

How many of you think the just-concluded 2014 era PU was the perfect blend of ICE power and pseudo-environmentalist battery power ? There was no need to change it. It had the perfect cycle of recovering energy from heat and braking, had enough battery power to have bare minimal braking only recharge for a qualifying lap, and had no problem with race starts. There was no need to change that PU formula.

[Bill]

How many of you think the just-concluded 2014 era PU was the perfect blend of ICE power and pseudo-environmentalist battery power ? There was no need to change it. It had the perfect cycle of recovering energy from heat and braking, had enough battery power to have bare minimal braking only recharge for a qualifying lap, and had no problem with race starts. There was no need to change that PU formula.

It was necessary for those new manufactures who wanted to get into the sport.the technology was such high that any new manufacture will be humiliated.and after years of development it was very costly to find those marginal gains.