2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[f1jcw]

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

As with the cost cap cheating, this FIA decision is malarkey. RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before. They were preparing to make their own units ASAP. Can't think of any other Universe where RBPT would be considered as anything close to a new manufacturer...

Really, if F1 is a sport, then the rules should be the same for everyone.

Should newly promoted premiership football teams get 4 points for a win instead of 3 cause they are "new", no, so why should engine manufacturers.

[Vanja #66]

The point of a "new manufacturer" is a manufacturer who has not engineered a power unit for an F1 car and operated their own design in a F1-Championship.

But they did already engineer a PU and tested it, didn't they? And made all the investments to run it in their cars asap, right?

I don't think anyone would try and block RBPT completely regarding development budget, but there must have been a bigger difference between them and Audi. RBPT already established a base for operations, ran the engine, etc... 50-75% of full benefits seems ok, 90% just means they could lower the wages with promise of other benefits and fat bonuses in 2026 and beyond and keep all non-personnel costs as they planned to.

Agree to disagree from my side, lets move on

[AR3-GP]

The point of a "new manufacturer" is a manufacturer who has not engineered a power unit for an F1 car and operated their own design in a F1-Championship.

But they did already engineer a PU and tested it, didn't they? And made all the investments to run it in their cars asap, right?

What are you referring to? An unknown engine of unknown capacity that has never operated inside of an F1 car on a track? You really think the engine they had on the dyno this winter is ready to win a world championship in 2023? I get that there are biases involved but give me a break....Yes RBPT are a new PU manufacturer.

The "new engine manufacturer" regulations specifically define expenditure for 2023, 2024 and 2025. It implies that a manufacturer is allowed to start work on an engine years ahead of time because the difference between a hunk of steel that fires up on a dyno (literally anyone can do that, I can do that), and that of which is operating at state-of-the-art thermal efficiency to the level of the 2022 benchmark Honda power unit, is lightyears....

You think just because they bolt together some heads and a block in 6 months, that means this power unit has any business on the frontline defending a world championship? .

How many years did it take Honda and Renault, actual automakers with vast resource and know-how designing and building combustion engines, to get a power unit that could even do a race distance? Years.

[godlameroso]

Luckily the pre-chamber tech is now out in the open, and the rules are restrictive enough that developing something decent is possible with the lead time available. As usual, as long as RBPT starts with a good foundation the rest will sort itself out.

[mzso]

I would expect this to be particularly relevant to race pace since qualifying pace is more dependant on stored energy. So I think the difference between qualy and race pace is likely to be larger than we have now.

I think that will be very different to the all out qualifying laps as we know them now, simply because to maximise the ERS they will have to lift for corners early.

Or just keep pressing the throttle while braking.

[mzso]

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

As with the cost cap cheating, this FIA decision is malarkey. RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before. They were preparing to make their own units ASAP. Can't think of any other Universe where RBPT would be considered as anything close to a new manufacturer...

It would require a rational one... RB never produced an engine, nor does it have a parent company that did. Meanwhile or other manufacturers did produce race and parent companies road engines.

[Cs98]

You have since posted the answer in the RB team thread: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10430340/

As with the cost cap cheating, this FIA decision is malarkey. RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before. They were preparing to make their own units ASAP. Can't think of any other Universe where RBPT would be considered as anything close to a new manufacturer...

This is an embarrassingly bad take. They had a one cylinder prototype on the bench in summer 2022. A man in a garage can build a one cylinder prototype. That's lightyears out from having a working V6-TH with all the complicated software working. The long lead time is an absolute necessity to be competitive. Just look at the difference between Merc and it's competitors in 2014.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/02/01 ... ince-2007/

[mzso]

So, by the sound of it (Pat Symonds talking) it's because of the manufacturer's insistence (Which means PR/marketing reasons) that they went for the "drop-in" ideology.
Which is rather misguided, and meaningless. For ages it is possible to modify a car to run on LPG, which is propane and butane.
Coincidentally these materials are easy to produce, even biologically directly from bio-waste, actually have better energy density than petrol. Also they can be used in fuel cells, if things go in that direction.
So cheaper, more practical and more efficient.

[johnny comelately]

So, by the sound of it (Pat Fry talking) it's because of the manufacturer's insistence (Which means PR/marketing reasons) that they went for the "drop-in" ideology.
Which is rather misguided, and meaningless. For ages it is possible to modify a car to run on LPG, which is propane and butane.
Coincidentally these materials are easy to produce, even biologically directly from bio-waste, actually have better energy density than petrol. Also they can be used in fuel cells, if things go in that direction.
So cheaper, more practical and more efficient.

Or Pat Symonds??

[mzso]

Or Pat Symonds??

Probably. Not that good with names.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Coincidentally these materials are easy to produce, even biologically directly from bio-waste, actually have better energy density than petrol. Also they can be used in fuel cells ....

feel free to show some evidence

propane and butane aren't better in energy relative to air utilisation
(those 1600cc doses half 10500 times per minute)

[NL_Fer]

So, by the sound of it (Pat Symonds talking) it's because of the manufacturer's insistence (Which means PR/marketing reasons) that they went for the "drop-in" ideology.
Which is rather misguided, and meaningless. For ages it is possible to modify a car to run on LPG, which is propane and butane.
Coincidentally these materials are easy to produce, even biologically directly from bio-waste, actually have better energy density than petrol. Also they can be used in fuel cells, if things go in that direction.
So cheaper, more practical and more efficient.

Gas?

No, I believe it was more like Fischer-Troppz fuel or mixed with butanol. A real 1:1 drop-in for gasoline refined from mineral oil.

[sticktion]

RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before.

This is an embarrassingly bad take. They had a one cylinder prototype on the bench in summer 2022. A man in a garage can build a one cylinder prototype.

In Milton Keynes on the evening of 3 August, a full engine of [Red Bull's] own manufacture was fired up for the first time.
[...]
RacingNews365.com has learned that the engine, which has not yet been given an official type name, was a full six cylinder unit rather than a single cylinder test engine: a major milestone for the team given the short time frame.

[AR3-GP]

RBPT had a 2026 engine on test bench in summer 2022, with a single cylinder concept unit tested even before.

This is an embarrassingly bad take. They had a one cylinder prototype on the bench in summer 2022. A man in a garage can build a one cylinder prototype.

In Milton Keynes on the evening of 3 August, a full engine of [Red Bull's] own manufacture was fired up for the first time.
[...]
RacingNews365.com has learned that the engine, which has not yet been given an official type name, was a full six cylinder unit rather than a single cylinder test engine: a major milestone for the team given the short time frame.

Renault also had an engine in 2014, and Honda had one in 2015. Wasn't worth much was it? How many years did it take them to make a PU that could actually do 6-7 GPs? Renault took 5 years. Honda took 4 years. This all while actually having PUs racing around on the track.

The difference between a block of steel that fires up on a dyno, and PU that wins a championship is quite large.

Unlike some, I'm not actually all that optimistic about the RBPT PU. This is the kind of thing that could send them a big step backwards in competitiveness.

[mzso]

... Coincidentally these materials are easy to produce, even biologically directly from bio-waste, actually have better energy density than petrol. Also they can be used in fuel cells ....

feel free to show some evidence

propane and butane aren't better in energy relative to air utilisation
(those 1600cc doses half 10500 times per minute)

(Of course I was talking relative to to other bio-fuel)
It's common sense. Microbes can directly produce methane to butane(methanol/ethanol ), you just need to collect it.
Everythin else needs to chemically processed. Especially this "drop-in" nonsense, for which they needed to adjust combustion properties and whatnot.