Possible solutions to improve the 2026 Engine Regulations

[dren]

The proposed 2027 rules are probably the most the teams can/are willing to move towards ICE vs MGUK power ratio without requiring much redesign/$$$.

[bananapeel23]

The rules do not address the main problem for drivers and fans - regeneration from other than braking

The Race seems to suggest that the FIA is also looking into increasing the MGU-K harvesting limit to 400-450 kW and increasing battery capacity to 5MJ.

I doubt either change will pan out, but it isn’t like they are ignoring the issue entirely.

And frankly, as pathetic as the practice is. Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it. 50kW more power and weaker superclipping would go a long way towards easing the visual effect of slowing down on the straight, especially if they go back to 250kW or slash it further.

[hollus]

Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it.

It is not that see it, it is worse that they hear it. More dramatic and visceral.
Anyways, 450kW harvest… how would that work, haven’t we agreed that there is rarely that much available in the rear axle?

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Some talk on The Race about issues around fuel tank capacity and teams wanting to carry over their chassis from 2026...

My question is, could a team modify an existing chassis to accommodate a larger fuel tank?

They could, but 10% larger (and thus heavier when full) is quite substantial and would undoubtedly interfere with the chassis structure, aero and possibly even suspension platform as a whole.

Aside from the options mentioned, there is a third one: accept refuelling

OK. But those can be changed between seasons anyway. The issue was the chassis.

So they could physically modify an existing chassis?

[michl420]

Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it.

It is not that see it, it is worse that they hear it. More dramatic and visceral.
Anyways, 450kW harvest… how would that work, haven’t we agreed that there is rarely that much available in the rear axle?

The engine can "push" the rear axle under braking.

[bananapeel23]

Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it.

It is not that see it, it is worse that they hear it. More dramatic and visceral.
Anyways, 450kW harvest… how would that work, haven’t we agreed that there is rarely that much available in the rear axle?

Why wouldn’t it be? An F1 car has boatloads of kinetic energy at rhe end of a straight. 40% of the braking force is on the rear axle. I’m sure that 450kW could theoretically be harvested for the full duration of braking without locking. (Assuming crank torque limits are removed) In practice the lack of ABS might make locking a problem, but that is again just an incentive to keep tinkering and developing.

The real issue is keeping brake temps up while harvesting that much. IMO that is an issue teams could be made to solve. The more you improve the operating range of your brakes, the more you get to harvest.

That is not supposed to imply that I think an MGU-K harvesting increase is reasonable. It would require a ground up redesign of practically the entire powertrain.

[BorisTheBlade]

Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it.

It is not that see it, it is worse that they hear it. More dramatic and visceral.
Anyways, 450kW harvest… how would that work, haven’t we agreed that there is rarely that much available in the rear axle?

Why wouldn’t it be? An F1 car has boatloads of kinetic energy at rhe end of a straight. 40% of the braking force is on the rear axle. Over 450 kW of braking force on the rear axle is probably applied for the full duration of braking.

Exactly. Maximum braking power at the end of straights is somewhere between 3-4 MW. So there should be around 1.500 KW at the rear axle alone. There is quite some further energy harvestable with the limit at 450 KW.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Over 450 kW of braking force on the rear axle is probably applied for the full duration of braking......

likely not

there is no such thing as 450 kW of braking force
450 kW is a power not a force

force x speed = power
(for any given regen power) as speed decreases the (tyre-grip) force needed will increase

the higher the regen power the higher the speed below which the rear wheels will be open to locking

regen torque is anyway (currently) capped at 300 Nm (crank) so regen power starts to fall below c. 6200 rpm (crank)

[bananapeel23]

... Over 450 kW of braking force on the rear axle is probably applied for the full duration of braking......

likely not

there is no such thing as 450 kW of braking force
450 kW is a power not a force

force x speed = power
(for any given regen power) as speed decreases the (tyre-grip) force needed will increase

the higher the regen power the higher the speed below which the rear wheels will be open to locking

regen torque is anyway (currently) capped at 300 Nm (crank) so regen power starts to fall below c. 6200 rpm (crank)

I mean increasing the harvesting capability of the MGU-K is already out in lala land. So if you look into it, you might aswell go about tweaking the regen torque as well.

[FW17]

Superclipping is only an issue to the fans as long as they see it.

It is not that see it, it is worse that they hear it. More dramatic and visceral.

Super clipping is same as lifting off on straights or brake testing. Both are dangerous and will get you penalized or banned from racing. Yet in F1 it is sanctioned part of rules for racing?????

[hollus]

same as lifting off on straights

Sure, LiCo did not exist before. nor did blue flags. And passing a driver that was about to run out of fuel never happened before on F1. Let’s keep things grounded in facts, please.
I get it, some people hate that this is now part of normal operating procedure, and an every lap event. But it is a problem of frequency and magnitude, not a completely new phenomenon. I still maintain that minus the noise, would be perceived not only less, but differently.

Anyways, I consider myself schooled on the 450 kW. I ran away with Pat Simmonds’s “need from axle harvesting” quote. But the numbers in kW given make perfect sense.
So they would be available anywhere with more than 2 Gs of braking? And even in some constant speed corners?

[Tommy Cookers]

... Over 450 kW of braking force on the rear axle is probably applied for the full duration of braking......

450 kW is a power not a force
force x speed = power
(for any given regen power) as speed decreases the (tyre-grip) force needed will increase
the higher the regen power the higher the speed below which the rear wheels will be open to locking
regen torque is anyway (currently) capped at 300 Nm (crank) so regen power starts to fall below c. 6200 rpm (crank)

I mean increasing the harvesting capability of the MGU-K is already out in lala land. So if you look into it, you might aswell go about tweaking the regen torque as well.

there is no 'tweaking the regen torque' to be done ...

the 450 kW MG design will need 29% more torque per kW (unless eg battery voltage or MG rpm are raised by 29%)
so the tyre grip necessary (eg for 450 kW below c 110 mph) just isn't there .....
and less power is generated at lowish speeds than with the 350 kW MG

that's the point

[FW17]

same as lifting off on straights

Sure, LiCo did not exist before. nor did blue flags. And passing a driver that was about to run out of fuel never happened before on F1. Let’s keep things grounded in facts, please.
I get it, some people hate that this is now part of normal operating procedure.

You are part of the group wants to normalize it. Like the media trying to portray that all is fine or the best is being done, which is not the case.

LiCo was a problem not a feature, drivers were in control of it and chose to do it.
Blue flag, everyone was aware of what is happening
Running out of fuel, how many time did that happen?


The solution was already proposed last year and JUNKED BY MERCEDES

Some argue that the best way to solve this potential issue is to reduce the permitted amount of electrical power deployment in races to 200kw (about 270bhp) from 350kw (470bhp). It would stay at 350kw during qualifying and for the push-to-pass system.

The idea is that this would 'smooth out' the deployment and make it more consistent around the lap.

Among the teams, Red Bull are the biggest supporters of this idea.

But Mercedes are strongly opposed - their F1 boss Toto Wolff has described the plan to change the rules as "a joke".
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/arti ... qvk9vyly1o

Now the paid media is covering for this guy while throwing AUDI under the bus for this rule cycle of removing an irrelevant MGU-H

[SharkY]

I don't understand, why F1 is not pushing for Front Wheels energy recovery. I mean, the cars need to slow down on straights, while there is a completely untapped potential from brakes.
From my rough calculations a 150KW front recovery would give additional 1.5-2.5 MJ per lap (roughly 60% of what the rears produce).
The rumours were that Mercedes was against it, as to not give Audi any advantage, but come on... They are so far ahead, that any Audi know-how advantage would be marginal at best.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

I don't understand, why F1 is not pushing for Front Wheels energy recovery. I mean, the cars need to slow down on straights, while there is a completely untapped potential from brakes.
From my rough calculations a 150KW front recovery would give additional 1.5-2.5 MJ per lap (roughly 60% of what the rears produce).
The rumours were that Mercedes was against it, as to not give Audi any advantage, but come on... They are so far ahead, that any Audi know-how advantage would be marginal at best.

Mercedes would have the knowledge gained from Formula-E, so no advantage to Audi there.

I thought it was to do with it making it too difficult to stop them using it as a form of ABS if they had front wheel regen as well. Which is funny, because Formula E has lockups.