2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[eyelid]

Engine rules were simple to follow to this day - now even published official energy diagram is giving false information indicating some teams will brake the engine rules if charging up the battery via ICE. It's not allowed by published rules.

Edit

By Discussing with AI this really looks like that only way to charge battery is via MGU-K by terrible excuses and politics. By a car engineer point of view this looks like driver is trying to brake ICE and MGU-K by putting braking pressure under full throttle on same time on straights. (and even on tight curves according to some A. Newey)

What is going on at Formula 1 really....We may have a good laughs on next season. Even first tests are Top Secret because they know this is going to be a scandal but can't prevent it anymore.

[DenBommer]

Engine rules were simple to follow to this day - now even published official energy diagram is giving false information indicating some teams will brake the engine rules if charging up the battery via ICE. It's not allowed by published rules.

Edit

By Discussing with AI this really looks like that only way to charge battery is via MGU-K by terrible excuses and politics. By a car engineer point of view this looks like driver is trying to brake ICE and MGU-K by putting braking pressure under full throttle on same time on straights. (and even on tight curves according to some A. Newey)

What is going on at Formula 1 really....We may have a good laughs on next season. Even first tests are Top Secret because they know this is going to be a scandal but can't prevent it anymore.

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

[wuzak]

Engine rules were simple to follow to this day - now even published official energy diagram is giving false information indicating some teams will brake the engine rules if charging up the battery via ICE. It's not allowed by published rules.

It is very clearly allowed by the published rules.

C5.12.6 The driver maximum power demand must not be reduced at any greater than the rates defined below:
a. 50kW in any 1s period at Competitions where the FIA determines that the power limited distance exceeds 3500m. These Competitions and the vehicle fundamentals used for the calculation of the power limited distance may be found in the document FIA-F1-DOC-Cxxx.
b. 100kW in any 1s period at all other Competitions.
Furthermore, the total power reduction is limited to a maximum of 600kW and the resulting electrical DC power of the ERS-K must remain above −250kW.

Driver maximum power demand is when the driver is at full throttle.

The rule explicitly states that the MGUK output can be reduced to 0 (must be reduced above 290km/h) and then go into energy recover, up to 250kW. But only when the driver has maximum demand (full throttle).

There is another rule that adjusts fuel flow to control the amount of recovery by the MGUK.

[wuzak]

And that is just by pressing brake pedal on straigths under full throttle, so it's braking energy imho, not ICE charging the battery straightly.

No, the brake pedal won't be pushed when at full throttle.

There will be a braking effect.

At part throttle, the recovery will be the difference between what the ICE can deliver and the driver demands.

I see. That wasn't visible on the posted energy flow diagram what I quoted. This is now interesting. Any proper video explanation of all these? I guess the rules are way too complex when even hardcore fans has hard time following them.

The energy flow diagram only shows the maximum power to and from the battery to the MGUK, and the maximum energy that can be recovered in a lap.

Note that the energy that can be deployed in a lap is unlimited.
Also note that the maximum energy that can be recovered in a lap is the maximum possible, but will be lower for many circuits.

Also on the chart is the nominal battery capacity of 4MJ (maximum delta state of charge), and the storage capacity in the control electronics/MGUK of 1MJ.

[mzso]

Driver maximum power demand is when the driver is at full throttle.

The rule explicitly states that the MGUK output can be reduced to 0 (must be reduced above 290km/h) and then go into energy recover, up to 250kW. But only when the driver has maximum demand (full throttle).

But it's still possible to recover at partial power demand isn't it? And off throttle?

[Tommy Cookers]

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

a front generator and a differential and some gears and 2 shafts

interconnection of the front wheels has been banned for many years

[mzso]

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

a front generator and a differential and 2 shafts for driving the generator

any such interconnection of the front wheels has been banned for many years

I think the question implicitly asks: what if it was allowed? (The regs were proposed with front generation at first.)

[DenBommer]

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

a front generator and a differential and 2 shafts for driving the generator

any such interconnection of the front wheels has been banned for many years

I think the question implicitly asks: what if it was allowed? (The regs were proposed with front generation at first.)

Indeed, that’s my question, purely hypothetical. What if they had a front generator?

I know a front generator would add some extra weight, but look at how lightweight F1 brakes are compared with a normal street car. I believe they could make a very small, lightweight, compact front generator (using axial-flux technology).

[eyelid]

The rule explicitly states that the MGUK output can be reduced to 0 (must be reduced above 290km/h) and then go into energy recover, up to 250kW. But only when the driver has maximum demand (full throttle).

There is another rule that adjusts fuel flow to control the amount of recovery by the MGUK.

I think this rule will slow these cars radically on straights then and wastes so much energy doing so. I know the aero-rules also changes to compensate that, but looks like 370kmh monza speeds are out of the question now and more like GP2 car straight speeds for now.

Is it dangerous to go brake energy harvesting at 290kmh only on rear axle? What about in wet conditions?

[karana]

The rule explicitly states that the MGUK output can be reduced to 0 (must be reduced above 290km/h) and then go into energy recover, up to 250kW. But only when the driver has maximum demand (full throttle).

There is another rule that adjusts fuel flow to control the amount of recovery by the MGUK.

I think this rule will slow these cars radically on straights then and wastes so much energy doing so. I know the aero-rules also changes to compensate that, but looks like 370kmh monza speeds are out of the question now and more like GP2 car straight speeds for now.

Is it dangerous to go brake energy harvesting at 290kmh only on rear axle? What about in wet conditions?

The rule itself doesn't slow the cars, it actually prevents them from harvesting at 350kW and hence from slowing the cars too much. Harvesting at full and partial throttle is anyway something that can be done already with the current PUs.

With an assumed ICE power of 400kW, harvesting at 250kW will still mean a net power of 150KW. What's supposed to be dangerous about it?

[diffuser]

Engine rules were simple to follow to this day - now even published official energy diagram is giving false information indicating some teams will brake the engine rules if charging up the battery via ICE. It's not allowed by published rules.

Edit

By Discussing with AI this really looks like that only way to charge battery is via MGU-K by terrible excuses and politics. By a car engineer point of view this looks like driver is trying to brake ICE and MGU-K by putting braking pressure under full throttle on same time on straights. (and even on tight curves according to some A. Newey)

What is going on at Formula 1 really....We may have a good laughs on next season. Even first tests are Top Secret because they know this is going to be a scandal but can't prevent it anymore.

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

Front brake regeneration wasn't a F1/FIA choice. It was blocked by most of the current teams with the thinking it would give Audi too much of an advantage. Mercedes led that charge of blocking front brake regeneration.

[diffuser]

The rule explicitly states that the MGUK output can be reduced to 0 (must be reduced above 290km/h) and then go into energy recover, up to 250kW. But only when the driver has maximum demand (full throttle).

There is another rule that adjusts fuel flow to control the amount of recovery by the MGUK.

I think this rule will slow these cars radically on straights then and wastes so much energy doing so. I know the aero-rules also changes to compensate that, but looks like 370kmh monza speeds are out of the question now and more like GP2 car straight speeds for now.

Is it dangerous to go brake energy harvesting at 290kmh only on rear axle? What about in wet conditions?

The rule itself doesn't slow the cars, it actually prevents them from harvesting at 350kW and hence from slowing the cars too much. Harvesting at full and partial throttle is anyway something that can be done already with the current PUs.

With an assumed ICE power of 400kW, harvesting at 250kW will still mean a net power of 150KW. What's supposed to be dangerous about it?

Plus they have kind of a double drs with both front and rear wings.

[DenBommer]

Engine rules were simple to follow to this day - now even published official energy diagram is giving false information indicating some teams will brake the engine rules if charging up the battery via ICE. It's not allowed by published rules.

Edit

By Discussing with AI this really looks like that only way to charge battery is via MGU-K by terrible excuses and politics. By a car engineer point of view this looks like driver is trying to brake ICE and MGU-K by putting braking pressure under full throttle on same time on straights. (and even on tight curves according to some A. Newey)

What is going on at Formula 1 really....We may have a good laughs on next season. Even first tests are Top Secret because they know this is going to be a scandal but can't prevent it anymore.

And would this be better if they had a front generator?

Front brake regeneration wasn't a F1/FIA choice. It was blocked by most of the current teams with the thinking it would give Audi too much of an advantage. Mercedes led that charge of blocking front brake regeneration.

And it feels like such a missed opportunity. Look at what Mercedes can do with their AMG GT XX and the three axial-flux motors.

Maybe in the next regulations set, by then Mercedes will have more experience with the GT XX and some other models, and Ferrari too with their WEC cars.

[eyelid]

I am not fully satisfied with these explanations but let's move on to next topic:

Why not electric only drive on pitlane? That would be the actual environmental act to prevent pitlane people to breathe exhaust fumes. What a green washing really.

And yes, we need front axle harvesting also.

[mzso]

a front generator and a differential and 2 shafts for driving the generator

any such interconnection of the front wheels has been banned for many years

I think the question implicitly asks: what if it was allowed? (The regs were proposed with front generation at first.)

Indeed, that’s my question, purely hypothetical. What if they had a front generator?

I know a front generator would add some extra weight, but look at how lightweight F1 brakes are compared with a normal street car. I believe they could make a very small, lightweight, compact front generator (using axial-flux technology).

Someone even suggested full-regen braking, thinking it wouldn't require much cooling because it's only used intermittently. It might be interesting as a technological challenge. Also the (probable) massive increase in brake distances should contribute to more overtakes and better on-track action.