Could an ICE not achieve negative power by delaying the ignition?BassVirolla wrote: ↑10 Nov 2025, 23:22It has to.karana wrote: ↑10 Nov 2025, 16:19Based on this, are we sure 'engine power' inTommy Cookers wrote: ↑09 Nov 2025, 21:19
(given that there's 5 permitted fueling events)
extra gas could be made late in the stroke - increasing MGU-H made electricity rather than ICE power
maybe other effects
Honda had a name for the increased electricityreally refers to the PU power?C5.2.5 At partial load, the fuel energy flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
EF (MJ/h) = 380 when the engine power is equal to or below −50kW
EF (MJ/h) = 9.78 x engine power (kW) + 869 when the engine power is above −50kW
An ICE should not achieve a negative power (known as engine braking) while burning any fuel.
If fuel is burnt, a positive power is produced by the ICE.
If MGUK recovers more than the ICE is outputting, it amounts to a negative power.
This wording of the rules is, at least, not fully conclusive, but any other interpretation would be anti lag (burning fuel with exhaust valve fully open and no power being extracted by the ICE).
The term "engine power" appears exactly three times in the technical regulations, all in C5.2.5.gruntguru wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 00:54As I mentioned in an earlier post there are a couple of instances where the Tech Regs use the term "engine power" which can easily confuse since the PU as a whole is not strictly an "engine". The ICE is an engine and the PU as a whole is an engine - hybrid-transmission combination.
“Engine” (“ICE”): The internal combustion engine including Ancillaries and actuator systems
necessary for its proper function
It could (even without burning fuel) by using pumping losses but that would be a bad idea - it would waste an opportunity to harvest energy via the MGU-K.
As I said, the term "engine power", as used in 5.4.5 is an error in the Tech Regs.karana wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 01:19The term "engine power" appears exactly three times in the technical regulations, all in C5.2.5.gruntguru wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 00:54As I mentioned in an earlier post there are a couple of instances where the Tech Regs use the term "engine power" which can easily confuse since the PU as a whole is not strictly an "engine". The ICE is an engine and the PU as a whole is an engine - hybrid-transmission combination.
I actually searched for all appearences of "engine". To me it looks like it always refers solely to the ICE.
Also: Appendix C1:Definitions“Engine” (“ICE”): The internal combustion engine including Ancillaries and actuator systems
necessary for its proper function
It is also does not make sense to limit ICE output with fuel flow based on the actual ICE output.gruntguru wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 09:47As I said, the term "engine power" is an error in the Tech Regs.karana wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 01:19The term "engine power" appears exactly three times in the technical regulations, all in C5.2.5.gruntguru wrote: ↑11 Nov 2025, 00:54As I mentioned in an earlier post there are a couple of instances where the Tech Regs use the term "engine power" which can easily confuse since the PU as a whole is not strictly an "engine". The ICE is an engine and the PU as a whole is an engine - hybrid-transmission combination.
I actually searched for all appearences of "engine". To me it looks like it always refers solely to the ICE.
Also: Appendix C1:Definitions“Engine” (“ICE”): The internal combustion engine including Ancillaries and actuator systems
necessary for its proper function
1. There is no possibility that the Tech Regs would allow for negative ICE power
2. The formula referring to "engine power" (EF (MJ/h) = 9.78 x engine power (kW) + 869 when the engine power is above -50kW) does not make sense if you plug valid values of ICE power into it.
The regs say ..wuzak wrote: ↑07 Nov 2025, 01:49Not that I have seen so far.mzso wrote: ↑07 Nov 2025, 01:46There is an energy limit, isn't there? Which based on the fuel blend will be calculated in to fuel mass.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025, 02:15for 2026 there seems to be no consumption limit ?? - only a fuel (heat) rate limit
again to help the least competitive teams give a better impression eg by having sufficient electrical energy
Property Units Min Max Test Method
RON 95.0(1) 102.0(1) ISO 5164/ ASTM D2699
Sensitivity (RON-MON) 15.0(1) ISO 5164/ ASTM D2699
ISO 5163/ ASTM D2700
Means they're gonna have to have tanks that can hold 150 liters? Maybe more? I mean lots of tracks are 65% full throttle and now you'll be burning fuel off full power demand to charge the battery.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 01:47Fuel density is between 720kg/m³ and 785kg/m³.
Energy density is between 38.0MJ/kg and 41.0MJ/kg.
For 3000MJ, the fuel weight is between 78.9kg and 73.2kg.
The volume of fuel will be between 93L (highest energy density and highest SG) and 109L (lowest energy density and lowest SG) depending on those properties.
... and call it heavily electrified.diffuser wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 04:17Means they're gonna have to have tanks that can hold 150 liters? Maybe more? I mean lots of tracks are 65% full throttle and now you'll be burning fuel off full power demand to charge the battery.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 01:47Fuel density is between 720kg/m³ and 785kg/m³.
Energy density is between 38.0MJ/kg and 41.0MJ/kg.
For 3000MJ, the fuel weight is between 78.9kg and 73.2kg.
The volume of fuel will be between 93L (highest energy density and highest SG) and 109L (lowest energy density and lowest SG) depending on those properties.
but isn't this the 50/50 that we've all been waiting for ? ....
It's so dumb that they got rid of the MGU-H. They should have just made it a standard part. Maybe soemthing that's like Honda's that all 1 piece with the turbo, to keep the price down. That's the MGU-H is a big fuel saver.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 16:33but isn't this the 50/50 that we've all been waiting for ? ....
Probably about what they have now.diffuser wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 04:17Means they're gonna have to have tanks that can hold 150 liters? Maybe more? I mean lots of tracks are 65% full throttle and now you'll be burning fuel off full power demand to charge the battery.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 01:47Fuel density is between 720kg/m³ and 785kg/m³.
Energy density is between 38.0MJ/kg and 41.0MJ/kg.
For 3000MJ, the fuel weight is between 78.9kg and 73.2kg.
The volume of fuel will be between 93L (highest energy density and highest SG) and 109L (lowest energy density and lowest SG) depending on those properties.
Pretty sure they're ~ 110L now.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 18:41Probably about what they have now.diffuser wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 04:17Means they're gonna have to have tanks that can hold 150 liters? Maybe more? I mean lots of tracks are 65% full throttle and now you'll be burning fuel off full power demand to charge the battery.wuzak wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 01:47Fuel density is between 720kg/m³ and 785kg/m³.
Energy density is between 38.0MJ/kg and 41.0MJ/kg.
For 3000MJ, the fuel weight is between 78.9kg and 73.2kg.
The volume of fuel will be between 93L (highest energy density and highest SG) and 109L (lowest energy density and lowest SG) depending on those properties.