2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

Heat through the exhaust may benefit the turbo system, but I'm not sure how.

It certainly would have helped with MGUH recovery in the last regulations.

In exactly the same way that 'hotter' exhaust benefits the MGU-H, it will benefit the turbo as well. Ultimately it's heat energy (and thus the 'speed of expansion') used to turn turbine blades, in both cases, isn't it ? (off throttle -> turn the MGU-H turbine, on-throttle -> turn the compressor turbine). Unless there is some 'clever fine print' that you are implying.

More heat means better efficiency. It might be by an insignificant amount though.

[pgfpro]

Hoffman900
I 99% agree with your post.

I can't say too much at this time because I'm in the final devolvement of my Miller Cycle, load-based GCI, engine that uses my own Passive Pre-Chamber design.

IMO, I think this 2026 compression ratio controversy is just a diversion with the two teams that have been mentioned.

After studying my cylinder pressures data there comes a point where CR becomes more of a detriment then an asset based on heat. I can have way more peak and average cylinder pressure at a useable rod angle with a lower CR. The increased burn rate from the Passive Pre-Chamber can be adjusted within itself to act like you increased the CR without all the negative heat issues that are associated with a higher CR. A good example is RB time and energy they spent on piston oil squirters.

[Martin Keene]

Also by the meanings of the words steel and iron alloy.

Nope.

Steel is an alloy.
Iron can be both, it can be cast or an alloy. But what most people think of as cast iron, is actually an alloy.

Steel is an iron alloy. Cast iron is a different iron alloy. You're arguing about nothing.

You started the argument!

[TimW]

I am not so sure if a slightly higher ICE efficiency will really be decisive. Yes, a few extra kJ in the acceleration phase will mean extra kJs recovered, meaning in the next straight you have extra electrical energy as well. Also it will give more battery charging in the off throttle phases.
BUT better aero efficiency will have exactly the same effect. Less energy lost in acceleration and coasting phases will mean more recovery, less drag in off throttle phases will mean more opportunity to charge the battery.
The same goes for electrical efficiency, and even mechanical grip helps.

"slightly" is a word that can mean many things to different people. If I define "slightly" as being able to start Silverstone with 10kg of less fuel than everyone else, yet still have the same power and range. That is huge.

10 kg would be >5% less fuel. That would still require almost 5% higher ICE efficiency (almost because of the effect of a 1.2% lower starting weight). It is nonsense that the gain would be more than the efficiency gain (you can turn the argument around, if you take a bit extra fuel, you can burn more fuel in acceleration, recover more, and harvest more in off throttle. The extra mass even allows to regenerate more during braking.... )

Realistic differences are much smaller. And again: Aero efficiency will have exactly the same effect. Less aero losses means there is more energy available to recover. Always!

[FW17]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

[mzso]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

How would we? The regs have been settled a long time ago.

[wuzak]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

No.

If changes are made, it will be to fuel flow and MGUK deployment.

[FW17]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

No.

If changes are made, it will be to fuel flow and MGUK deployment.

Changing the fuel flow rate will not be possible without engine manufacturers crying foul about the efficiency and reliability.

anyway changing the electrical power electronics and storage for front generator is not a simple project, but may have a shorter lead time than the engine.

[FW17]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

How would we? The regs have been settled a long time ago.

You may not like to hear it, but V8 in 2030 probability is low.

This formula is going to continue like the previous one for some time, better FIA goes on to improve the regeneration at earliest.

[Tommy Cookers]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

This formula is going to continue like the previous one for some time, better FIA goes on to improve the regeneration at earliest.

the FIA has already improved the regeneration

because the reduced aero DF has reduced the tyre grip and thereby reduced peak braking force and power
more of the total braking energy is recovery as braking power is more often within the 350 kW limit of MG generation

ie energy recovery is increased by the aero changes - so the potential benefits of front wheel generation are reduced

[venkyhere]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

Not trying to hijack your Q, but what will be the implication in terms of slow corner understeer, cars becoming rally-ish ? Also,won't it automatically mean F1 becoming AWD/4WD instead of just RWD ?

[FW17]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

Not trying to hijack your Q, but what will be the implication in terms of slow corner understeer, cars becoming rally-ish ? Also,won't it automatically mean F1 becoming AWD/4WD instead of just RWD ?

No

It is a substitute for part of the front brake, it need not contribute to left right bias. It is suggested only for generation and not drive.

[FW17]

Will we see front generation in 2027 with 30 kg increase in weight?

This formula is going to continue like the previous one for some time, better FIA goes on to improve the regeneration at earliest.

the FIA has already improved the regeneration

because the reduced aero DF has reduced the tyre grip and thereby reduced peak braking force and power
more of the total braking energy is recovery as braking power is more often within the 350 kW limit of MG generation

ie energy recovery is increased by the aero changes - so the potential benefits of front wheel generation are reduced

If everyone were confident it would a flow rate of 3000 mj fuel and a tank limit of 3000 mj a race.

I am not sure 9MJ will be able to be deployed lap after lap. Why make it a limiting factor in racing where it going to be longer braking distances, statergised by teams when this element can be removed with the additional generation from the front wheels.

The 30 kg weight gain can be even knocked off from the race fuel allocation from 100 kg to 70 kg

[wuzak]

This formula is going to continue like the previous one for some time, better FIA goes on to improve the regeneration at earliest.

the FIA has already improved the regeneration

because the reduced aero DF has reduced the tyre grip and thereby reduced peak braking force and power
more of the total braking energy is recovery as braking power is more often within the 350 kW limit of MG generation

ie energy recovery is increased by the aero changes - so the potential benefits of front wheel generation are reduced

If everyone were confident it would a flow rate of 3000 mj fuel and a tank limit of 3000 mj a race.

I am not sure 9MJ will be able to be deployed lap after lap. Why make it a limiting factor in racing where it going to be longer braking distances, statergised by teams when this element can be removed with the additional generation from the front wheels.

The 30 kg weight gain can be even knocked off from the race fuel allocation from 100 kg to 70 kg

There isn't a race fuel limit.

The recovery limit is 8.5MJ on most tracks, 9.0MJ when 1s behind another car at a detection point, deployment is unlimited.

Front regen doesn't get you a lot more recovery unless the total recovery power is increased.

But if you have more power with a front MGU, then the 4MJ battery will drain a lot more quickly.

[FW17]

the FIA has already improved the regeneration

because the reduced aero DF has reduced the tyre grip and thereby reduced peak braking force and power
more of the total braking energy is recovery as braking power is more often within the 350 kW limit of MG generation

ie energy recovery is increased by the aero changes - so the potential benefits of front wheel generation are reduced

If everyone were confident it would a flow rate of 3000 mj fuel and a tank limit of 3000 mj a race.

I am not sure 9MJ will be able to be deployed lap after lap. Why make it a limiting factor in racing where it going to be longer braking distances, statergised by teams when this element can be removed with the additional generation from the front wheels.

The 30 kg weight gain can be even knocked off from the race fuel allocation from 100 kg to 70 kg

There isn't a race fuel limit.
Because they want do battery charging with the engine

The recovery limit is 8.5MJ on most tracks, 9.0MJ when 1s behind another car at a detection point, deployment is unlimited.

Front regen doesn't get you a lot more recovery unless the total recovery power is increased.
it will get you as much as from the rear


But if you have more power with a front MGU, then the 4MJ battery will drain a lot more quickly.
who said power the front?