2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Tommy Cookers]

... Hybrid/PHEV/EV is the present ....

nowhere in the world is there at present an EV
because nowhere in the world at present is there a 'zero-carbon' grid or public supply

even zero-carbon electricity would (by heat emission in its generation and transport) cause significant global warming

[venkyhere]

... Hybrid/PHEV/EV is the present ....

of course

nowhere in the world is there at present an EV
because nowhere in the world at present is there a 'zero-carbon' grid or public supply

even zero-carbon electricity would (by heat emission in its generation and transport) cause significant global warming

I wonder how many 'policy makers' understand the idea of 'entropy'.

[Hoffman900]

Fia standard Fuel flow meter with live telemetry on all cars.

if it is indeed 'flow' (volume/sec) based, does it mean :
a) all fuels are stipulated to have same mass/energy density despite different manufacturers ?
OR
b) the 'threshold' for flow rate will be defined differently for each fuel ?

1) Yes, to an extent. They give a range. See below
2) the fuels become homologated, so they’re submitted and “locked in” with the rulesmakers.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... df#page139

In the engineering world you call this a “performance spec”, where you basically define the performance box, but means and methods on how to achieve it are up to the individual supplier. However, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room here so most of the fuels end up being really similiar.

The regulations in F1 overall are very prescriptive. The box the rulesmakers define is small for all components on the car. There is just enough wiggle room to add a little variety, but overall it’s not that far off from being an spec series.

[dialtone]

... Hybrid/PHEV/EV is the present ....

nowhere in the world is there at present an EV
because nowhere in the world at present is there a 'zero-carbon' grid or public supply

even zero-carbon electricity would (by heat emission in its generation and transport) cause significant global warming

You are right. Call bob and tell him to resume drilling to the center of the earth to find more environmental friendly, and certainly non-warming fossil fuel. The environmental benefit of drilling and shipping oil rather than transporting electricity are far superior.

That's certainly a better place to be energy wise, so we don't need to research or incentivize research on other energy types, clearly nothing is perfect, shocker, so let's settle on the most destructive forms.

What a fine and nuanced reasoning we have here.

[hollus]

/Politics off!/

[venkyhere]

Fia standard Fuel flow meter with live telemetry on all cars.

if it is indeed 'flow' (volume/sec) based, does it mean :
a) all fuels are stipulated to have same mass/energy density despite different manufacturers ?
OR
b) the 'threshold' for flow rate will be defined differently for each fuel ?

1) Yes, to an extent. They give a range. See below
2) the fuels become homologated, so they’re submitted and “locked in” with the rulesmakers.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... df#page139

In the engineering world you call this a “performance spec”, where you basically define the performance box, but means and methods on how to achieve it are up to the individual supplier. However, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room here so most of the fuels end up being really similiar.

The regulations in F1 overall are very prescriptive. The box the rulesmakers define is small for all components on the car. There is just enough wiggle room to add a little variety, but overall it’s not that far off from being an spec series.

In which case, just like how FIA/FoM (or whoever is in charge) has a single tyre supplier in Pirelli, why won't they engage a contract with a single fuel supplier ? Sponsorship/marketing from different oil companies are 'locked in' ? Why don't these oil companies participate in a 'bidding' to win the contract ?
Sorry to be asking more and more Qs, but none of this is making sense.

[dialtone]

1. I really would like to see the math behind that. The weight gain would easily be around 100 kilo grams. This would also allow you to run softer tires. That's an easy 4 seconds of laptime. So the electric part of the power unit needs to bring in nine seconds a lap to meet your prediction. A tall order to say the least.

Alright so... MGU-K is 16kg, MGU-K transmission is 4kg (although depends on where MGU-K is placed) and ES is 35kg, so this is 55kg, not 100kg. Of course you'd need to start the race with 30-40kg more fuel (last year cars were using 25-30% more fuel and they still had electric motors and battery, so make it even worse than that), at least, to make up for the lack of electrical power, so you may be light at the end of the race, but you are a hog at the start.

Anyway I think it's more complicated than that. The turbo lag you incur without MGU-H, and the then lack of MGU-K, makes it so that you are accelerating much slower out any traction zone which is where most of the time is spent, in slow corners followed by long straights you'd find yourself probably being an open DRS slower the straight, on basically all straights. Considering the typical DRS gains you 1.5-2s per lap, and that you'd have this advantage on every single traction zone and straight and not just 2-3 DRS zones, IMHO this is where you end up 4s slower.

We don't have much telemetry of cars before MGU-K/MGU-H or KERS and comparison between this year's cars with last year's is difficult because of the narrower tires and decreased downforce, but even in Bahrain test, where likely nobody has yet pushed hard at all, you can see that the cars have better acceleration on the main straight and out of T1, T10 or T13, and of course, T14 compared to 2022, despite being clearly energy starved.

Grosjean said he hit 355 in spain... You need real acceleration to get there and only electric power gives you that.

2. Sorry, but an engine with fuel restriction+ the electrical components can never be more eco friendly than that same stand alone engine. That really needs no further explanation.

Hollus said no politics, I don't understand why this would be politics, and I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after you quote 100kg for battery earlier, it's really hard for me to find a reasonable way to understand how you determine that. These cars are using 25%+ less fuel than the previous generation... What numbers are you looking at?

[Tommi870]

1. I really would like to see the math behind that. The weight gain would easily be around 100 kilo grams. This would also allow you to run softer tires. That's an easy 4 seconds of laptime. So the electric part of the power unit needs to bring in nine seconds a lap to meet your prediction. A tall order to say the least.

Alright so... MGU-K is 16kg, MGU-K transmission is 4kg (although depends on where MGU-K is placed) and ES is 35kg, so this is 55kg, not 100kg. Of course you'd need to start the race with 30-40kg more fuel (last year cars were using 25-30% more fuel and they still had electric motors and battery, so make it even worse than that), at least, to make up for the lack of electrical power, so you may be light at the end of the race, but you are a hog at the start.

Anyway I think it's more complicated than that. The turbo lag you incur without MGU-H, and the then lack of MGU-K, makes it so that you are accelerating much slower out any traction zone which is where most of the time is spent, in slow corners followed by long straights you'd find yourself probably being an open DRS slower the straight, on basically all straights. Considering the typical DRS gains you 1.5-2s per lap, and that you'd have this advantage on every single traction zone and straight and not just 2-3 DRS zones, IMHO this is where you end up 4s slower.

We don't have much telemetry of cars before MGU-K/MGU-H or KERS and comparison between this year's cars with last year's is difficult because of the narrower tires and decreased downforce, but even in Bahrain test, where likely nobody has yet pushed hard at all, you can see that the cars have better acceleration on the main straight and out of T1, T10 or T13, and of course, T14 compared to 2022, despite being clearly energy starved.

Grosjean said he hit 355 in spain... You need real acceleration to get there and only electric power gives you that.

2. Sorry, but an engine with fuel restriction+ the electrical components can never be more eco friendly than that same stand alone engine. That really needs no further explanation.

Hollus said no politics, I don't understand why this would be politics, and I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after you quote 100kg for battery earlier, it's really hard for me to find a reasonable way to understand how you determine that. These cars are using 25%+ less fuel than the previous generation... What numbers are you looking at?

1. Why would you have to start the race with more fuel? In my scenario I simply throw out all electrical components to make the car as light as possible. ( Of course we could also have a discussion of increasing thepower of the engine and then we need more fuel, but i think all in all this scenario would favor my car even more)
So my car has the advantage of a massive weight save ( removal of the electric components + ability to save structural weight)+ ability to run softer tires.
I hardly double this car would lose 4 to 5 seconds. Especially not with flexible aero rules. Maybe ,maybe on energy recovery friendly tracks. But certainly not on average and most certainly not on tracks like Melbourne, let alone Suzuka.
2. I think you don 't get my point.
Car A: 550hp engine with 100 liter of fuel to use
Car B: Excact same engine and 100 litress to burn +electrical components.
Obviusly Car B will always require more recources.

[Hoffman900]

if it is indeed 'flow' (volume/sec) based, does it mean :
a) all fuels are stipulated to have same mass/energy density despite different manufacturers ?
OR
b) the 'threshold' for flow rate will be defined differently for each fuel ?

1) Yes, to an extent. They give a range. See below
2) the fuels become homologated, so they’re submitted and “locked in” with the rulesmakers.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... df#page139

In the engineering world you call this a “performance spec”, where you basically define the performance box, but means and methods on how to achieve it are up to the individual supplier. However, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room here so most of the fuels end up being really similiar.

The regulations in F1 overall are very prescriptive. The box the rulesmakers define is small for all components on the car. There is just enough wiggle room to add a little variety, but overall it’s not that far off from being an spec series.

In which case, just like how FIA/FoM (or whoever is in charge) has a single tyre supplier in Pirelli, why won't they engage a contract with a single fuel supplier ? Sponsorship/marketing from different oil companies are 'locked in' ? Why don't these oil companies participate in a 'bidding' to win the contract ?
Sorry to be asking more and more Qs, but none of this is making sense.

Almost every pro series outside F1 is a spec supplier, so beats me. Probably because there is so much “oil” money in F1 that they don’t want to chase away all of them to go to a sole supplier.

Most of F1 is propped up by Middle East money at this point.

[dialtone]

1. Why would you have to start the race with more fuel? In my scenario I simply throw out all electrical components to make the car as light as possible. ( Of course we could also have a discussion of increasing thepower of the engine and then we need more fuel, but i think all in all this scenario would favor my car even more)
So my car has the advantage of a massive weight save ( removal of the electric components + ability to save structural weight)+ ability to run softer tires.
I hardly double this car would lose 4 to 5 seconds. Especially not with flexible aero rules. Maybe ,maybe on energy recovery friendly tracks. But certainly not on average and most certainly not on tracks like Melbourne, let alone Suzuka.

You need more fuel because that's how it works. The electric battery is recharged via braking power in this generation, or by both braking power and exhaust gases in the previous generation. You can thus spend that energy in better acceleration and turbo spooling. In particular this year you get 9MJ per lap, this is straight up 15kg of less fuel per race distance roughly, then the electric motor is basically 90% efficient at torque delivery while the ICE is much less so especially at the lower rpms you encounter out of corners, more like 50% (which is already insane), so technically those 15kg really are 30+kg just due to efficiency difference.

They eliminated the MGU-H and now cars have to spend 20 seconds on the grid to spool the turbo up and build pressure.

In any case this feels fairly pedestrian, you don't need to go in F1 to see that any hybrid/phev car gets you triple or more mileage efficiency.

Are you discussing in good faith or just mailing it in?

2. I think you don 't get my point.
Car A: 550hp engine with 100 liter of fuel to use
Car B: Excact same engine and 100 litress to burn +electrical components.
Obviusly Car B will always require more recources.

We don't have that, so not sure what your argument is.

Car A, hypothetical: 550hp with 100l
Car B: 550hp ICE, 70l of fuel + electrical components

This is closer to what we are discussing. Like the rules mandate basically 70kg of fuel instead of 100kg, so again, what points should I be understanding?

[Tommi870]

1. Why would you have to start the race with more fuel? In my scenario I simply throw out all electrical components to make the car as light as possible. ( Of course we could also have a discussion of increasing thepower of the engine and then we need more fuel, but i think all in all this scenario would favor my car even more)
So my car has the advantage of a massive weight save ( removal of the electric components + ability to save structural weight)+ ability to run softer tires.
I hardly double this car would lose 4 to 5 seconds. Especially not with flexible aero rules. Maybe ,maybe on energy recovery friendly tracks. But certainly not on average and most certainly not on tracks like Melbourne, let alone Suzuka.

You need more fuel because that's how it works. The electric battery is recharged via braking power in this generation, or by both braking power and exhaust gases in the previous generation. You can thus spend that energy in better acceleration and turbo spooling. In particular this year you get 9MJ per lap, this is straight up 15kg of less fuel per race distance roughly, then the electric motor is basically 90% efficient at torque delivery while the ICE is much less so especially at the lower rpms you encounter out of corners, more like 50% (which is already insane), so technically those 15kg really are 30+kg just due to efficiency difference.

They eliminated the MGU-H and now cars have to spend 20 seconds on the grid to spool the turbo up and build pressure.

In any case this feels fairly pedestrian, you don't need to go in F1 to see that any hybrid/phev car gets you triple or more mileage efficiency.

Are you discussing in good faith or just mailing it in?

2. I think you don 't get my point.
Car A: 550hp engine with 100 liter of fuel to use
Car B: Excact same engine and 100 litress to burn +electrical components.
Obviusly Car B will always require more recources.

We don't have that, so not sure what your argument is.

Car A, hypothetical: 550hp with 100l
Car B: 550hp ICE, 70l of fuel + electrical components

This is closer to what we are discussing. Like the rules mandate basically 70kg of fuel instead of 100kg, so again, what points should I be understanding?
[/quote

Okay, let's use your Car A and B numbers,then. I still don't see the math how car B could be 5 seconds faster on most tracks in Qualifying and on race average.
Im not talking about "efficiency" in that sense.
If you add electric components to a race car it can never be as resource friendly as the same car without the electric components.
Burning an additional 1000 litres a season obviously only represents a micro fraction of the ressources needed to add the electric components to the car.

[mzso]

The green bar that sits right above the gear number on the display. Not the gear shift lights.

Well, right atop the number there's a blue bar, and right above that there is a green bar, and above that are the gear shift lights. So you're a tad contradictory. So I guess you mean the blue bar.
Though I can't say I can figure out what is the actual green bar is, it's rather intermittent. And pops up and disappears during gear shifts.

[Badger]

The green bar that sits right above the gear number on the display. Not the gear shift lights.

Well, right atop the number there's a blue bar, and right above that there is a green bar, and above that are the gear shift lights. So you're a tad contradictory. So I guess you mean the blue bar.
Though I can't say I can figure out what is the actual green bar is, it's rather intermittent. And pops up and disappears during gear shifts.

Then it's the blue bar, it just looked green to me.

[mzso]

2. That's obviously wrong so not much to say here. But I'll take the opportunity to bust this nonsense myth of "BuT tO mAkE bAtTeRiEs YoU uSe MoRe EnErGy AnD Co2", Lithium Ion batteries, aside from being just the current technology, are perfectly recyclable, [...]

I thought he meant less efficient, with the hybridization. Which is also false.

[dialtone]

Okay, let's use your Car A and B numbers,then. I still don't see the math how car B could be 5 seconds faster on most tracks in Qualifying and on race average.
Im not talking about "efficiency" in that sense.
If you add electric components to a race car it can never be as resource friendly as the same car without the electric components.
Burning an additional 1000 litres a season obviously only represents a micro fraction of the ressources needed to add the electric components to the car.

I’ve already written how the car would be faster.

The weight saving is offset by needing more fuel, the electric motor is also better overall performance wise because of the efficient torque it generates.

If this was just a weight saving competition the cars would all have the same performance since they are all at min weight.

You keep repeating this nonsense about adding electricity being less good, and as my math already showed you, plus real life, it makes no sense.