1994 replies to this topic

[Goron3]

I hope the rev count will be higher. Anything around 13-14K without the MGU-H would be an improvement.

 

Of course, I'd hope for more.

[Wuzak]

I hope the rev count will be higher. Anything around 13-14K without the MGU-H would be an improvement.

 

Of course, I'd hope for more.

 

They may run more rpm as they may be changing from 8 gears to 6 gears.

 

The sound from the clip is through the dyno wall and running at constant speed.

[Boing Ball]

If turbo boost is not limited in the 2026 rules, is there any reason to except higher reving engines?

[Wuzak]

If turbo boost is not limited in the 2026 rules, is there any reason to except higher reving engines?

 

Yes, it is limited:

 

 

5.5.2 Engine inlet air pressure must be less than 4.8 barA at all times. The pressure of the air will be measured by an FIA approved and sealed sensor located in an FIA approved location situated in the engine inlet system.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

If they have to conserve fuel, do not expect high revving engines. Although granted they will sound noisy due to the lack of the H.

As fuel is weight they will try and run the least amount of fuel as possible.

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 April 2024 - 19:40.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Oh dear… for all those who wanted more noise…

Adrian Newey criticizes the "strange" engines of 2026: "They will act as generators almost all the time"

"It will be a strange formula. The engines will act as generators almost all the time. We'll have to get used to it,"

“I don't know if we should talk about 'extended range electric', but it seems that the new engines of 2026 will work the other way around a traditional hybrid. The propulsion will be electric, supported by the thermal motor when necessary. The opposite of now, when the electric power is a 'plus' to be used on occasion.”

VIA: [SoyMotor]

[Wuzak]

Oh dear… for all those who wanted more noise…

 

 

Adrian Newey criticizes the "strange" engines of 2026: "They will act as generators almost all the time"

 

"It will be a strange formula. The engines will act as generators almost all the time. We'll have to get used to it,"

 

“I don't know if we should talk about 'extended range electric', but it seems that the new engines of 2026 will work the other way around a traditional hybrid. The propulsion will be electric, supported by the thermal motor when necessary. The opposite of now, when the electric power is a 'plus' to be used on occasion.”

 

VIA: [SoyMotor]

 

 

 

This is not the case, IMO.

 

The ICE will propel the car at all times. Well maybe for short periods the ICE won't be operating, like, maybe, in the pit lane. 

 

The MGU has limited amount of energy that can be recovered and, therefore, used is limited.

 

The standard per lap recovery is 8.5MJ. Which is around 24s at 350kW.

 

For shorter tracks, like Monaco, that may be reduced to 8MJ, or just under 23s at 350kW.

 

The maximum storage in the battery is 4MJ. That is 11s at 350kW.

 

 

For Monaco, the MGU wil be able to use up to 624MJ (8MJ per lap) or 663MJ (8.3MJ per lap).

 

The fuel energy per race is rumoured to be 90kg. That is between 3,420MJ and 3,690MJ.

 

What will happen, is that the ICE will be working hard in parts of the track where it otherwise wouldn't - when the ICE is at part throttle and power demand is below the power of the ICE.

 

The ICE will still operate at full power for the length of the straight, while the driver's foot is to the floor, but near the end of straights the MGU will go into generator mode.

 

 

Edit: Forgot to add, that the longer, faster circuits are the ones with the least amount of electric energy available over the race distance, though they are the most power hungry circuits. Spa has only 44 laps, so 8.5 * 44 = 374MJ, only 60%/56% that of Monaco (8/8.5MJ/lap). Though there is a possibility that a track like Spa will get an extra 0.5MJ per lap, or 9MJ total for 396MJ/race (63%/60%).

 

Also, Monaco is 260km, the rest are between 300 and 310km, Spa being 308km.

 

The ICE is going to be very important at Spa.

Edited by Wuzak, 17 April 2024 - 16:50.

[Wuzak]

I have to say that I am still not a fan of this formula.

 

They have reduced the power of the PU, though peak power will be about the same, without any reduction in weight.

 

If they are going to have extra fuel to use to generate electricity, they may as well increase the fuel flow rate by 25%, reduce the maximum MGU deployment to 200kW, while maintaining the 350kW charging rate, restrict the energy recovery more and use a smaller battery.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

This is not the case, IMO.

The ICE will propel the car at all times. Well maybe for short periods the ICE won't be operating, like, maybe, in the pit lane.

The MGU has limited amount of energy that can be recovered and, therefore, used is limited.

The standard per lap recovery is 8.5MJ. Which is around 24s at 350kW.

For shorter tracks, like Monaco, that may be reduced to 8MJ, or just under 23s at 350kW.

The maximum storage in the battery is 4MJ. That is 11s at 350kW.


For Monaco, the MGU wil be able to use up to 624MJ (8MJ per lap) or 663MJ (8.3MJ per lap).

The fuel energy per race is rumoured to be 90kg. That is between 3,420MJ and 3,690MJ.

What will happen, is that the ICE will be working hard in parts of the track where it otherwise wouldn't - when the ICE is at part throttle and power demand is below the power of the ICE.

The ICE will still operate at full power for the length of the straight, while the driver's foot is to the floor, but near the end of straights the MGU will go into generator mode.


Edit: Forgot to add, that the longer, faster circuits are the ones with the least amount of electric energy available over the race distance, though they are the most power hungry circuits. Spa has only 44 laps, so 8.5 * 44 = 374MJ, only 60%/56% that of Monaco (8/8.5MJ/lap). Though there is a possibility that a track like Spa will get an extra 0.5MJ per lap, or 9MJ total for 396MJ/race (63%/60%).

Also, Monaco is 260km, the rest are between 300 and 310km, Spa being 308km.

The ICE is going to be very important at Spa.

I can’t argue, but Newey would know more than I would, that’s for sure!

[Sauberfan]

The FIA wanted energy recovery from the front wheels, which would have been a lighter solution compared to the bigger fuel tank and extra fuel needed for energy burn. But the teams rejected that, fearing Audi and their experience with hybrid prototypes.

 

Having front wheel recovery is not the "lighter" solution. Front wheels and hubs would be built heavier. There would be more axle and driveshafts. It is all more sprung and rotating weight. The whole crash structure of the front end would have to be built heavier. 

[MRX94]

Having front wheel recovery is not the "lighter" solution. Front wheels and hubs would be built heavier. There would be more axle and driveshafts. It is all more sprung and rotating weight. The whole crash structure of the front end would have to be built heavier. 

 

Pat Symonds:

 

“According to our calculations, we could have managed with 18 kilograms extra,” said Symonds. “For two 130-kilowatt generators (176 PS) including half-shafts, a differential and the wiring.

“We would have tapped the remaining 130 kilowatts from the rear. With this solution, we could have reduced the tank capacity from 110 to 70 kilograms and practically completely dispensed with fuel burning for energy generation.”

source: 2026 power units to burn 30kg of fuel for the sole purpose of generating electrical energy – Motorsport | Pit Debrief

[pdac]

Why not just accept that the most effective way to race cars is to use a simple ICE power unit and junk all of the hybrid bells, whistles and batteries. I'm sure there would be no problem to make cars smaller and lighter if they made this one simple change. No policy that F1 chooses is going to save or destroy the planet.

Edited by pdac, 17 April 2024 - 22:00.

[Hellenic tifosi]

We all know that the only reason the Hybrid engines were introduced in the first place was to help manufacturers portray themselves as environmentally friendly. I can also understand that they wanted to drop the MGU-H in order to entice new manufacturers to join.

 

What I don't understand is why they went with such a low percentage of ICE power. I mean, even with a 70-30 power split they could still tick the ridiculous "sustainability" box, while avoiding the problems that we are about to see in 2026.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Why not just accept that the most effective way to race cars is to use a simple ICE power unit and junk all of the hybrid bells, whistles and batteries. I'm sure there would be no problem to make cars smaller and lighter if they made this one simple change. No policy that F1 chooses is going to save or destroy the planet.

 

The reason behind this is that big corporations treat the public as if we are a bunch of idiots. We all know that the fuel wasted racing F1 cars is negligible compared to fleet-wide emissions, but somehow companies don't want to be associated with anything that is perceived as "not sustainable". Obviously, it's all about how things look and not about the substance, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in.

[Stephane]

If that was, at least, a bit relevant to everyday roads....

[PayasYouRace]

Pat Symonds:

 

“According to our calculations, we could have managed with 18 kilograms extra,” said Symonds. “For two 130-kilowatt generators (176 PS) including half-shafts, a differential and the wiring.

“We would have tapped the remaining 130 kilowatts from the rear. With this solution, we could have reduced the tank capacity from 110 to 70 kilograms and practically completely dispensed with fuel burning for energy generation.”

source: 2026 power units to burn 30kg of fuel for the sole purpose of generating electrical energy – Motorsport | Pit Debrief

In think that’s true, but I expect the location of the weight has some bearing in the decision. An extra mass in the centre of the car is easy to deal with. The extra mass in the forward part of the chassis, while lower, requires a lot of extra engineering. I don’t know if Pat had the resources necessary to evaluate the extra strength and packaging requirements of chassis for that extra 18 kg.

[Wuzak]

In think that’s true, but I expect the location of the weight has some bearing in the decision. An extra mass in the centre of the car is easy to deal with. The extra mass in the forward part of the chassis, while lower, requires a lot of extra engineering. I don’t know if Pat had the resources necessary to evaluate the extra strength and packaging requirements of chassis for that extra 18 kg.

 

I don't know that front MGUs would give you much extra generation if the overall power was the same, and the front MGUs would also deploy.

[pdac]

The reason behind this is that big corporations treat the public as if we are a bunch of idiots. We all know that the fuel wasted racing F1 cars is negligible compared to fleet-wide emissions, but somehow companies don't want to be associated with anything that is perceived as "not sustainable". Obviously, it's all about how things look and not about the substance, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in.

 

It's a classic case of highlighting a few small things so that people get distracted and don't notice the big things that little is being done about.

[Ben1445]

I don't know that front MGUs would give you much extra generation if the overall power was the same, and the front MGUs would also deploy.

I'd guess that the main benefit is largely brake bias related? 

 

When you have a braking demand of 1000+kW then it's relatively simple to recover the maximum 350kW electrically from the rear and apply the remainder across both axles using the friction brakes. 

 

If you drop to a braking demand of only 500kW, maintaining an example 55/45 front-rear bias means dividing that into 275kW from friction at the front and 225 kW electrically at the rear. 

 

Same situation as above with Symmond's set up means you could recover 260kW from the front and 130kW from the rear using the MGUs for a total of 360kW, then apply friction of 15kW on the front and 95kW at the rear to maintain brake balance up to the 500kW mark. Overall effect is you can recover more (360kW vs 225kW) in such a scenario. 

 

Essentially extending the window for which peak regen is viable, the effect of which I can believe may be significant enough when integrated over the course of lap across all braking and deceleration zones. 

Edited by Ben1445, 18 April 2024 - 08:20.

[MRX94]

Yes, brake bias is the main reason why having just a rear MGU is so ineffective. Having both front and rear is ideal, but if there has to be only one, then having it at the front is the obvious choice for anyone, except F1 teams it seems.
There was some talk of using active aero to help the rear axle harvest more, but since they simplified that system to just two aero states, I guess that also got scrapped.

[Sauberfan]

Pat Symonds:

 

“According to our calculations, we could have managed with 18 kilograms extra,” said Symonds. “For two 130-kilowatt generators (176 PS) including half-shafts, a differential and the wiring.

“We would have tapped the remaining 130 kilowatts from the rear. With this solution, we could have reduced the tank capacity from 110 to 70 kilograms and practically completely dispensed with fuel burning for energy generation.”

source: 2026 power units to burn 30kg of fuel for the sole purpose of generating electrical energy – Motorsport | Pit Debrief

 

That's all quick calculations. By the time half shafts are added at the drivers feet, protrusion proof panels would have to be added. And a bunch of other things. The weight would probably end up being close to double that.

 

Look inside of an F1 nose cone today. Where is all this stuff going to fit ? 

Edited by Sauberfan, 18 April 2024 - 17:22.

[Sauberfan]

We all know that the only reason the Hybrid engines were introduced in the first place was to help manufacturers portray themselves as environmentally friendly. I can also understand that they wanted to drop the MGU-H in order to entice new manufacturers to join.

 

What I don't understand is why they went with such a low percentage of ICE power. I mean, even with a 70-30 power split they could still tick the ridiculous "sustainability" box, while avoiding the problems that we are about to see in 2026.

 

I think the reason they went for this 50% nonsense is because deep down there's still some in the industry that want to drag F1 to 100% electric. Hopefully by then, there will be a competing international series to watch that uses real race cars. 

[Sauberfan]

Facepalm. The 2026 power units will weigh 34 kg more 

 

[Secretariat]

I think the reason they went for this 50% nonsense is because deep down there's still some in the industry that want to drag F1 to 100% electric. Hopefully by then, there will be a competing international series to watch that uses real race cars. 

My personal opinion is that F1 needs to be sure it is distinct from other forms of motorsport as the public relations position is that it's "the pinnacle". The things that F1 is trying to achieve with these PU's are things that were already very close to being done with the old LMP1 hybrids. Given that LMP1's do not exist anymore, F1 and the manufacturers want to repackage the message as if their PU's are amazing and at the forefront of the technologies applied, when in reality it is marketing. That's why they have twisted themselves into knots with these rules, and apparently are twisting themselves in knots over the chassis rules.

[Beri]

I think no one will ever deny that the current, and upcoming, V6 turbo engines are the pinnacle of the current autoracing world. Yet there is this fine line between necessity and plain old wishes from the manufacturers. And I get the sense that the FIA has been bamboozled by the manufacturers on this one. Certainly considering high perfomance carbon neutral fuels (E Fuels) are rapidly being developed as we speak. It could have easily been a naturally aspirated V10 engine formula come 2028 (which is a realistic timeframe to get these fuels really up to speed). Only the issue is that the manufacturers have had their blinders on and have gone full on hybrid and electric propulsion on their road cars simply to meet emission regulations. Carbon neutral fuels simply do away with this thinking and they do have the potential to be the holy grail. This opposed to what legislators and car companies are trying to sell us; that electric propulsion is the solution.

 

I see 2026 as a missed opportunity.

[Secretariat]

I think no one will ever deny that the current, and upcoming, V6 turbo engines are the pinnacle of the current autoracing world. Yet there is this fine line between necessity and plain old wishes from the manufacturers. And I get the sense that the FIA has been bamboozled by the manufacturers on this one. Certainly considering high perfomance carbon neutral fuels (E Fuels) are rapidly being developed as we speak. It could have easily been a naturally aspirated V10 engine formula come 2028 (which is a realistic timeframe to get these fuels really up to speed). Only the issue is that the manufacturers have had their blinders on and have gone full on hybrid and electric propulsion on their road cars simply to meet emission regulations. Carbon neutral fuels simply do away with this thinking and they do have the potential to be the holy grail. This opposed to what legislators and car companies are trying to sell us; that electric propulsion is the solution.

 

I see 2026 as a missed opportunity.

It will be interesting to see the application of these new fuels. Also, I have no problem with hybrids. The problem I have is with its application using F1 and WEC as examples related to deployment, caps and so on. To me its needless complication of the rules in the context of road relevance.  

[Hellenic tifosi]

It will be interesting to see the application of these new fuels. Also, I have no problem with hybrids. The problem I have is with its application using F1 and WEC as examples related to deployment, caps and so on. To me its needless complication of the rules in the context of road relevance.  

 

Exactly. We could have hybrids with a 70 / 30 power split, producing enough horsepower to make the tyres suffer, while keeping the manufacturers happy. In any case, no matter what the regulations are, F1 engines will always be engineering marvels.

 

V10's were obviously not very fuel efficient, but they did produce around 300hp /liter, revving up to 20k rpm. That is nothing short of an engineering masterpiece, isn't it?

[Wuzak]

Facepalm. The 2026 power units will weigh 34 kg more 

 

 

That graphic is incorrect.

 

The current PU minimum weight does not include the battey.

 

So the current PU weighs 151kg + 20kg to 25kg =  171kg to 176kg. Or 9kg to 14kg heavier.

 

However, there are items included in the 2026 battery minimum weight that are not in the current rules.

 

The weight of teh complete PU will be, more or less, the same.

[Beri]

That graphic is incorrect.

 

The current PU minimum weight does not include the battey.

 

So the current PU weighs 151kg + 20kg to 25kg =  171kg to 176kg. Or 9kg to 14kg heavier.

 

However, there are items included in the 2026 battery minimum weight that are not in the current rules.

 

The weight of teh complete PU will be, more or less, the same.

 

This is also not including the fact that the chassis will be a lot lighter and the tyres will also slim down in dimensions and weight. Overall the car will be lighter. And that is what the wish was, to have the car (everything in total) to get lighter. Not for the engine (and hybrid systems) alone to get on a diet.

[Clatter]

I think no one will ever deny that the current, and upcoming, V6 turbo engines are the pinnacle of the current autoracing world. Yet there is this fine line between necessity and plain old wishes from the manufacturers. And I get the sense that the FIA has been bamboozled by the manufacturers on this one. Certainly considering high perfomance carbon neutral fuels (E Fuels) are rapidly being developed as we speak. It could have easily been a naturally aspirated V10 engine formula come 2028 (which is a realistic timeframe to get these fuels really up to speed). Only the issue is that the manufacturers have had their blinders on and have gone full on hybrid and electric propulsion on their road cars simply to meet emission regulations. Carbon neutral fuels simply do away with this thinking and they do have the potential to be the holy grail. This opposed to what legislators and car companies are trying to sell us; that electric propulsion is the solution.

I see 2026 as a missed opportunity.

It's not just meeting emission standards, manufacturers are moving away from ICE not because they want to, but because many governments announced bans on them in the not too distant future.

[Beri]

It's not just meeting emission standards, manufacturers are moving away from ICE not because they want to, but because many governments announced bans on them in the not too distant future.

 

This will be overturned come how E fuels are now being rapidly developed. Electrification isnt THE solution. Its A solution. And it should not be imposed when proper alternatives are available. Even hydrogen is taking a new flight of recent. Governments who are tieing to electrification are narrow minded. And the industry knows this. Manufacturers on the other hand want to show the world what they can do with their (hybrid) technology. And Formula One is the perfect advertisement to do so. And this is why I think the FIA has dropped the ball and got pipped into a Formula tailoring manufacturers rather than having a good racing engine with the only goal; less carbon emission. And with carbon neutral E Fuels this would have been the case even with gas guzzling 21k rpm churning V10 engines.

[pdac]

This will be overturned come how E fuels are now being rapidly developed. Electrification isnt THE solution. Its A solution. And it should not be imposed when proper alternatives are available. Even hydrogen is taking a new flight of recent. Governments who are tieing to electrification are narrow minded. And the industry knows this. Manufacturers on the other hand want to show the world what they can do with their (hybrid) technology. And Formula One is the perfect advertisement to do so. And this is why I think the FIA has dropped the ball and got pipped into a Formula tailoring manufacturers rather than having a good racing engine with the only goal; less carbon emission. And with carbon neutral E Fuels this would have been the case even with gas guzzling 21k rpm churning V10 engines.

 

Governments impose things for reasons other than the ones they give. Electric cars are being imposed not because they are the only solution but because the investment that manufacturers have made needs to be protected and, like it or not, big business has strong influence over government policy.

Edited by pdac, 19 April 2024 - 08:47.

[Beri]

Governments impose things for reasons other than the ones they give. Electric cars are being imposed not because they are the only solution but because the investment that manufacturers have made needs to be protected and, like it or not, big business has strong influence over government policy.

 

However that may be true, goverments will let those manufacturers go bankrupt if they simply see other measures fit better. The credo of any govenment will always be; country over a singular company. No matter the economic impact. The GDP, for example, should always count above any companies interest.

Yet electrification is one big lobby. And the European Union was on the verge of giving in to it, but last minute bailed out on it (for now). Because before they solely spoke about only new electric vehicles to be sold come 2035. But this has since changed to all new cars must not emit any co2 come 2035. Which E Fuels can provide.

And yes there are still manufacturers who are fully pledged on electric vehicles. Like Volvo. But I can not imagine that everyone will follow suit. ICE's are not banned come 2035. Only the use of it is heavily restricted. And it is up for the governments to impose this. And if you want the current cars to be clean(er) as well. Fill them up with E Fuels. And manufacturers do not have to change a lot to reach this goal.

[MRX94]

E-fuels are a non-starter imo. A last gasp effort by the petrol industry to remain relevant.
The scale of environmental destruction needed to "grow" these fuels for mass use is beyond imagining.
E-fuels will probably end up powering only very high-end performance cars in the future, with pricing to match.

[Secretariat]

Exactly. We could have hybrids with a 70 / 30 power split, producing enough horsepower to make the tyres suffer, while keeping the manufacturers happy. In any case, no matter what the regulations are, F1 engines will always be engineering marvels.

 

V10's were obviously not very fuel efficient, but they did produce around 300hp /liter, revving up to 20k rpm. That is nothing short of an engineering masterpiece, isn't it?

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but for clarity I have no problem with F1 chasing a 50/50 split in and of itself, it is their methodology. To me, it is quite cynical for F1 to chase VW/Porsche/Audi for over a decade, then allegedly be frightened about their technical capabilities. I do not want to be a broken record, but some of this was basically achieved years ago. My sense is, if Toyota wanted to join again in a future rules set, they would probably say the new PU's need to be powered by windmills.

 

*forgive my crankiness and snark. I have not had my coffee yet. However, I don't need a coffee to say the V10's were great.

[Clatter]

This will be overturned come how E fuels are now being rapidly developed. Electrification isnt THE solution. Its A solution. And it should not be imposed when proper alternatives are available. Even hydrogen is taking a new flight of recent. Governments who are tieing to electrification are narrow minded. And the industry knows this. Manufacturers on the other hand want to show the world what they can do with their (hybrid) technology. And Formula One is the perfect advertisement to do so. And this is why I think the FIA has dropped the ball and got pipped into a Formula tailoring manufacturers rather than having a good racing engine with the only goal; less carbon emission. And with carbon neutral E Fuels this would have been the case even with gas guzzling 21k rpm churning V10 engines.

 

It may well get overturned or watered down, but manufacturers based their plans and investment on the rules put in place at the time.

[pdac]

However that may be true, goverments will let those manufacturers go bankrupt if they simply see other measures fit better. The credo of any govenment will always be; country over a singular company. No matter the economic impact. The GDP, for example, should always count above any companies interest.

Yet electrification is one big lobby. And the European Union was on the verge of giving in to it, but last minute bailed out on it (for now). Because before they solely spoke about only new electric vehicles to be sold come 2035. But this has since changed to all new cars must not emit any co2 come 2035. Which E Fuels can provide.

And yes there are still manufacturers who are fully pledged on electric vehicles. Like Volvo. But I can not imagine that everyone will follow suit. ICE's are not banned come 2035. Only the use of it is heavily restricted. And it is up for the governments to impose this. And if you want the current cars to be clean(er) as well. Fill them up with E Fuels. And manufacturers do not have to change a lot to reach this goal.

 

No they will not.

[Sauberfan]

This is also not including the fact that the chassis will be a lot lighter and the tyres will also slim down in dimensions and weight. Overall the car will be lighter. And that is what the wish was, to have the car (everything in total) to get lighter. Not for the engine (and hybrid systems) alone to get on a diet.

 

The power unit will be heavier. Its only a question of how much heavier. The structure of the car will have to be bult heavier to account for a heavier power unit. But then they will try and make this up by making the dimensions smaller. Front and rear movable aero will add weight too. So I wouldn't be taking these big weight savings to the bank just yet. It will probably be only slightly lighter if that.

[Sauberfan]

Governments impose things for reasons other than the ones they give. Electric cars are being imposed not because they are the only solution but because the investment that manufacturers have made needs to be protected and, like it or not, big business has strong influence over government policy.

 

These govt mandates for EVs and banning ICE have been rolled back in many cases. The US , EU and UK have already.

 

https://thehill.com/...ehicle-mandate/

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=7a6efcf16f44

 

https://www.autoweek...andate-dropped/

[Clatter]

These govt mandates for EVs and banning ICE have been rolled back in many cases. The US , EU and UK have already.

 

https://thehill.com/...ehicle-mandate/

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=7a6efcf16f44

 

https://www.autoweek...andate-dropped/

 

But manufacturers were already a long way down the route of going electric.

[pdac]

These govt mandates for EVs and banning ICE have been rolled back in many cases. The US , EU and UK have already.

 

https://thehill.com/...ehicle-mandate/

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=7a6efcf16f44

 

https://www.autoweek...andate-dropped/

 

 

But manufacturers were already a long way down the route of going electric.

 

In the UK, I'm sure the delay is down to the realisation that there is no interest in paying to install all of the infrastructure required to cope with the number of vehicles. Right now, I would say the biggest concern people have about purchasing EVs is down to where to charge them and how long it will take to charge them. The government do not want to pay for installing charging bays and the private sector are only concerned about installing them in affluent areas (read London), where people already have EVs and the places where those people will want to park up for a couple of hours.

[chrcol]

In the UK, I'm sure the delay is down to the realisation that there is no interest in paying to install all of the infrastructure required to cope with the number of vehicles. Right now, I would say the biggest concern people have about purchasing EVs is down to where to charge them and how long it will take to charge them. The government do not want to pay for installing charging bays and the private sector are only concerned about installing them in affluent areas (read London), where people already have EVs and the places where those people will want to park up for a couple of hours.

That plus the tax element.

[Wuzak]

The power unit will be heavier. Its only a question of how much heavier.

 

Doubtful it would be significantly heavier, if at all.

[pdac]

That plus the tax element.

 

Oh, and the insurance companies concerns (meaning either higher premiums or simply not offering insurance on EVs) over the cost of repairs being significantly higher than 'regular' vehicles.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Facepalm. The 2026 power units will weigh 34 kg more

The MGU-H was and is still the answer. It really is FREE energy!