Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2026 F1 Power Unit Regulations


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 November 2022 - 11:22

A topic about this is in the Racing Comments forum, but it takes a back seat to the many discussions of current events in F1.

 

Internal Combustion Engine

 

The ICE remains a 1.6L V6 with single turbo.

 

The rules have become even more prescriptive for the ICE design, including sizes for crankshaft journals and the cylinder deck height. 

 

The fuel flow is reduced and is now specified as energy flow, rather than mass flow.

 

The energy flow is

 

EF (MJ/h) = 0.27 N (rpm) + 165 up to 10,500rpm.

 

Maximum energy flow is 3000MJ/h

 

The energy flow will be controlled by the fuel flow sensor, with the mass flow converted to energy flow using the LHV of the fuel.

 

Maximum rpm is 15,000rpm.

 

Estimated power output is 400kW (536hp), which equates to a thermal efficiency of 48%.

 

That compares to the current ICE output of approximately 600kW (805hp).

 

Geometric compression ratio is not to exceed 16.0:1.

 

Minimum mass is 130kg, which includes the turbocharger, intakes, exhausts, and various other items, but not the MGUK (current rules include MGUK and MGUH).

 

Variable length intakes and exhausts are not permitted.

 

 

Turbocharger

The size of the turbocharger is also tightly specified.

 

The compressor exducer is to be between 100mm and 110mm in diameter. 

The turbine inducer is to be between 95mm and 105mm.

 

The maximum distance between the compressor and turbine is to be no more than 175mm (so no split turbos).

 

Turbo must be positioned parallel to car's vertical centre plane, and no more than 25mm to either side of it, and no more than 1 degree from from horizontal plane.

 

The minimum weight of the turbocharger is 12kg.

 

The turbocharger's rotational speed may not exceed 150,000rpm.

 

Variable geometry is not permitted for the turbo, except for wastegates.

 

Maximum pressure at the engine intake is 4.8 bar absolute.

 

 

MGUK

The MGUK has been increased in power from 120kW to 350kW.

 

The minimum weight of the MGUK is 16kg.

 

The MGUK's drive axis must be parallel to the ICE's crankshaft.

 

The electrical power (DC) sent to the MGUK may not exceed:

P(kW)=1850-5* car speed (kph) when the car speed is below 340kph

150kW when the car speed is above 340kph.

 

5.4.11 With the exception of cars starting or resuming the race from the pit lane, the MGU-K may only be used during a standing start once the car has reached 50km/h. (this is 100kph in the current regulations).

 

The maximum energy recovery per lap is 9MJ (currently 2MJ) from MGUK to ES.

Energy deployment per lap is unlimited (currently 4MJ from ES to MGUK).

 

5.14.5 The driver maximum torque demand may only be reduced at a maximum rate of 100kW in any 1s period and the power reduction will be limited to a maximum of 450kW.

 

This suggests that the MGUK can recover up to 100kW while the driver has maximum torque demand, meaning that by the end of the straight the output has fallen from 400kW + 350kW =750kW to 400kW - 100kW = 300kW. The ICE output could also be reduced, but seems unlikely given other energy restraints.

 

 

MGUK Transmission

This connects the MGUK to the ICE.

 

It has a minimum weight of 4kg, which can be added to the minimum mass of the MGUK (making that 20kg), or the ICE (making that 134kg), or shared equally between both (MGUK 18kg, ICE 132kg).

 

 

Power Unit Overall Mass

The current power units have a minimum mass of 150kg, including ICE, turbo, intakes, exhausts, MGUK and MGUH.

 

The new power unit has a minimum mass of 130kg + 16kg + 4kg = 150kg. So, exactly the same. With less power.

 

 

Energy Store (ES)

The energy store has the same capacity as the current unit. That is a difference between maximum and minimum state of charge at any time of 4MJ.

 

The minimum mass of the ES defined in the 2026 regulations is 35kg. This is more than the current regulations (25kg), but includes more equipment, including controllers and cables.

 

 

Fuel

Fuel is to be a sustainable petrol.

 

Some of the properties are:

Octane Rating: 95 - 102 RON (current regulations - minimum 87 (RON + MON)/2 )

LHV (MJ/kg): 38.0 - 41.0 (not specified in current regulations)

Density at 15°C (kg/m³) 720 - 785 (not specified in current regulations)

 

 

Other

Some regulations have yet to be finalised.

 

Clause 5.17 says:"The car must be fired up with its on-board system (MGU-K) at any time." No more remote starter?

 

 

Upgrades

Upgrades to the ICE are largely confined to combustion chamber design (including pistons), fuel injectors and camshafts. 

Upgrades to the MGUK will be permitted.

 

Upgrades will follow a schedule, and most items that can be upgraded can only do so in specified years.

 

 

The Cars

No specification for the 2026 cars have yet been released. The suggestions have been that the cars will be smaller than current and that active aerodynamics will be involved.

 

Minimum mass is unlikely to change much, if at all, as the PU hasn't been reduced in mass, and any reductions due to the elimination of the MGUH will be offset by the increase in size of the MGUK.


Edited by Wuzak, 14 November 2022 - 15:10.


Advertisement

#2 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 November 2022 - 11:47

My take is that these rules are not going to produce very good racing.

 

  1. The cars are still going to be heavy, so will be just as clumsy in slow corners.
  2. The elimination of the MGUH will make the turbos more laggy, which some believe will lead to more spectacular racing and require the drivers to adapt their styles. However, if the number of gear ratios remain at 8 it is likely that the turbo can be kept on boost for most corners. And when it is not it will be compensated by the MGUK.
  3. MGUK power will mainly be used at maximum to offset the turbo lag and punch the cars out of corners (like mid 2010s LMP1). Storage is limited t 4MJ, which means approximately 11s of deployment at full MGUK power. La Source to Les Combes at Spa and T16 to T1 at Baku are around 25s at full throttle, for comaprison.
  4. Driving will be all about energy management. Lift-and-coast will be king! Current cars are allowed to recover 2MJ from the MGUK to the ES, but they can't do that at most tracks during braking alone. So they lift-and-coast. The allowed recovery power for 2026 is 2.9 times that currently, but the allowed energy recovery is 4.5 times. That means either they have to lift-and-coast for longer, or they will have to burn fuel to recover the energy. At some tracks 9MJ will not be possible to recover, so it will be a matter of how much they can actually recover.
  5. Autosport ran an article and posted a YouTube video where they suggested that dropping the MGUH will lead to louder, better sounding cars. I am not convinced, as the fuel flow ramp is the same, it peaks at the same rpm and the maximum rpm is the same. But the exhaust energy is going to be about 2/3 of the current PUs, and it still drives a turbo.
  6. Standing starts will be with 500hp rather than the 800hp now. 


#3 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 69,648 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 November 2022 - 19:22

6 is awful. They don't even get wheelspin(in any meaningful sense, for the drama of a standing start) leaving the grid/pits as it is.



#4 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2022 - 21:05

 

The turbocharger's rotational speed may not exceed 15,000rpm.

 

.

 

Seems low?

 

Thanks Wuzak, good thread.

 

I think dropping the -H is a mistake.  I know the manufacturers, especially incoming, wanted it dropped, but a better solution would be the supply of a spec unit - Honda or Merc could do that and make a few bob on the side.

 

6 is awful. They don't even get wheelspin(in any meaningful sense, for the drama of a standing start) leaving the grid/pits as it is.

 

I think that is more about maximising acceleration than an inability to spin them up whenever/wherever they want to. 


Edited by GreenMachine, 13 November 2022 - 21:06.


#5 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 November 2022 - 22:39

It's a typo

 

5.5.6 The rotational speed of the turbocharger may not exceed 150,000rpm

 

https://www.fia.com/..._2022-08-16.pdf



#6 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 69,648 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 November 2022 - 23:58

Seems low?

 

Thanks Wuzak, good thread.

 

I think dropping the -H is a mistake.  I know the manufacturers, especially incoming, wanted it dropped, but a better solution would be the supply of a spec unit - Honda or Merc could do that and make a few bob on the side.

 

 

I think that is more about maximising acceleration than an inability to spin them up whenever/wherever they want to. 

 

Yeah it's the systems they have and the grip and etc. Call me old fashioned but I think if you let the clutch out with 1000hp in a 1000kg vehicle the tires should smoke a little. Especially if you're in a hurry to get to the next turn. F1 standing starts went from(over the course of decades) being one of the most exciting moments in sport to almost not being able to tell the difference between the start of the formation lap and the Grand Prix.



#7 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 00:14

It's a typo

 

5.5.6 The rotational speed of the turbocharger may not exceed 150,000rpm

 

https://www.fia.com/..._2022-08-16.pdf

 

Yep, a typo.

 

Fixed it now.



#8 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 03:07

Spec supercharged pushrod SBC clones with slightly higher output to compensate for the (presumably) higher mass would make a lot more sense. 



#9 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 05:29

Spec supercharged pushrod SBC clones with slightly higher output to compensate for the (presumably) higher mass would make a lot more sense. 

 

Just ditch the ERS, keep the current 1.6L V6 turbo with 100kg/h fuel flow. Could probably do better than the 2026 minimum weight of 130kg as well.

 

800hp, car minimum weight down to ~700-725kg from ~800kg.

 

And have some anti-lag!


Edited by Wuzak, 14 November 2022 - 05:31.


#10 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 05:32

Each manufacturer is allowed 4 power units per car for 2026, 3 each season after that. New manufacturers allowed 4 in their first year.



#11 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 06:12

Spec supercharged pushrod SBC clones with slightly higher output to compensate for the (presumably) higher mass would make a lot more sense. 

 

What was the last cam-in-block overhead valve engine used in F1?

 

Was there ever one?

 

I know the Repco V8 was based on a pushrod OHV engine, but it was a SOHC.



#12 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 November 2022 - 09:53

One of the things that has yet to be finalised, or at least published, is the race fuel allocation.

 

Likely to be specified in MJ, as for the fuel energy flow.

 

If the 2014-2016 rules are a guide, the fuel usage will be limited to 3000MJ for the race. From 2017 the race allocation was increased because of the new aero rules causing extra drag.



#13 GregThomas

GregThomas
  • Member

  • 157 posts
  • Joined: January 22

Posted 14 November 2022 - 17:39

What was the last cam-in-block overhead valve engine used in F1?

 

Was there ever one?

 

I know the Repco V8 was based on a pushrod OHV engine, but it was a SOHC.

 Lago - Talbot 4.5 litre postwar.  High cam pushrod layout. Their economy in long races gave Ferrari the idea to try an unblown engine.

 

I'd have to say that the extremenly tight IC engine regs do pretty well ensure a spec engine. Only a small step further to put it into pracise. Not a good thing at this level IMO.



#14 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 November 2022 - 04:16

Lago - Talbot 4.5 litre postwar.  High cam pushrod layout. Their economy in long races gave Ferrari the idea to try an unblown engine.


Thanks for that.

 

So, only for the initial F1 rules (1947-1951)? 


 

I'd have to say that the extremenly tight IC engine regs do pretty well ensure a spec engine. Only a small step further to put it into pracise. Not a good thing at this level IMO.


They apparently want concentration on developing the electrical side, though that too is heavily regulated.

 

It seems most of the development will be in the energy management side. How much to harvest, where and how to harvest, where and how much to deploy.

 

There is also some development allowed for the ICE, mainly related to the combustion chamber.



#15 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 15 November 2022 - 14:45

Are there fans or young people somewhere nerding out on the energy management of F1 powertrains? Do the teams even release enough information about the hardware/software involved to make that possible? At least with even the late pure IC F1 cars, the engines were still a relatively open book. You could look at the external shapes and determine a lot about what was inside and how it worked it was still basically similar to the car in your driveway. And people were still commissioning and publishing cutaways (albeit slightly obfuscated), and we had a good idea about what was inside. You didn't find out any great hidden surprises when the five-year old "historic" F1 cars began trickling into private collectors' hands. By comparison, today's F1 cars' powertrains are utter black boxes, nobody really knows what they are, and consequently nobody cares either. As far as the fans are concerned, they may as well be specced. Hybrids like F1 cars are today, are even likely a technology well on its way to the dustbin of history. Not only is the tech opaque, it wouldn't be that significant or interesting to most even if we understood it well. And the incredibly tight regulatory box they are confined to means they have almost all the disadvantages of a spec powertrain, with none of the offsetting huge upsides in cost control and competitive balance you'd get from embracing, rather than just flirting with, enforced conformity. The current powertrain formula is literally the worst of both regulatory worlds, neither the freedom to innovate nor the enormous advantages of a spec formula, just typical corporate timidity and indecisiveness embodied in regulations. 



#16 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 69,648 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 15 November 2022 - 16:42

Hybrids are going to be with us for a long time. We may temporarily go EV mad, but we'll retreat to a fossil-electric powertrain sooner than you think.

 

What racing needs to figure out is how to make a hybrid a competitive advantage not something shoehorned into the regs. I think all things being equal everyone would just run highly stung ICEs to get the same power and get rid of the weight and failure points?



#17 GregThomas

GregThomas
  • Member

  • 157 posts
  • Joined: January 22

Posted 15 November 2022 - 17:42

I've seen a suggestion more than once in the bike world that a simple energy allocation with the methodology of using it left up to constructors might be the way forward.

This was of course being proposed as a way to bring back two strokes which were seen as being much cheaper to build.

But it has relevance to electric power too.

 

I'd suspect that yes, at least initially it would be highly strung ICE's. But who knows what combinations may come out, particularly if there were weight bonuses for different powertrain combos.



#18 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2022 - 00:41

I've seen a suggestion more than once in the bike world that a simple energy allocation with the methodology of using it left up to constructors might be the way forward.

 

F1 have an energy allocation - the race fuel allowance. Currently that is 110kg/race, which means that a team with more energy dense fuel has more energy to use. For 2026 it is likely to be limited by MJ, as is the fuel flow rate (MJ/hr).

 

The fear with F1 has been that one or more constructors will go down the wrong path and it would take years and a lot of money to recover.


Edited by Wuzak, 16 November 2022 - 00:42.


#19 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2022 - 00:45

Are there fans or young people somewhere nerding out on the energy management of F1 powertrains?

 
There are certainly many fans who love the technical aspect of F1.

 

Do the teams even release enough information about the hardware/software involved to make that possible?

 
Probably not enough. More openness would help.



Advertisement

#20 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2022 - 00:48

What racing needs to figure out is how to make a hybrid a competitive advantage not something shoehorned into the regs. I think all things being equal everyone would just run highly stung ICEs to get the same power and get rid of the weight and failure points?

 

If we use the 2026 regulations as a basis, would a 536hp 1.6L turbo engine in a chassis weighing 700kg have any chance at beating a (sometimes) 1000hp V6 Turbo Hybrid in a car weighing 800kg?



#21 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2022 - 04:51

The regulations seem to be very much like LMP1 from the mid 2010s.

 

LMP1 had - approximately 500hp ICE, 500hp MGU and 8MJ* recovery allowed.

 

* There were 4MJ, 6MJ and 8MJ classes, which had different allowed fuel flows (the more MJ the lower the fuel flow), denoting the amount of energy recovery per lap at Le Mans. The recovery limit was scaled for shorter tracks, the scale factor being the track length divided by Le Mans track length.

 

 

Indycar is also going hybrid next year. They are, of course, going a slightly different way. The engines have increased in size - 2.4L up from 2.2L, ICE power is increasing from ~650-700hp to 800hp+ and the hybrid unit is only 100hp. I'm not clear if that is to be lused every lap, or to have limited use as push-to-pass.



#22 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 November 2022 - 15:02

Mandating hybrid powertrains (as opposed to merely allowing them) in motorsport is akin to requiring vitamins be put into whisky, no matter how it tastes. It is a category error.



#23 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2022 - 03:23

Mandating hybrid powertrains (as opposed to merely allowing them) in motorsport is akin to requiring vitamins be put into whisky, no matter how it tastes. It is a category error.

 

It would be interesting to see a comparison between a hybrid and a non-hubrid where the ICE regulations are teh same, but the car weight is as low as possible for each type.

 

Would a 530hp turbo V6 weighing ~700kg be competitive with a sometimes 1,000hp V6 turbo hybrid weighing 800kg?

 

Obviously the hybrid would punch out of slow corners faster, but would they be as nimble through the slow corners and chicanes?



#24 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,366 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 November 2022 - 20:21

Just a guess, but I think the last pushrod engine in F1 was the Jo Siffert Lotus 22 (?) with Ford Consul engine in the 1.5L era.

 

Definitely a  one-off though, not indicative of anything. 



#25 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 November 2022 - 12:14

One of the reasons put forward for axing the MGUH and increasing the MGUK power was for "road relevance".

 

But the number of 1.6L turbos far outweighs the number of 1.6L turbo hybrids on the roads today, and will likely for the next several years.

 

There are a few hybrid supercars/hypercars on the market. Apart from the Koenigsegg Gemera and AMG One, most seem to have relatively small amounts of MGUK power. And teh AMG One has a 220hp MGUH.

 

The Ferrari SF90 has ~220hp out of near 1,000hp, the Ferrari 296GTB has 165hp/819hp, the McLaren Artura 94hp/671hp, the Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 34hp/808hp and the Lamborghini Countach LPI 800-4 34hp/803hp.

 

Where are the on road hybrids where the electric power is nearly half the total?



#26 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 November 2022 - 12:28

I wonder if it would have been better to have made a 1L triple instead of continuing with the 1.6L V6 architecture.

 

Going for 1/3 less power could have been achieved with 1/3 less capacity. 

 

The V6 for 2026 has a minimum weight of 130kg, including the 12kg turbo. So 118kg not including turbo. Half of that is 59kg, but the crank will be a similar weight as the V6. So, call it (conservatively) 70kg, add back the turbo, and it is 82kg. A saving of 48kg.

 

The triple would be more compact, though would not give the same structural support as the V6 for the chassis.

 

They could make it transverse, making the transmission slightly more efficient, and also for an even shorter wheelbase. And be more road relevant.

 

Of course they could change to a 1.067L V4 (2/3 of the 1.6L V6) and still have the structural advantages of the vee configuration. I would think it heavier than the triple, though.



#27 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 29 November 2022 - 15:17

Closest to real-world relevance would be to allow X amount of fuel for race distance and leave it 100% to the carmaker how to use it. Turbo triple hybrid? Fine. V-16 NA? Equally so. Real world doesn't force a design on the carmaker, it allows innovation.



#28 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 30 November 2022 - 00:59

Closest to real-world relevance would be to allow X amount of fuel for race distance and leave it 100% to the carmaker how to use it. Turbo triple hybrid? Fine. V-16 NA? Equally so. Real world doesn't force a design on the carmaker, it allows innovation.

 

The 2014 rules did the X amount of fuel part, and so will the 2026 rules.

 

However, manufacturers are skittish that they will invest their money on the wrong solution, meaning they would have to start over and, probably, never catch up.

 

It has been this way since 2001 in F1, when Toyota was about to enter and the rumours were that they were going to do so with a V12, while everybody else had a V10. 

 

The current Le Mans Hypercar and the Le Mans Daytona Hybrid classes allow for different engine types. But their power outputs are limited, so that the power curve for all power units is the same when plotted against percentage of maximum rpm. 



#29 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 30 November 2022 - 05:17

The LMH rules specify a maximum power measured by wheel drive shaft sensors.

 

The combined power curve is:

            Power (kW)
N/Nmax	P 	Pmin 	Pmax 
0.55	246	236	256
0.575	269	258	279
0.6	289	277	300
0.625	309	297	322
0.65	330	317	343
0.675	351	337	365
0.7	372	358	387
0.725	393	378	409
0.75	413	397	430
0.775	432	415	449
0.8	449	431	467
0.825	464	445	482
0.85	475	456	494
0.875	485	466	505
0.9	492	472	512
0.925	497	477	517
0.95	500	480	520
0.975	498	478	518
1	495	475	514
1.025	427	410	444

Pmin and Pmax are the low and high values of the adjustment range for balance of performance.

 

The MGUK can only drive the front wheels, except one based on a production system.

 

The maximum power of the MGUK is 200kW. Energy storage, recovery and deployment is unlimited.

 

With the power curve above, it is conceivable that the ICE produces more power in some parts of the curve, and the MGUK brings the power back to the specified amount by recovering energy.

 

The MGUK cannot, however, deploy at below 120kph when dry tyres are fitted (higher speed when non-dry tyres are fitted). The exception is recovering to the pits when the speed never exceeds 120kph.

 

The ERS is optional.

 

A fuel flow meter is to be fitted, but I can't find a fuel flow rate specified.

 

Edit: Fixed the data so it is readable.


Edited by Wuzak, 01 December 2022 - 01:06.


#30 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,366 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 November 2022 - 16:19

Wuzak, thanks for posting all this  info. 



#31 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 69,648 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 30 November 2022 - 20:55

Closest to real-world relevance would be to allow X amount of fuel for race distance and leave it 100% to the carmaker how to use it. Turbo triple hybrid? Fine. V-16 NA? Equally so. Real world doesn't force a design on the carmaker, it allows innovation.

 

Wouldn't this create incredible expense because you'd have to research and simulate every possible permutation? And potentially find out your engine tooling was all wrong? In racing you need a competitive engine. In road car it only has to work.



#32 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 December 2022 - 01:17

Wuzak, thanks for posting all this  info. 

 

You're welcome.

 

I am concerned that the direction the 2026 rules is taking is backwards (ie, back to the old LMP1 regs) and will lead to less exciting racing.

 

I recall someone saying a few years ago that the difference between F1 and LMP1 was that the LMP1 accelerated hard from the corner, but stopped accelerating not long into the straight, whereas F1 cars keep accelerating almost the whole length of the straight. The 2026 rules seem to favour the old LMP1 way.

 

They are basically encouraging the teams to use the MGUK as a generator (power output can fall up to 450kW at full torque demand when MGUK is 350kW). 



#33 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 01 December 2022 - 15:05

Wouldn't this create incredible expense because you'd have to research and simulate every possible permutation? And potentially find out your engine tooling was all wrong? In racing you need a competitive engine. In road car it only has to work.

The designs would inevitably converge on a common solution. And once that common solution was known, you'd likely never need fundamentally change the regs again. The savings over the long term would be astronomical. Having to react to silly, constantly changing rules must be the worst/most expensive path. 



#34 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,366 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 December 2022 - 15:20

I don't think these crazy energy systems are harbingers of useful technology. 

 

To me, if it doesn't entice people to watch and get excited, it's not a sound investment in the sport. 

 

Perhaps it's time for F1 to acknowledge what it is, an enjoyable anachromism based on a passing technology, and fully embrace it. 

 

My $0000.02. 



#35 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 01 December 2022 - 15:28

If that's the case, why not use spec crate SBC lumps supercharged to whatever output is desired? Everyone is competitive, everyone has the same low powertrain costs. If you are going the spec route (as it currently largely is) why not fully embrace that and reap all the attendant benefits?



#36 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 69,648 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 December 2022 - 15:40

But you have to pick a lane. You can either be a manufacturer series or a privateer spec-engine/whatever series. 

 

With the current budget caps having everyone run a Cosworth with much looser car regs could be interesting(I don't know how you solve the Ferrari Question though).



#37 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 December 2022 - 03:31

If that's the case, why not use spec crate SBC lumps supercharged to whatever output is desired? Everyone is competitive, everyone has the same low powertrain costs.

 
Where is the interest in that?
 
Is anybody, other than you, suggesting that?

 

Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Porsche, Audi and Ford would not be interested in that.

 

Ferrari has been a fixture on the grid since 1950, Mercedes (as engine supplier and now team) since 1993. Renault has been on the grid as an engine supplier or team since 1977, apart from a few years, and similarly Honda has been on the grid most of the time since the early 1980s.

 

The SBC hasn't been in a production car for 30+ years? Chevrolet's top engine is a N/A DOHC V8 with flat plane crank. I doubt even they would be interested in such a formula.

 

And without those big names, what of the sponsors? Would they be interested?

 

But let's be fair. Let's allow SBC based engines into F1. Also allow 1.6L V6 Turbos (without the hybrid). Then let them use the same fuel flow rate.

 

At 3000MJ/hr, the V6 turbos will put out around 530hp. The SBC about half that?

 

If you are going the spec route (as it currently largely is) why not fully embrace that and reap all the attendant benefits?

 
The development areas in the 2026 power units is largely confined to the combustion chamber and to energy management.

 

While I do not care too much for the latter part of the regulations, an improvements of 1% in thermal efficiency equates to about 10hp under the 2026 energy flow regulations (3000MJ/Hr).



#38 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 December 2022 - 03:37

I don't think these crazy energy systems are harbingers of useful technology. 

 

To me, if it doesn't entice people to watch and get excited, it's not a sound investment in the sport. 

 

Perhaps it's time for F1 to acknowledge what it is, an enjoyable anachromism based on a passing technology, and fully embrace it. 

 

My $0000.02. 

 

The supposed goal is efficiency.

 

To that end the 2026 cars will have active aero, reducing drag on the straights and keeping the downforce for the corners. To me it is an admission that the Power Units are weak.

 

But efficiency would also be gained by not carting around 75kg+ of extra weight which allows extra power to be deployed for only part of the lap. Plus the cars would be more nimble, and more entertaining.

 

But if they kept the ICE power as now, but dumped the ERS, allowed some extra fuel for anti--lag, the cars will be lighter and more spectacular.

 

The new gen Formula E car allows recharging, How long before they start doing Grand Prix distances with a few charges?



#39 GregThomas

GregThomas
  • Member

  • 157 posts
  • Joined: January 22

Posted 02 December 2022 - 07:11

 

 

The new gen Formula E car allows recharging, How long before they start doing Grand Prix distances with a few charges?

 

Not very long is the answer IMO. The current formula is a halfway house towards this. Sooner or later the decision between entertainment and technical relevance has to be made.

 

Personally I'd like to see big HP ICE powered cars giving us a last hurrah of fossil fueled heroics before it all goes silent. Go out with a last golden age of power and noise.



Advertisement

#40 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 December 2022 - 10:03

Perhaps it's time for F1 to acknowledge what it is, an enjoyable anachromism based on a passing technology, and fully embrace it. 

 

Petrol powered race cars may be anachroristic, but the majority of cars in the world will still use internal combustion engines for some time.



#41 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,366 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 December 2022 - 10:17

Petrol powered race cars may be anachroristic, but the majority of cars in the world will still use internal combustion engines for some time.

 

That is absolutely true, but now F1 no longer points toward the future. I think the energy systems are an attempt to make it seem so. 



#42 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,366 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 December 2022 - 10:25

If that's the case, why not use spec crate SBC lumps supercharged to whatever output is desired? Everyone is competitive, everyone has the same low powertrain costs. If you are going the spec route (as it currently largely is) why not fully embrace that and reap all the attendant benefits?

 

There is no bigger fan of the SBC than me, but perhaps a more palatable option would be an engine formula based on current production ICE engines. 

 

I think every auto manufacturer in the world can come up with a ~750 hp turbo something  or other. 



#43 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 December 2022 - 07:33

With the 2026 cars supposedly being smaller, especially for the wheelbase, I wondered what impact that would have on weight balance.

 

With the PU being more or less the same mass, the centre of mass would move rearwards.

 

I wondered if the manufacturers could put the MGUK forward of the engine to move the CoG back towards the front, but the regulatory boxes for the power unit are not spelt out in the regulations - they are defined by CAD files, which may not be publicly available.



#44 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 December 2022 - 07:37

Does the LHV of 38.0 - 41.0 MJ/kg seem low for petrol?


Edited by Wuzak, 21 December 2022 - 07:55.


#45 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 21 December 2022 - 07:49

High octane fuels tend to have a lower LHV per kg because there are too many C-C bonds whereas the C-H bonds are more useful.



#46 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 December 2022 - 08:00

High octane fuels tend to have a lower LHV per kg because there are too many C-C bonds whereas the C-H bonds are more useful.

 

The octane rating is to be between 95 and 102 RON.

 

Is that very high for petrol? 



#47 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 21 December 2022 - 21:06

102 is highish, that's what we used to use for proto engines to develop the spark curves



#48 SteveH60

SteveH60
  • New Member

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: December 22

Posted 01 January 2023 - 10:13

New to the forum (so be gentle) but far from new to the sport, circa 1965 this then child took a great interest in his fellow Countryman, Jim Clark and have stuck with F1 and other motorsports since.
Iove technology and as a pro-engineer had to actively seek it out, understand it, adapt & develop it for use in my industry - no easy task.
My point is that F1 has drifted far away from its roots. I understand and have enjoyed many aspects of the upgrade in safety that has saved so many from death and maiming. I understand the need to grasp new technology to clean up some areas of motorsport but honesty, F1 racing was never meant to be about racing "cars" the length and width of LWB transit vans and heading towards 1500 kg lumbering around tracks with little chance of overtakes.
I believe that F1 really needs to take time out and get back to light, nimble, high powered racing cars and sure, keep the weighty hybrid formula but its just not F1.
Thoughts?

Edited by SteveH60, 01 January 2023 - 10:28.


#49 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 January 2023 - 11:28

1500kg is an exaggeration.

 

They will likely be no more than 900kg with driver and maximum fuel on board.

 

But they should be lighter.



#50 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 26,425 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 01 January 2023 - 15:44

It's inelegant to have such large, heavy cars at "the pinnacle of motorsport" but it surely makes safety targets easier and it isn't obvious that having lighter, smaller, more elegant cars would improve the spectacle. I don't get the hybrid idea in F1 however, what's the upside for either the entrants or the fan? Must be expensive as hell and adds little/nothing.