73 replies to this topic

[MatsNorway]

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. 

And that is why no one cares about these series. Something new gets attention and if it is fast enough sure. But once you got something wilder or slightly more varied that takes all the attention. BoP racing is and will always be fake racing.. Its like a remote controlled electric collar on a race horse "BZZT!, tsk tsk you are to fast, slow down"

When the race car makes less umph! than the street car you know you are looking at something far more tame than what it could have been. Pikes peak gets far more attention than the racing deserves. Fields are usually thin and varied and there is not really a lot of racers with a big following. Its an oddity gathering fame from being a time capsule of what once was and what could have been.

 

As for engine noise not much can sound worse than a I3 and V6s. I guess a fatter mix in a smaller engine as suggested could sound better in some way? The real issue is the engine running so lean at high rpm. Its all kinds of bad, give em a flatter fuel flow and suddenly they would sound quite a lot better with a desirable increase in road relevance. For engine config i think a Straight five would sound the best but a V4 or I4 would probably make the most sense. And with a weight loss the engine fabs would agree upon.

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 January 2023 - 18:25.

[Wuzak]

Seems that manufacturers like the formula, with GM showing interest.

 

I still don't think it will make for good racing.

[Wuzak]

The Porsche 919 Evo briefly held the outright lap record at Spa (beaten by Hamilton in his Mercedes a few months later).

 

The Porsche 919 Evo had 440hp MGUK (compared to 2026's ~470hp), and a 720hp engine (~530hp for 2026 regulations). There were no limits on ERS deployment, recovery, or energy storage. It weight 50kg, or so, more than current F1 cars (not clear if that was with or without driver).

 

Is there anyway that the 2026 cars could be as aerodynamically efficient, considering that they should still be open wheel cars?

[Greg Locock]

I don't think so. A rather broadbush look at Katz suggested that open wheelers run a Cd about 0.05 worse than enclosed wheel cars, even at zero downforce, and get worse, faster as you add more aero. He does go into more detail than that, as does Milliken.

Edited by Greg Locock, 10 January 2023 - 07:25.

[Wuzak]

I don't think so. A rather broadbush look at Katz suggested that open wheelers run a Cd about 0.05 worse than enclosed wheel cars, even at zero downforce, and get worse, faster as you add more aero. He does go into more detail than that, as does Milliken.

 

So with less power, less available power (Porsche 919 Evo also had MGUH) and only slightly less weight, how will they get even close to current car times?

[Greg Locock]

Who what when? Sorry, I was talking about Cd, nothing else.

[Wuzak]

Who what when? Sorry, I was talking about Cd, nothing else.

The 2026 F1 cars.
 
The 2026 cars will, supposedly, have active aero, to reduce drag on the straights while maintaining downforce for the corners.
 
But they won't have any significant weight loss compared to the current F1 cars.

[desmo]

Factories love continuously adding weight/bulk to cars, this consistent trend towards ever larger and heavier F1 cars must be dear to their hearts.

[Wuzak]

[Wuzak]

Verstappen on the 2026 rules

 

“I've been talking about that as well with the team, and I've seen the data already on the simulator as well,” he said. “To me, it looks pretty terrible.

 

“If you go flat-out on the straight at Monza, and I don't know what it is, like four or five hundred [metres] before the end of the straight, you have to downshift flat-out because that's faster. I think that's not the way forward. But of course, probably that's one of the worst tracks.”

 

https://www.autospor...appen/10490934/

 

 

Christian Horner

 

"I think that perhaps where we need to pay urgent attention, before it's too late, is to look at the ratio between combustion power and electrical power," he said at the Austrian Grand Prix.

 

"[We need] to ensure that we're not creating a technical Frankenstein, which will require the chassis to compensate to such a degree with moveable aero and reduce the drag to such a level that the racing will be affected – and that there will be no tow effect and no DRS because effectively you're running like that at all points in time.

 

"Plus, with the characteristics of these engines, that the combustion engine just doesn't become a generator to recharge a battery."

 

https://www.autospor...orner/10489541/

[Wuzak]

Though Toto Wolff has suggested that the complaints from Red Bull may be because they aren't getting the numbers they want from their engine program.

[Wuzak]

Mark Hughes has suggested that teh ICE could produce as much as 450kW, which would be 54% thermal efficiency. Which would be a huge leap, considering they don't get that now and can use the MGUH and MGUK as a tubro-compound system.
 

At the current level of technology we are looking at power units with a total of around 1100bhp or 800Kw (split 450Kw/350Kw between engine and battery) which will suddenly be bereft of the battery’s 350kw contribution somewhere on the lap. It raises the prospect of hazardously big speed differentials as one car empties its charge for the lap and the other does not, but there are other implications too, as Verstappen elucidated after trying the ’26 PU on the simulator.

 
https://www.motorspo...y-have-a-point/

Edited by Wuzak, 11 July 2023 - 16:41.

[Wuzak]

Auto Motor und Sport are reporting that calculations show that the 2026 cars will burn 30kg of fuel just to charge the battery.

 

https://twitter.com/...on^s1_&ref_url=

 

The race fuel limit looks like it will be ~100kg, which is the same as for 2014-2016.

[desmo]

I still watch the races but Formula Prius is about as technically stimulating as a Prius.

[Wuzak]

Some revisions have been made to the 2026 F1 Power Unit regulations.
 

Internal Combustion Engine
 
The energy flow is
 
EF (MJ/h) = 0.27 N (rpm) + 165 up to 10,500rpm.
 
Maximum energy flow is 3000MJ/h
 

This has been revised with the addition of 5.4.5:

 

5.4.3 Fuel energy flow must not exceed 3000MJ/h.

5.4.4 Below 10500rpm the fuel energy flow must not exceed EF(MJ/h)=0.27*N(rpm)+ 165

5.4.5 At partial load, the fuel energy flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:

• EF (MJ/h) = 380 when the engine power is equal to or below ‐50kW
• EF (MJ/h) = 9.78 x engine power (kW) + 869 when the engine power is above ‐50kW

 

The biggest changes relate to the MGUK output:
 

MGUK
 
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.
 
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.

5.4.7 The absolute electrical DC power of the ERS‐K may not exceed 350kW.

5.4.8 Additionally, the electrical DC power of the ERS‐K used to propel the car may not exceed:

i) P(kW) = 1800 – 5 * car speed (kph) when the car speed is below 340kph

P(kW) = 6900 – 20 * car speed (kph) when the car speed is equal to or above 340kph

P(kW) = 0 when the car speed is equal to or above 345kph

ii) In “override” mode up to:

P(kW) = 7100 – 20 * car speed (kph) when the car speed is below 355kph

P(kW) = 0 when the car speed is equal to or above 355kph

The details of the “override” mode are specified in the Sporting Regulations.

 

5.4.9 The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not

exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track.

5.4.10 The energy harvested by the ERS‐K, as measured at the CU‐K HV DC Bus, must not exceed 8.5MJ in each lap, subject to the following additional conditions:

This limit applies to the energy going out of the CU‐K HV DC Bus.

i) Exceptionally, this limit on energy harvested in each lap may be reduced to 8MJ at Competitions where the FIA determines that the maximum possible energy harvested per lap under braking and in partial load is no more than 8MJ. These Competitions and the vehicle fundamentals used for the calculation of maximum energy harvested will be provided in the Appendix to the Technical and Sporting Regulations.

ii) Up to 0.5MJ additional energy may be harvested in each lap subject to the conditions specified in Article xxx of the Sporting Regulations.

 

This means that the maximum MGUK power (350kW) is available up to 290km/h normally, compared to 300kph previously.

 

In override mode the maximum MGUK power (350kW) is available up to 337.5kph. 

 

 

Also, they have made changes to the rules surrounding torque demand.

 

5.14 Power unit torque or power demand

 

5.14.5 At any given engine speed, the minimum torque in the driver torque demand map must be a value achievable with the power unit when the ERS‐K power is 0.

5.14.6 Except for conforming to Article 5.4.7, the electrical DC power of the ERS‐K must be a minimum of 200kW for 1s at the start of any full throttle period.

5.14.7 The driver maximum power demand cannot be increased during any full throttle period, except when the overtake mode, as specified in the Appendix to the Regulations, is selected by the driver.

5.14.8 The driver maximum power demand must not be reduced at any greater than the rates defined below:

a) 50kW in any 1s period at Competitions where the FIA determines that the power limited distance exceeds 3500m. These Competitions and the vehicle fundamentals used for the calculation of the power limited distance may be found in the Appendix to the Technical and Sporting Regulations.

b) 100kW in any 1s period at all other Competitions.

Furthermore, the total power reduction is limited to a maximum of 450kW and the resulting electrical DC power of the ERS‐K must remain above ‐100kW.

5.14.9 The electrical DC power of the ERS‐K may not be reduced at rates greater than those specified in Article 5.14.8, unless:

• the theoretical MGUK power resulting from reduction at rates equal to those specified in Article 5.14.8 is negative;
• the ICE power is negative and the ERS‐K power needs to be reduced further to achieve the driver demand;
• the ERS‐K power needs to be reduced further to achieve the maximum power permitted by Article 5.4.7;
• the driver power demand is negative;
• a gearshift is in progress.

[gruntguru]

The FIA will need a fairly clever piece of software to analyse race data and detect infringements.

[Wuzak]

If the driver is at full throttle and the output from the ICE is 100kW, the fuel flow is 800MJ/h, assuming 45% thermal efficiency.

 

Under partial load, according to article 5.4.5, the fuel flow when the "engine power" is 100kW is 1,847MJ/h.

 

Using the same efficiency, 1,847MJ/h would give power output of 231kW.

 

It woudl seem teh wording of that clause and 5.4.4 need to be tidied up.

 

Perhaps 5.4.4 needs to add "at full throttle", while "engine power" in 5.4.5 should possibly be "power unit power demand".

[desmo]

What would the result be if all these rules specifying maximum or minimum energy flows were replaced with a simple limit on the fuel and battery charge that could be stored on the car for the races? What exactly are they trying to prevent with all this?

[Wuzak]

What would the result be if all these rules specifying maximum or minimum energy flows were replaced with a simple limit on the fuel and battery charge that could be stored on the car for the races? What exactly are they trying to prevent with all this?

 

I suspect that they are trying to avoid the cars being really fast out of corners, then slowing down along the straight.

 

They need to have the partial throttle fuel flow rules as there is little opportunity at most F1 tracks to recover energy from braking, and they need all that energy to be able to provide the ERS power on straights - otherwise they have ~500-550hp.

 

Edit:

There will be a rule on how much fuel can be used in a race.

There is a rule on how much energy can be recovered by the ERS over a lap, so in effect limiting the energy used by the ERS during a race.

Battery storage is limited to 4MJ (actual battery capacity is much higher). 

4MJ would last about 11s, and a battery that could store a race's worth of energy would be too big and heavy.

 

Formula E's battery is 51kWh (183.6MJ), lasts for 45 minutes including energy recovery during the lap (maximum 600kW recovery from 4 wheels), a mid race partial recharge and drives a motor of the same power as the MGUK (350kW).

It weighs 284kg.

Edited by Wuzak, 15 April 2024 - 02:44.

[desmo]

Says to me that having hybrid powertrains in racing is just an enormous unnecessary complication and expense. What's the upside from the fans' (or team's) perspective?  Minus this, you don't need all these reams of pointlessly ridiculous rules, it's just a rabbit hole to nowhere..

 

How did they manage before without it?

[Wuzak]

They could have a 700-800hp V6T based on the new ICE without the ERS and save quite a bit of weight, while using the same amount of fuel in the race.

[Wuzak]

Nikolas Tombazis says that the 2026 PU could have peak power of ~1,100hp.

 

https://www.racefans...-rules-in-2026/

 

1,100hp = 820kW, meaning the ICE would deliver ~470kW/630hp.

 

The original aim was ~400kW from the ICE to go with the 350kW to have a supposed 50/50 split between the ICE and MGUK.

 

470kW from 3,000MJ/hr fuel flow equates to ~56% thermal efficiency, several percent higher than the current PU.

 

That is also 17.5% increase in the expected output of the ICE, which may explain why some team principals and drivers have been warning of excessive straight line speed.

 

 

630hp is about the same amount of power the Honda RA 186E had in race trim in 1986.

Edited by Wuzak, 12 June 2024 - 16:33.

[gruntguru]

. . . . 470kW from 3,000MJ/hr fuel flow equates to ~56% thermal efficiency, several percent higher than the current PU. . . . 

 

Difficult to imagine how that could happen given they will remove the exhaust heat recovery device. Should be a drop in TE.

[Wuzak]

Difficult to imagine how that could happen given they will remove the exhaust heat recovery device. Should be a drop in TE.

 

You would think so.

 

The original target of 400kW is 48% TE,