2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[Rodak]

What engine do you mean by that. I think the Wright company produced several engines.

This refers to the turbo compound engine(s) where the compressor side of the turbo was connected back to the crank putting energy directly back into the engine.

From the Canadian Museum of Flight:

To build an R-3350 Turbo Compound engine, Wright took an improved post-war model engine and sandwiched three power recovery turbines (PRTs) spaced at 120º intervals around the rear of the engine. The addition of the three PRTs between the power and supercharger sections added only eleven extra inches overall length compared to a non-turbocompounded engine. Each PRT is driven the by the exhaust gases of three front- and three rear-row cylinders. The power is transferred to the engine crankshaft through a fluid coupling. Turbocompounding added about 550 horsepower at take-off power and 240 horsepower at cruise settings over a similar non-turbocompounded R-3350.

[Holm86]

G-UK action when the ICE would otherwise be throttled increases efficiency
this is used in all those hybrids

there is no fundamental difference between eg a GU-H only machine and an MGU-H machine
your car's alternator can act as a motor but it's blocked from acting as a motor
your car's starter motor can act as a generator but it's blocked from acting as a generator

yes there might be a cooling benefit realisable from using a machine as M-only or G-only

How is it efficient to take the energy from the fueltank, rund it through the engine at around 40% thermal efficiency, and then further down the MGU-K into the battery?? That means the energy content from the fuel will only be at around 39-38% when it makes it to the battery.

I know that having at MGU-H and a GU-H mechanically would be more or less the same, what im thinking about is you dont have to think about the the deployment of the MU-H which is one of the complicated things about it that made VAG wanting to get rid of it in the first place.
What im sayin is inbetween getting completly rid of the MGU-H, and keeping it, could be a compromise of just allowing harvesting energy, and not deploying it.

I’m not sure how they are going to get 350kW/h of harvesting if they don’t, that’s an awful lot of lift & coast!!

Maybe they just have to run 2 or more laps to recharge the batteries before they can get one lap with 350kw deployment, taking energy from the already limited fuel, to put into the battery seems counterintuitive to me

[henry]

How is it efficient to take the energy from the fueltank, rund it through the engine at around 40% thermal efficiency, and then further down the MGU-K into the battery?? That means the energy content from the fuel will only be at around 39-38% when it makes it to the battery.

I know that having at MGU-H and a GU-H mechanically would be more or less the same, what im thinking about is you dont have to think about the the deployment of the MU-H which is one of the complicated things about it that made VAG wanting to get rid of it in the first place.
What im sayin is inbetween getting completly rid of the MGU-H, and keeping it, could be a compromise of just allowing harvesting energy, and not deploying it.

I’m not sure how they are going to get 350kW/h of harvesting if they don’t, that’s an awful lot of lift & coast!!

Maybe they just have to run 2 or more laps to recharge the batteries before they can get one lap with 350kw deployment, taking energy from the already limited fuel, to put into the battery seems counterintuitive to me

Depends what you mean by deploy for one lap. If you mean add 350kW to the output of the PU whenever the driver demands full output then on a typical lap of around 50 seconds full throttle they will consume 17.5 MJ over the lap. Braking per lap recovery might be 2MJ and part throttle driving against the K maybe another 1. So they’ll need to have 14.5MJ in the ES. That’s around 5 laps to recharge.

For reference they can currently deploy around 5 MJ per lap, most of it directly from the H to the K. Not quite twice what they might do with 350kW. They add another 2 on hot laps, qualification, overtake or fastest lap attempts.

[Holm86]

I’m not sure how they are going to get 350kW/h of harvesting if they don’t, that’s an awful lot of lift & coast!!

Maybe they just have to run 2 or more laps to recharge the batteries before they can get one lap with 350kw deployment, taking energy from the already limited fuel, to put into the battery seems counterintuitive to me

Depends what you mean by deploy for one lap. If you mean add 350kW to the output of the PU whenever the driver demands full output then on a typical lap of around 50 seconds full throttle they will consume 17.5 MJ over the lap. Braking per lap recovery might be 2MJ and part throttle driving against the K maybe another 1. So they’ll need to have 14.5MJ in the ES. That’s around 5 laps to recharge.

For reference they can currently deploy around 5 MJ per lap, most of it directly from the H to the K. Not quite twice what they might do with 350kW. They add another 2 on hot laps, qualification, overtake or fastest lap attempts.

Thats what I meant, so they need several laps to recarge if they wan't a single "qualifying lap". And the ES needs to be 4 times as big, as it's only 4 MJ now. But that could give some interesting race strageties.
Or perhaps it could be like the old KERS systems, where you could only deploy it for around 10 seconds a lap if I remember correctly.

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

[mclaren111]

http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/lates ... ear-298376

VW:

The letter ends: "We look forward to working with you and your team, to complete this important process and to confirm our Formula 1 entry early next year."

Interesting...

[henry]

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

[Holm86]

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

Wonder when we will have some more or less final regulations, so we can figure out how its going to work.
I mean they have to finalise something soon so the teams have time to plan for the new engine formula

[ENGINE TUNER]

And are you sure about the 2MJ from braking?? I thought it was around 2MJ a lap from breaking now, with the 120kw harvest limit from the MGU-K?

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

Wonder when we will have some more or less final regulations, so we can figure out how its going to work.
I mean they have to finalise something soon so the teams have time to plan for the new engine formula

This exact same situation happened last time they tried to get VAG in by dropping the mguh. Dropping the mguh reverts the system back to basically a bigger KERS and in essence makes it of very little value in the race. VAG won't join because F1 remains an aero and tire dominated series and they will mostly keep the current PUs as they are. A 3x increase in motor size/power output while dropping the mguh is absurd. Furthermore the lag that is created by dropping the mguh is undesirable as well.

What they should do is freeze the current engine blocks and mguh (lease one to VAG if necessary), double mguk output, switch to 100% biofuel(waste derived), allow rotary or freevalve tech, allow plasma ignition, or any other cutting edge add-ons that boost efficiency.

[Holm86]

Yes and no.

In the early days of the current formula I used some Brembo data sheets to look at energy recovery from braking. I had 10 circuits. The shortest braking 8.8 seconds at Spa. The longest 22.4 at Singapore. The mean 15.5.

Since then downforce and tyres have increased so braking times are shorter. The 120kW is only available down to about 120kph. So current cars are probably not much more than 1.2MJ per lap on average.

If the braking times stay roughly the same the 350kW will only be available down to 200kph giving an average braking power of around 250kW down to 120kph, versus 120kW now. So maybe the recovery will be twice what it is now at about 2.5MJ.

Wonder when we will have some more or less final regulations, so we can figure out how its going to work.
I mean they have to finalise something soon so the teams have time to plan for the new engine formula

This exact same situation happened last time they tried to get VAG in by dropping the mguh. Dropping the mguh reverts the system back to basically a bigger KERS and in essence makes it of very little value in the race. VAG won't join because F1 remains an aero and tire dominated series and they will mostly keep the current PUs as they are. A 3x increase in motor size/power output while dropping the mguh is absurd. Furthermore the lag that is created by dropping the mguh is undesirable as well.

What they should do is freeze the current engine blocks and mguh (lease one to VAG if necessary), double mguk output, switch to 100% biofuel(waste derived), allow rotary or freevalve tech, allow plasma ignition, or any other cutting edge add-ons that boost efficiency.

As far as I know, they have already agreed to abandon the MGU-H, an keep the 1.6 V6 block.
They could allow twin turbos to reduce lag, all those things haven't been settled yet.

And Audi has written a letter of intent to FIA saying they will join F1

[toraabe]

Instead of banning the mgu h it can be one of the listed parts.

[Tizz]

Instead of banning the mgu h it can be one of the listed parts.

Car manufacturers claim it has only limited value for roadcars and it is therefor not appropriate to spend more money on further development. But if it is still on the car, they will have to spend money on it.

[henry]

Instead of banning the mgu h it can be one of the listed parts.

I think the problem is that it isn’t a part. It’s a system, comprising all the elements involved in the combustion process as well as the electrical elements and their control systems. Change any one element and it has an effect on the others. This applies at the design stage and also the optimisation stage on the dynamometers.

Get rid of this system and the design of the overall PU system becomes much less complex.

[djos]

Instead of banning the mgu h it can be one of the listed parts.

Car manufacturers claim it has only limited value for roadcars and it is therefor not appropriate to spend more money on further development. But if it is still on the car, they will have to spend money on it.

Considering the evidence (current vehicles on sale), I’d say they have a valid point.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Wonder when we will have some more or less final regulations, so we can figure out how its going to work.
I mean they have to finalise something soon so the teams have time to plan for the new engine formula

This exact same situation happened last time they tried to get VAG in by dropping the mguh. Dropping the mguh reverts the system back to basically a bigger KERS and in essence makes it of very little value in the race. VAG won't join because F1 remains an aero and tire dominated series and they will mostly keep the current PUs as they are. A 3x increase in motor size/power output while dropping the mguh is absurd. Furthermore the lag that is created by dropping the mguh is undesirable as well.

What they should do is freeze the current engine blocks and mguh (lease one to VAG if necessary), double mguk output, switch to 100% biofuel(waste derived), allow rotary or freevalve tech, allow plasma ignition, or any other cutting edge add-ons that boost efficiency.

As far as I know, they have already agreed to abandon the MGU-H, an keep the 1.6 V6 block.
They could allow twin turbos to reduce lag, all those things haven't been settled yet.

And Audi has written a letter of intent to FIA saying they will join F1

They dropped/banned the mguh last time and it's still here and will be until 2025 at least. The haven't exactly frozen the blocks, but will keep the 1.6L formula. Yes twin turbos is an option, as is hot vee.

I don't put any weight into VAG Audi rumors.

[Tommy Cookers]

in the '100 kg/hr fuelled' qualifying lap the PU also uses electrical energy made from fuel burn on the previous lap
at least in the K machine using this fuel burn to make electricity for use later it is comparable to hybrid road cars
and it can be argued that this is legitimate as eg allowing the ICE to be as small as it is
but the MU-H similarly used in 'electric supercharge' for qualifying laps isn't similarly legitimate ?

regarding the future increased power of the K machine ....
its increased inertia and slower electromechanical response would burden the gearshifts and related energy bleeding
its increased inertia without slower electrical response would enhance convenient effects somewhat like TC and ABS