2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[dialtone]

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

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

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

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

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

[Cold Fussion]

It's also an entirely pointless point of discussion, formula 1 is a competition within a formula, and the formula dictates it's a hybrid. If the FIA wanted cars that were 10s a lap faster they could achieve that with just about any reasonable power unit configuration you could think of, potentially excluding full electric.

[michl420]

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

Because the FIA ​​want fuel companies to do research for produce sustainable fuel from waste materials. A part of this years fuel must be from waste materials.

[mzso]

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

Because the FIA ​​want fuel companies to do research for produce sustainable fuel from waste materials. A part of this years fuel must be from waste materials.

Hah! They claimed to have done that themselves like 3-4 years ago...
Apparently that was bogus. And what we have now might be bio or synthetic, but I don't think it's likely to ever become sustainable, or economically viable.

[Ferry]

And what we have now might be bio or synthetic, but I don't think it's likely to ever become sustainable, or economically viable.

So why are so many motorsport fans talking warmly about e-fuel? I see it all the time on this forum, and elsewhere. E-fuel is a free ticket to burn as much as you like, in the most inefficient way. Hooray, we can still run V8s! Just use e-fuel like nothing happened.

[dialtone]

So, seems like Petronas has some chances to not be ready for Australia?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/petr ... /10798347/

In the past the fuel certification procedure was quick, but this time around they go through a full supply chain validation which probably will take a few weeks to complete. If they can't get through this by the race, then they'll basically be using a FIA-provided generic fuel or fuel-component that is compliant.

It also highlights that Mercedes has been running non renewable fuel during tests so far.

[Badger]

So, seems like Petronas has some chances to not be ready for Australia?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/petr ... /10798347/

In the past the fuel certification procedure was quick, but this time around they go through a full supply chain validation which probably will take a few weeks to complete. If they can't get through this by the race, then they'll basically be using a FIA-provided generic fuel or fuel-component that is compliant.

It also highlights that Mercedes has been running non renewable fuel during tests so far.

It does not. Their fuel could be perfectly compliant same way as the engines are compliant even if they aren't officially homologated yet. Without knowing the details of the delay it's impossible to know.

[dialtone]

It does not. Their fuel could be perfectly compliant same way as the engines are compliant even if they aren't officially homologated yet. Without knowing the details of the delay it's impossible to know.

I suppose that's fair, but if they already have compliant fuel, why would it be a challenge to get through certification?

[Badger]

It does not. Their fuel could be perfectly compliant same way as the engines are compliant even if they aren't officially homologated yet. Without knowing the details of the delay it's impossible to know.

I suppose that's fair, but if they already have compliant fuel, why would it be a challenge to get through certification?

In the past the fuel certification procedure was quick, but this time around they go through a full supply chain validation which probably will take a few weeks to complete. If they can't get through this by the race, then they'll basically be using a FIA-provided generic fuel or fuel-component that is compliant.

[dialtone]

In the past the fuel certification procedure was quick, but this time around they go through a full supply chain validation which probably will take a few weeks to complete. If they can't get through this by the race, then they'll basically be using a FIA-provided generic fuel or fuel-component that is compliant.

Yeah I wrote that... But it's 3 weeks till race and the procedure has been known for a while. I suppose I'm confused at how a team like that can possibly drop the ball on this, I presume this is just sensationalism from press as I don't believe this is genuinely possible.

The state of "our fuel is already in use and we know it's compliant" and "we're 3 weeks to go" doesn't spell any danger to me AND doesn't feel that unusual, so I'm not sure I believe this either. They are either not completely ready with the mixture (hence the asking to run with non compliant fuel) or are ready and just finishing up the certification.

[mzso]

So why are so many motorsport fans talking warmly about e-fuel? I see it all the time on this forum, and elsewhere. E-fuel is a free ticket to burn as much as you like, in the most inefficient way. Hooray, we can still run V8s! Just use e-fuel like nothing happened.

Well, you pretty much answered it yourself. People jump on whatever excuses they see to keep the engines of their childhoods going. I only look at it with nostalgia.

But this road relevance/eco shroud can't last forever unless someone actually develops a process that's not super costly and environmentally destructive.

[Badger]

In the past the fuel certification procedure was quick, but this time around they go through a full supply chain validation which probably will take a few weeks to complete. If they can't get through this by the race, then they'll basically be using a FIA-provided generic fuel or fuel-component that is compliant.

Yeah I wrote that... But it's 3 weeks till race and the procedure has been known for a while. I suppose I'm confused at how a team like that can possibly drop the ball on this, I presume this is just sensationalism from press as I don't believe this is genuinely possible.

The state of "our fuel is already in use and we know it's compliant" and "we're 3 weeks to go" doesn't spell any danger to me AND doesn't feel that unusual, so I'm not sure I believe this either. They are either not completely ready with the mixture (hence the asking to run with non compliant fuel) or are ready and just finishing up the certification.

Autoracer is reporting that only BP and Shell have officially homologated their fuels at this stage, so I think teams are just using the final weeks with proper running to tinker with their recipes, see what works best in reality.

[bluechris]

Yeah I wrote that... But it's 3 weeks till race and the procedure has been known for a while. I suppose I'm confused at how a team like that can possibly drop the ball on this, I presume this is just sensationalism from press as I don't believe this is genuinely possible.

The state of "our fuel is already in use and we know it's compliant" and "we're 3 weeks to go" doesn't spell any danger to me AND doesn't feel that unusual, so I'm not sure I believe this either. They are either not completely ready with the mixture (hence the asking to run with non compliant fuel) or are ready and just finishing up the certification.

Autoracer is reporting that only BP and Shell have officially homologated their fuels at this stage, so I think teams are just using the final weeks with proper running to tinker with their recipes, see what works best in reality.

I have read but can't find it now that all the others (except AUDI also) have troubles with the synthetic fuel's and push for later homologation of the fuels. Anyone heard anything?

[Ferry]

But this road relevance/eco shroud can't last forever unless someone actually develops a process that's not super costly and environmentally destructive.

If you care about CO2 from the production of electrical power, you wanna use as little as possible. E-fuel is the opposite of that. The efficiency is very low. Takes a lot of energy to make the hydrogen, a lot of energy to capture the co2, then you burn it in a combustion engine at 25% efficiency. It's 5-10 times worse than running directly on electricity. Meaning we need a lot more wind farms, solar power etc. Or burn even more coal.

If you don't care about CO2, then why bother at all? Use regular fossil fuel then.

[dialtone]

But this road relevance/eco shroud can't last forever unless someone actually develops a process that's not super costly and environmentally destructive.

If you care about CO2 from the production of electrical power, you wanna use as little as possible. E-fuel is the opposite of that. The efficiency is very low. Takes a lot of energy to make the hydrogen, a lot of energy to capture the co2, then you burn it in a combustion engine at 25% efficiency. It's 5-10 times worse than running directly on electricity. Meaning we need a lot more wind farms, solar power etc. Or burn even more coal.

If you don't care about CO2, then why bother at all? Use regular fossil fuel then.

You cannot burn dinosaurs to make fuel afaik. What’s the point of supply chain checks if you could?

The whole supply chain has to be carbon neutral and validated. Even if it’s inefficient, it’s such a small chunk and good for research.