2026 Hybrid Powerunits

[FW17]

Teams will be beefing up the clutch system to do the start on full throttle and boost.

The teams that have specified a lowered 1st ratio do look to be "on point" with what we've seen so far.

We've obviously yet to see a live and fully competitive launch with 22 cars yet though.

Getting the clutch fully closed with that lower ratio will prompt earlier build of boost too, with Ferrari apparently favouring a smaller turbo, then it does look to be stacked in their favour through erudite planning.

Red Bull and Max had a very good 0-50 kph time, his 50-200 time was slower than the ferrari

Any explanation on that? I thought the Red Bull MGU kick and the fact that it kicks in first gear is causing wheel spin, while Ferrari are in second by time the MGU kicks

Also in comparison the previous engines, they are almost a sec off in 0-200 kph time is that only due to tyres?

[venkyhere]

Teams will be beefing up the clutch system to do the start on full throttle and boost.

The teams that have specified a lowered 1st ratio do look to be "on point" with what we've seen so far.

The teams that use 1st gear for recharging would, surely, have raised the ratio of 1st so that it is more usable?

kindly refer to this beautiful thread :
viewtopic.php?t=32518
ratio estimates derived from testing data.

[AR3-GP]

Also in comparison the previous engines, they are almost a sec off in 0-200 kph time is that only due to tyres?

It's probably due to turbo lag.

[Holm86]

Also in comparison the previous engines, they are almost a sec off in 0-200 kph time is that only due to tyres?

It's probably due to turbo lag.

Or the fact that the MGU-K aren't allowed to kick in until above 50km/h

[mzso]

Also in comparison the previous engines, they are almost a sec off in 0-200 kph time is that only due to tyres?

It's probably due to turbo lag.

Or the fact that the MGU-K aren't allowed to kick in until above 50km/h

I don't think that's new.

[wuzak]

It's probably due to turbo lag.

Or the fact that the MGU-K aren't allowed to kick in until above 50km/h

I don't think that's new.

It's changed from 100km/h last year to 50km/h this year.

A big difference is that the 2025 ICE was ~800hp and this year's is ~550hp.

[wuzak]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

[FittingMechanics]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

If you want these cars to be slower then yes, this would be fine. You'd get drivers braking to recover without clipping or lift and harvest.

Reason they are allowing these things is because over the course of the lap, it is faster to allow some recharging via clipping and coasting because the gains from use of energy at corner exit are that much larger.

[mzso]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

That sounds like a recipe to carry around a battery that's never charged fully and they would drive with 450kW of ICE power most of the time.
Maybe with more fuel allowance? Apparently it's worth it to sacrifice the end of straights, I can only think because it's more fuel efficient to recover there. So far there's none of that howling during turning that signifies recharging.

[bananapeel23]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

The solution to the problems with this regulation set without making the cars horribly slow is one of:

* More fuel flow, which would reduce the need to lift and coast, allowing more reliance on clipping, while the clipping would come at a smaller speed penalty, given that the clipping would consume a smaller proportion of overall engine power.
* Front axle regen
* Reintroduction of MGU-H.

The only realistic option is more fuel flow, which could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor PU changes. But honestly, unless the cars prove to race horribly poorly I'm unsure if they will do anything at all. If they do anything I'm reasonably certain that fuel flow is the easiest and most realistic choice.

[wuzak]

This is the effect of super-clipping:



It might be the most effective way under the rules, but it doesn't seem right.

[wuzak]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

That sounds like a recipe to carry around a battery that's never charged fully and they would drive with 450kW of ICE power most of the time.
Maybe with more fuel allowance? Apparently it's worth it to sacrifice the end of straights, I can only think because it's more fuel efficient to recover there. So far there's none of that howling during turning that signifies recharging.

You could, for next year, increase the fuel flow and reduce the size and weight of the battery.

[wuzak]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

The solution to the problems with this regulation set without making the cars horribly slow is one of:

* More fuel flow, which would reduce the need to lift and coast, allowing more reliance on clipping, while the clipping would come at a smaller speed penalty, given that the clipping would consume a smaller proportion of overall engine power.
* Front axle regen
* Reintroduction of MGU-H.

The only realistic option is more fuel flow, which could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor PU changes. But honestly, unless the cars prove to race horribly poorly I'm unsure if they will do anything at all. If they do anything I'm reasonably certain that fuel flow is the easiest and most realistic choice.

If front axle regen adds to the recovery power, instead of resdistributing it, and only the rear MGU is used for propulsion, that could be a solution.

But it could not be introduced this year, would require a redesign of the chassis and some way of preventing the MGUs being used for stability control.

If you had 250kW front regen to go with 350kW rear regen, for a total of 600kW, the recovery under braking would still only be about 5MJ. Leaving 3MJ to be recovered under part throttle and/or super-clipping.

MGUH is never coming back. Dropping it was a condition for getting Audi into F1 and enticing Honda to stay.

[Cold Fussion]

This is the effect of super-clipping:



It might be the most effective way under the rules, but it doesn't seem right.

It doesn't feel right at all, and we didn't really see this in LMP1 either from what I remember, so it just feels un-natural. I watched both fp1 and fp2 sessions from Verstappens onboard today and I found it quite difficult to tell what sort of lap he was on from the engine audio, where as the previous PU's it was pretty obvious to tell how he was driving just from the engine audio.

[bananapeel23]

Could the solution to 2026 PU's issue be to remove the recovery limit (ie target) and remove full throttle charging?

Leave recovery to braking and part throttle application.

I would also consider banning recovery from lift-and-coast.

The solution to the problems with this regulation set without making the cars horribly slow is one of:

* More fuel flow, which would reduce the need to lift and coast, allowing more reliance on clipping, while the clipping would come at a smaller speed penalty, given that the clipping would consume a smaller proportion of overall engine power.
* Front axle regen
* Reintroduction of MGU-H.

The only realistic option is more fuel flow, which could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor PU changes. But honestly, unless the cars prove to race horribly poorly I'm unsure if they will do anything at all. If they do anything I'm reasonably certain that fuel flow is the easiest and most realistic choice.

If front axle regen adds to the recovery power, instead of resdistributing it, and only the rear MGU is used for propulsion, that could be a solution.

But it could not be introduced this year, would require a redesign of the chassis and some way of preventing the MGUs being used for stability control.

If you had 250kW front regen to go with 350kW rear regen, for a total of 600kW, the recovery under braking would still only be about 5MJ. Leaving 3MJ to be recovered under part throttle and/or super-clipping.

MGUH is never coming back. Dropping it was a condition for getting Audi into F1 and enticing Honda to stay.

I thought it was obvious that these are options for 2027 or 2028, not this year.

A very minor fuel flow increase might technically be an option for mid-season 2026 (albeit totally unrealistic), but any substantial increases would have to be for 2027.