If you just reduce the MGU-K power then it is not hard at all. They can do this by introducing a software limit (I think FIA is allowed to do that already)
If ICE power is increased using inccreased fuel flow across the rpm range, then there will be more opprotunity for part throttle recovery - more time where ICE power exceeds the driver's demands and potentially more difference between ICE power and demand.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 13:29If you just reduce the MGU-K power then it is not hard at all. They can do this by introducing a software limit (I think FIA is allowed to do that already)
But, reduction in power would only mean they use the MGU-K for longer. Most of the complaints would still apply, they would still harvest in a similar way, they would still be able to yoyo, they would be even slower, etc.
Even if you increase ICE power, all of these still apply.
I'm no expert but I think increasing fuel limit has massive ramifications for the design of the ICE. I don't think this is a realistic change mid season. Could be wrong though *shrugs*.wuzak wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 14:04If ICE power is increased using inccreased fuel flow across the rpm range, then there will be more opprotunity for part throttle recovery - more time where ICE power exceeds the driver's demands and potentially more difference between ICE power and demand.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 13:29If you just reduce the MGU-K power then it is not hard at all. They can do this by introducing a software limit (I think FIA is allowed to do that already)
But, reduction in power would only mean they use the MGU-K for longer. Most of the complaints would still apply, they would still harvest in a similar way, they would still be able to yoyo, they would be even slower, etc.
Even if you increase ICE power, all of these still apply.
Well, a higher energy flow also means you need more fuel to begin with. The question here is, if the fuel tanks they have fitted in the car now, can even hold significantly more fuel for the race. I don't think so, because why would you design the tank bigger than it absolutly has to be? And as the fuel tank is fitted to the chassis, basically that could mean that a new chassis would be required.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 14:41I'm no expert but I think increasing fuel limit has massive ramifications for the design of the ICE. I don't think this is a realistic change mid season. Could be wrong though *shrugs*.
Whilst in theory increasing fuel flow is easy, in reality, it is a lot harder. Teams will have based the fuel tank size around the fuel flow limit vs the longest race/fuel consumption, so they likely do not have a fuel tank big enough to support an increase in fuel flow. That is probably the easiest obstacle to overcome, more of a challenge is the duty cycle of the engine will have been defined around that fuel flow limit and then the engine designed to that duty cycle.wuzak wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 14:04If ICE power is increased using inccreased fuel flow across the rpm range, then there will be more opprotunity for part throttle recovery - more time where ICE power exceeds the driver's demands and potentially more difference between ICE power and demand.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 13:29If you just reduce the MGU-K power then it is not hard at all. They can do this by introducing a software limit (I think FIA is allowed to do that already)
But, reduction in power would only mean they use the MGU-K for longer. Most of the complaints would still apply, they would still harvest in a similar way, they would still be able to yoyo, they would be even slower, etc.
Even if you increase ICE power, all of these still apply.
Its a multivariable optimization problem. So they will probably try a few different standard approaches in the field ( Neural networks, genetic algorithm, steepest descent algorithm, etc.)bananapeel23 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 14:47Obviously you will want to harvest every little bit of the 9MJ available, but you also don't want to harvest or deploy in inefficient locations, but the 4 MJ battery must make modelling deployment and harvesting extremely difficult, while effective distribution of energy could be worth seconds per lap, even if both cars get the full 9 MJ.
Are teams brute forcing it in the simulator? Are they manually calculating where to use the energy? Are they training neural nets on simplified versions of the track to find candidates, then testing it in the sim? Does anyone know?
IT's not this. It's just that warmup lap has massive energy consumption (wheel spin to heat rear tires is 100% unrecoverable), but little opportunity for energy recovery (they push the brake bias forwards to warm the front tires which means MGU-K doesn't get much work at the rear). Warmup lap is not at racing speed so the fuel flow rates are very limited at part throttle. It just makes it extremely easy to use up a lot of the battery, but have little way to recharge it near the end of the formation lap. When drivers who are doing burnouts just before their grid spots they simply can't recharge to 100%. Warmup lap procedure is the antithesis of battery top up.venkyhere wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 17:30Question to all experts :
We saw how in the Australian GP, almost everyone was complaining about 'no charge left' in the battery at the end of the formation lap, before the lights. I reckon this is because the Energy Management S/W is unable to distinguish between a race lap and a formation lap, because it has no way to distinguish A/B pedal input made in the formation lap v/s a race lap, so it will deploy and recharge as it pleases, reacting to the pedals.
I thought the 'final burnout' in low gear high throttle, is a golden opportunity to recharge the battery extremely well (at low speeds, when there is no downforce, isn't it easy to just use the ICE to spin the rear wheels, with enough spare torque to regen via MGU-K ?). Or is the S/W lulled into thinking (from the pedal input, wheel speed and rpm) that the driver wants deployment ? (that was the reason why I asked the original Q).AR3-GP wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 20:53IT's not this. It's just that warmup lap has massive energy consumption (wheel spin to heat rear tires is 100% unrecoverable), but little opportunity for energy recovery (they push the brake bias forwards to warm the front tires which means MGU-K doesn't get much work at the rear). Warmup lap is not at racing speed so the fuel flow rates are very limited at part throttle. It just makes it extremely easy to use up a lot of the battery, but have little way to recharge it near the end of the formation lap. When drivers who are doing burnouts just before their grid spots they simply can't recharge to 100%. Warmup lap procedure is the antithesis of battery top up.venkyhere wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 17:30Question to all experts :
We saw how in the Australian GP, almost everyone was complaining about 'no charge left' in the battery at the end of the formation lap, before the lights. I reckon this is because the Energy Management S/W is unable to distinguish between a race lap and a formation lap, because it has no way to distinguish A/B pedal input made in the formation lap v/s a race lap, so it will deploy and recharge as it pleases, reacting to the pedals.
Are they not able to put the engine in "no electrical use at all" mode? So they do the formation lap purely on ICE power, surely 400 kW can spin the rears at low speeds?AR3-GP wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 20:53IT's not this. It's just that warmup lap has massive energy consumption (wheel spin to heat rear tires is 100% unrecoverable), but little opportunity for energy recovery (they push the brake bias forwards to warm the front tires which means MGU-K doesn't get much work at the rear). Warmup lap is not at racing speed so the fuel flow rates are very limited at part throttle. It just makes it extremely easy to use up a lot of the battery, but have little way to recharge it near the end of the formation lap. When drivers who are doing burnouts just before their grid spots they simply can't recharge to 100%. Warmup lap procedure is the antithesis of battery top up.venkyhere wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 17:30Question to all experts :
We saw how in the Australian GP, almost everyone was complaining about 'no charge left' in the battery at the end of the formation lap, before the lights. I reckon this is because the Energy Management S/W is unable to distinguish between a race lap and a formation lap, because it has no way to distinguish A/B pedal input made in the formation lap v/s a race lap, so it will deploy and recharge as it pleases, reacting to the pedals.

It sounds incredible that they didn't figure out an engine mode, and driver process to make sure the battery is full...AR3-GP wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 20:53IT's not this. It's just that warmup lap has massive energy consumption (wheel spin to heat rear tires is 100% unrecoverable), but little opportunity for energy recovery (they push the brake bias forwards to warm the front tires which means MGU-K doesn't get much work at the rear). Warmup lap is not at racing speed so the fuel flow rates are very limited at part throttle. It just makes it extremely easy to use up a lot of the battery, but have little way to recharge it near the end of the formation lap. When drivers who are doing burnouts just before their grid spots they simply can't recharge to 100%. Warmup lap procedure is the antithesis of battery top up.venkyhere wrote: ↑10 Mar 2026, 17:30Question to all experts :
We saw how in the Australian GP, almost everyone was complaining about 'no charge left' in the battery at the end of the formation lap, before the lights. I reckon this is because the Energy Management S/W is unable to distinguish between a race lap and a formation lap, because it has no way to distinguish A/B pedal input made in the formation lap v/s a race lap, so it will deploy and recharge as it pleases, reacting to the pedals.
This also seems obvious to top up the battery. Yet they apparently don't do this either.AR3-GP wrote: ↑11 Mar 2026, 00:13Why aren't the teams just charging the battery after the car stops in the grid box? This is permitted by the regulations:
https://i.postimg.cc/9QR6d88Q/image.png
Downside might be that you could overheat the ICE very easily without any airflow in the radiators.