F1technical.net

wuzak wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 15:56

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

This coming formula seems to have a projected BHP at significantly less than current ICE unit output.

Fuel flow is going from 100kg/hr (roughly 4,500MJ/h) to 3,000MJ/h. That is, the 2026 fuel flow is approximately 1/3 lower, and power will be reduced by a similar amount.

The number usually quoted is 400kW (536hp).

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

There seems to be a prevailing presumption, and therefore projection, that a different design absolutely will not match the existing architecture in "power" as you're labelling it. There's no proof of that forwarded.

No proof, just strong suspicion.

There is no proof that alternative valve arrangements will provide packaging benefits either, given that the "hot vee" is forbidden.

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

Isn't BHP just a computation of torque (the real power) with rpm as part of the calculation as a gain factor ?

Yes, power is prortional to rotational velocity and torque.

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

My understanding is that BHP gives a work rate "computation" which can have advantage IF running at that elevated position at correct gearing. It simply "punches" more power strokes into each kilometer if run like that.
If the peak torque is aimed at a lower rpm point (and geared accordingly) the ICE covers the same distance with less power pulses, less heat (potentially produced) and les fuel demand.

The peak torque will be at a much lower rpm than peak power. This is, partly, a function of the fuel flow restrictions, with fuel flow ramping up as rpm increases, until its peak at 10,500rpm, after which it is constant.

The torque vs power is an argument that has been going on for years.

At lower rpm, higher torque and lower power, with higher gearing the speeds that can be achieved are lower.

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

Likely more suitable for a generator type installation. It doesn't demand higher rpm/bhp facility to be effective.

The 2026 rules are not for a "generator type installation".

They are for an ICE with ERS assistance and allow the ICE to operate as a generator in some circumstances, such as part throttle and end of straights.

Higher power from the ICE allows for more generation at part throttle, and less speed loss at the end of straights when the ERS is recovering while the driver is at full throttle.

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

Avoiding elevated rpm should bring efficiency and heat benefit, plus lowered fuel demands to produce that. It doesn't need to chase higher rpm and BHP notional figures to be effective. They are substantially moving toward running a electricity generating set.

The are not running towards a "electricity generating set".

The ICE remains the most important producer of power.

The ERS is limited by the amount of recovery allowed. And for tracks with lower brake energy recovery, that limit will be lowered.

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

To simply dispell it by offering the status quo (current design) fails to examine any design of different layout. That's just stating tbe same thing over and over .... without sensible enquiry about something different.

Are you talking about the 2026 rules, or something for the future?

The 2026 regulations have fairly rigid rules around the PU's configuration.

They are already talking about N/A V8s with ERS for future rules cycles. Usually described as "simplified", but for me the complex part of teh 2026 regulations is energy managment, which would surely not go away if they keep the ERS at the same importance, or even slightly lesss impatance.

Weight savings may not be as much as people expect either.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 15:15

Farnborough wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:27

... Likely more suitable for a generator type installation. It doesn't demand higher rpm/bhp facility to be effective....

we have a generator - it's called the MGU-K
it's slaved to the ICE crankshaft
to recover KE effectively it needs to be doing 10500 crankshaft rpm or more

DenBommer wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 20:21

Do you mean with “weight savings may not be as much as people expect either” that if they go with a NA V8 ICE, they’re not going to save that much weight?

wuzak wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 03:18

DenBommer wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 20:21

Do you mean with “weight savings may not be as much as people expect either” that if they go with a NA V8 ICE, they’re not going to save that much weight?

The 2013 V8 had a minimum weight of 95kg.
The 2026 V6 Turbo (without ERS) has a minimum weight of 130kg.

But the 2013 V8 didn't have to last 6+ events, nor did the minimum weight calculation include as many items, like the exhaust, for instance.

So, expect the V8's minimum weight to increase.

Say a saving of 30kg.

There will be some weight saving because the intercooler is not required, but some weight increase because larger coolant radiators and, potentially, engine oil heat exchangers.

If it remains the same size/capacity, there will be no weight savings in the ERS.

There is a minimum 55kg in the ERS, not including coolers for the battery and motor. Drastically reducing the power and energy storage of the ERS will save a lot of weight.

I think some people expect the weight to drop to 2013 weights of ~640kg. But the extra weight in items like the halo and larger wheels will make that impossible.

DenBommer wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 09:11

wuzak wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 03:18

DenBommer wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 20:21

Do you mean with “weight savings may not be as much as people expect either” that if they go with a NA V8 ICE, they’re not going to save that much weight?

The 2013 V8 had a minimum weight of 95kg.
The 2026 V6 Turbo (without ERS) has a minimum weight of 130kg.

But the 2013 V8 didn't have to last 6+ events, nor did the minimum weight calculation include as many items, like the exhaust, for instance.

So, expect the V8's minimum weight to increase.

Say a saving of 30kg.

There will be some weight saving because the intercooler is not required, but some weight increase because larger coolant radiators and, potentially, engine oil heat exchangers.

If it remains the same size/capacity, there will be no weight savings in the ERS.

There is a minimum 55kg in the ERS, not including coolers for the battery and motor. Drastically reducing the power and energy storage of the ERS will save a lot of weight.

I think some people expect the weight to drop to 2013 weights of ~640kg. But the extra weight in items like the halo and larger wheels will make that impossible.

But with the V8 proposal, they want to bring the power from the ERS back to 120–140 kW instead of 350 kW next year. That will save some weight, right?

It also makes sense that if they want a NA V8 to last for 6–8 races, they’ll have to use stronger but probably heavier materials.

I think we just have to see how the next regulations work out. In 5–6 years, a lot can happen and change.

Also the extra fuel a NA V8 needs

Badger wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 10:54

Why go to a V8? Wouldn’t it just be simpler to keep the V6 Turbo and slightly increase the fuel flow? Keep the same architecture.

Does anyone have an insight into what the actual kW could be like from the ICE, we’ve heard 400 from F1 all this time but is that conservative or realistic? If we end up at say 390 kW or 425 kW could make a huge difference to the racing.

BTW, what happened to that proposal of limiting the MGU-K to 200 kW in races?

Farnborough wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 13:55

Martin Keene wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 13:40

Farnborough wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2025, 12:50

That "could" still allow the arrangement by placing the exhaust valves in V side of bore centre and routing out vertically across centre line to exit head and above inlet cam location to fulfill that rules demand. The head exit point then being entirely in accord with directive.

Potentially yes. But packaging the ports in the cylinder head would be a nightmare and have appalling flow.

FWIW, I have no idea why they banned hot V, it would be a much better packaging solution for a single turbo engine and is widely used in road cars.

Are you sure of this?

Anyone have knowledge of this one https://www.mcnews.com.au/highly-succes ... l-aynsley/ to demonstrate the principal ..... here on intake side, but vertical port between cam and central spark plug location none the less.
They could exit the head in conformance with rules in being outside centre line of bore by then having a manifold bring it over the top of exhaust cam direct to turbo hot side.

wuzak wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 13:16

Badger wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 10:54

Why go to a V8? Wouldn’t it just be simpler to keep the V6 Turbo and slightly increase the fuel flow? Keep the same architecture.

Does anyone have an insight into what the actual kW could be like from the ICE, we’ve heard 400 from F1 all this time but is that conservative or realistic? If we end up at say 390 kW or 425 kW could make a huge difference to the racing.

BTW, what happened to that proposal of limiting the MGU-K to 200 kW in races?

The proposal of limiting the MGUK to 200kW was Horner's, and never really got any traction.

The assumption was that the RBPT PU was in trouble.

IIRC, when the rules first came out, they talked of reducing from 600kW (804hp) to 400kW (536hp) be reducing fuel energy flow by about 1/3.

Lately it talk has been of 560kW (750hp) for the current PU. But that doesn't line up with the claims of 1,000hp, as it would only give a total of ~910hp.

Tombazis said, a year or so ago, that the 2026 PUs would have a peak of 100hp more than the current PU.

I assumed it to be 1,100hp, or 820kW, which would give the ICE 470kW (631hp).

If it is 100hp more than 910hp, then the power is 1,010hp (753kW), which gives the ICE 403kW (540hp), more or less in line with what they have been saying.

A couple of years ago, Mark Hughes of Motorsport Magazine suggested they were already exceeding 450kW from the ICE.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 00:17

'Why ?'
because the KE available is proportionate to the square of the car's speed and to the square of the PU's speed
further, the aero DF is proportionate to the square of the car's speed
the 2026 rear axle KE potential recovery rate is about 1300 KW at 300 kph and about 250 KW at 150 kph but ....
to maintain MGU-K rpm as the car slows they downshift - this needs more wheel torque so eats into grip margin

if the MGU-K doesn't run at full RPM it can't make full voltage and so the battery will never be fully charged

wuzak wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 13:04

DenBommer wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 09:11

wuzak wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 03:18

The 2013 V8 had a minimum weight of 95kg.
The 2026 V6 Turbo (without ERS) has a minimum weight of 130kg.

But the 2013 V8 didn't have to last 6+ events, nor did the minimum weight calculation include as many items, like the exhaust, for instance.

So, expect the V8's minimum weight to increase.

Say a saving of 30kg.

There will be some weight saving because the intercooler is not required, but some weight increase because larger coolant radiators and, potentially, engine oil heat exchangers.

If it remains the same size/capacity, there will be no weight savings in the ERS.

There is a minimum 55kg in the ERS, not including coolers for the battery and motor. Drastically reducing the power and energy storage of the ERS will save a lot of weight.

I think some people expect the weight to drop to 2013 weights of ~640kg. But the extra weight in items like the halo and larger wheels will make that impossible.

But with the V8 proposal, they want to bring the power from the ERS back to 120–140 kW instead of 350 kW next year. That will save some weight, right?

It also makes sense that if they want a NA V8 to last for 6–8 races, they’ll have to use stronger but probably heavier materials.

I think we just have to see how the next regulations work out. In 5–6 years, a lot can happen and change.

Also the extra fuel a NA V8 needs

You can reduce the ERS for the turbo V6 and save some weight too.

The difference between the 2026 ICE and a 2013 like V8 is going to be ~30kg.

Lose the ERS altogether and you can save 55kg (ERS components) plus the weight of coolers for the ERS.