2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[djos]

V8 baby! - https://hydrogen-central.com/yamaha-v8- ... its-water/

That’s pretty cool, I wonder how much extra gear you’d need to run a vehicle?

[mzso]

It's not nonsensical at all, as you've answered part of it already.

Actually I was just guessing. That sentence makes no grammatical or logical sense.

So you're saying that the packaging for this SOFC, along with the butane or propane, into a car would deliver the same power for the same distance, all while not adding any extra weight, bulk, or more severe fuel storage hazards than the cars currently have?

That sentence was rather awkward and difficult to interpret for me. I was just guessing what you meant.
But don't put words in my mouth. It seemed you only asked about fuel, and I only answered about that.

Anyway...
I think I get now what you were asking (after re-reading a couple more times)
Eventually it seems possible. That sort of Nasa data seems promising and it's just experimental technology and not a result of F1 development, pouring a billion dollars or more in total yearly to develop something. So there's a lot of unexploited potential.
Keep in mind that the current PU is already pretty heavy and bulky, due to hybridization. You throw out the the ICE you free up a lot of weight. There are already two electric motors, which you would replace with more powerful ones up to a total of around 750kW power. Some amount of battery you would need to buffer power from the fuel cell, during off or partial throttle phases. Also you could recover a lot more during braking, I'm thinking no rear brakes would be required. All of this is far from trivial to design and optimise, so obviously certainty would only be reached if someone did the lifting, but in my opinion it seem very credible to match ICE.

As for fuel. Propane and butane has better energy density than petrol as well as fuel cells and motors should be more efficient than ICE.
For safety I don't see any significant difference pressure requirements are rather modest especially for butane. And the fuel bladder is already made of a carbon fiber composite, more than strong enough. They would just need to redesign it to not leak gaseous phase fuel.

I'm no expert on fuel cells but all initial reports I've seen regarding FCEV's on the market today fail horribly when power demands are up, and even at modest speeds are not as efficient as claimed. Even with alternate fuels and a new fuel cell, getting all that packaged into a race car is still going to at a minimum add weight and decrease performance. Even the current hybrid systems are adding weight, and they aren't making nearly as much power.

Well, you can't judge much of whatever hit the roads. Fuel cells had realtively small development attention. And besides they only ever made hydrogen FCEVs. Which suck, because of hydrogen itself and toa degree because of the limitations of the proton exchange membrane.

[Jolle]

It's not nonsensical at all, as you've answered part of it already.

Actually I was just guessing. That sentence makes no grammatical or logical sense.

So you're saying that the packaging for this SOFC, along with the butane or propane, into a car would deliver the same power for the same distance, all while not adding any extra weight, bulk, or more severe fuel storage hazards than the cars currently have?

That sentence was rather awkward and difficult to interpret for me. I was just guessing what you meant.
But don't put words in my mouth. It seemed you only asked about fuel, and I only answered about that.

Anyway...
I think I get now what you were asking (after re-reading a couple more times)
Eventually it seems possible. That sort of Nasa data seems promising and it's just experimental technology and not a result of F1 development, pouring a billion dollars or more in total yearly to develop something. So there's a lot of unexploited potential.
Keep in mind that the current PU is already pretty heavy and bulky, due to hybridization. You throw out the the ICE you free up a lot of weight. There are already two electric motors, which you would replace with more powerful ones up to a total of around 750kW power. Some amount of battery you would need to buffer power from the fuel cell, during off or partial throttle phases. Also you could recover a lot more during braking, I'm thinking no rear brakes would be required. All of this is far from trivial to design and optimise, so obviously certainty would only be reached if someone did the lifting, but in my opinion it seem very credible to match ICE.

As for fuel. Propane and butane has better energy density than petrol as well as fuel cells and motors should be more efficient than ICE.
For safety I don't see any significant difference pressure requirements are rather modest especially for butane. And the fuel bladder is already made of a carbon fiber composite, more than strong enough. They would just need to redesign it to not leak gaseous phase fuel.

I'm no expert on fuel cells but all initial reports I've seen regarding FCEV's on the market today fail horribly when power demands are up, and even at modest speeds are not as efficient as claimed. Even with alternate fuels and a new fuel cell, getting all that packaged into a race car is still going to at a minimum add weight and decrease performance. Even the current hybrid systems are adding weight, and they aren't making nearly as much power.

Well, you can't judge much of whatever hit the roads. Fuel cells had realtively small development attention. And besides they only ever made hydrogen FCEVs. Which suck, because of hydrogen itself and toa degree because of the limitations of the proton exchange membrane.

I had a few propane driven cars, the storage is extremely bulky and complex due to the large tanks and less safe because you work with a pressurised storage system. Any rupture will be extremely hard to battle. This is not just a problem for driver safety, but also spectators, Marshalls, etc etc. An accident like Grosjean, would possibly take hours to clear, as no one would be able to approach the car safely until the tank is secured.

[mzso]

I agree, Fuel Cells (like batteries) are not new technology and have been around since the 1930s, however, they have never been able to make the big energy and cost leaps forward that Battery tech has since the 80's. They weren't considered to be practical for use until Tom Bacon made a big breakthrough in the 50's that leapfrogged it over battery tech of the day.

Fuel cells also didn't get near as much development attention. And most of it was on hydrogen (Proton exchange membrane) fuel cells.

EDIT: And Fuel Cell power output is quite poor compared to modern batteries, the Toyota Mirai unit cant supply more than 90kW of power (and needs a battery to buffer power), compare that to the battery in one of the worst EV's of all time, the Nissan Leaf, which can sustain 80kW output. Then at the other end of the scale is the Tesla Model S Plaid battery which can output over 700kW under optimal conditions.

Indeed the result of what I described above.
Anyway a battery buffer is not a bad thing, it makes sense, even if it weren't necessary. That way fuel cells can work persistently at its peak power and batteries would soak it up in slow/braking phases. So it wouldn't waste energy and wouldn't need to reach the power of the motors. Any you'd want batteries anyway for regeneration.

[Tommy Cookers]

the electric engine etc etc has been in development for around 200 years
the ICEV took over because of the electric's failure to develop (until recently)

ICEs took over because because of short shortsightedness. Porsche made a pretty decent series hybrid on first try. ..

the only important development is that which enables wind farms

The hell is that supposed to mean? Wind farms have little relevance to electric motor/generator development. You just put whatever you have in them.

it is supposed to mean just what it says
the electricity grid and batteries and motors came about before the ICE

'you just put whatever you have in them' - 100% WRONG

grids needed until c.35 years ago (and still need) grid-synchronous generators (and motors)
ie all those steam turbines must be run at this exactly constant rpm regardless of load

a wind turbine (also a tide-stream turbine) runs exactly inconstant rpm regardless
its output has to be continuously dismantled and reconstructed to grid-order - like mechanically recovered meat
the devices necessary for this dismantling and reconstructing didn't exist till c.35 years ago
that's why the water turbine generator in steady flow was done c.100 years ago

[mzso]

I had a few propane driven cars, the storage is extremely bulky and complex due to the large tanks and less safe because you work with a pressurised storage system. Any rupture will be extremely hard to battle. This is not just a problem for driver safety, but also spectators, Marshalls, etc etc. An accident like Grosjean, would possibly take hours to clear, as no one would be able to approach the car safely until the tank is secured.

You didn't specify anything of that system, but generally I don't agree. A rupture is as much a catastrophic failure with petrol as it is with propane.
But I was more thinking about butane, cans of which you have lying around in your bathroom and living room. Any you can pretty much hold some in a plastic carbonated beverage bottle. Cheap lighters are made of even worse brittle plastic. Hardly seems like a huge issue.

[djos]

Adding batteries to fuel cells Is Just adding weight, cost and complexity. This isn’t an issue for very large vehicles, but it is for passenger vehicles and race cars (less so cost in the latter example).

Btw, please tell me how you could fit this level of complexity into an F1 car without building an LMP car?



Those huge tanks are only good for 400 miles under normal driving conditions. I’m all for bringing refueling back to F1, but I can’t see FCEV F1 cars happening anytime in the next 20 years.

[Jolle]

I had a few propane driven cars, the storage is extremely bulky and complex due to the large tanks and less safe because you work with a pressurised storage system. Any rupture will be extremely hard to battle. This is not just a problem for driver safety, but also spectators, Marshalls, etc etc. An accident like Grosjean, would possibly take hours to clear, as no one would be able to approach the car safely until the tank is secured.

You didn't specify anything of that system, but generally I don't agree. A rupture is as much a catastrophic failure with petrol as it is with propane.
But I was more thinking about butane, cans of which you have lying around in your bathroom and living room. Any you can pretty much hold some in a plastic carbonated beverage bottle. Cheap lighters are made of even worse brittle plastic. Hardly seems like a huge issue.

How do you mean specify a propane system? Their uses are quite well known and widely used.
Why a rupture is more dangerous then gasoline is the pressure. When a gasoline tank bursts, the speed of burn is limited by the amount of oxygen it can bond with. A pressurised system, because it forms a big cloud, will burn faster and more explosive then a gasoline fire. I’ve seen some propane tanks rupture and catch fire… it’s wild and violent even very small amounts.

Butane has another serious problem for racing applications. It’s heavier then air so a leak will flood the surroundings and, when ignited, explosively burn in that area, especially when you need to carry large amounts of it.

[mzso]

Adding batteries to fuel cells Is Just adding weight, cost and complexity. This isn’t an issue for very large vehicles, but it is for passenger vehicles and race cars (less so cost in the latter example).

Btw, please tell me how you could fit this level of complexity into an F1 car without building an LMP car?

https://www.toyota.com/content/dam/toy ... 6_V002.png

Those huge tanks are only good for 400 miles under normal driving conditions. I’m all for bringing refueling back to F1, but I can’t see FCEV F1 cars happening anytime in the next 20 years.

You're just reiterating the same BS without even interpreting what I said. Again with the dumb hydrogen cylinders...

[NL_Fer]

I don’t believe the 2026 powerunit will run on gas or hydrogen. FIA seems clear about synthetic fuel.

But how about the 350kw electric power. Will it be a single MGU-K to the crank, or would 2 or more motors be allowed, for example one on the crank and another on the rear wheels?

[mzso]

I had a few propane driven cars, the storage is extremely bulky and complex due to the large tanks and less safe because you work with a pressurised storage system. Any rupture will be extremely hard to battle. This is not just a problem for driver safety, but also spectators, Marshalls, etc etc. An accident like Grosjean, would possibly take hours to clear, as no one would be able to approach the car safely until the tank is secured.

You didn't specify anything of that system, but generally I don't agree. A rupture is as much a catastrophic failure with petrol as it is with propane.
But I was more thinking about butane, cans of which you have lying around in your bathroom and living room. Any you can pretty much hold some in a plastic carbonated beverage bottle. Cheap lighters are made of even worse brittle plastic. Hardly seems like a huge issue.

How do you mean specify a propane system? Their uses are quite well known and widely used.
Why a rupture is more dangerous then gasoline is the pressure. When a gasoline tank bursts, the speed of burn is limited by the amount of oxygen it can bond with. A pressurised system, because it forms a big cloud, will burn faster and more explosive then a gasoline fire. I’ve seen some propane tanks rupture and catch fire… it’s wild and violent even very small amounts.
Butane has another serious problem for racing applications. It’s heavier then air so a leak will flood the surroundings and, when ignited, explosively burn in that area, especially when you need to carry large amounts of it.

On the other hand petrol just flood pools up and incinerates the driver.
There are always dangers if you carry around flammable liquids.
A carbon fiber gas tank would only rupture with extreme mechanical damage, when the car breaks into pieces. Not even the Grosjean crash accomplished that. At that point it's a lesser worry if the fuel turns into a fireball and floats away.
It seems to me that it's different, rather than more dangerous.

[henry]

….
Also you could recover a lot more during braking, I'm thinking no rear brakes would be required.
…

Currently peak braking power for the rear brakes is around 1400kW. That’s a lot to get out of a 750kW motor/generator. And likely to fry a battery, so add in some super-capacitors for a bit more complexity. Admittedly that power falls away rapidly but it still has to be handled.

[Jolle]

You didn't specify anything of that system, but generally I don't agree. A rupture is as much a catastrophic failure with petrol as it is with propane.
But I was more thinking about butane, cans of which you have lying around in your bathroom and living room. Any you can pretty much hold some in a plastic carbonated beverage bottle. Cheap lighters are made of even worse brittle plastic. Hardly seems like a huge issue.

How do you mean specify a propane system? Their uses are quite well known and widely used.
Why a rupture is more dangerous then gasoline is the pressure. When a gasoline tank bursts, the speed of burn is limited by the amount of oxygen it can bond with. A pressurised system, because it forms a big cloud, will burn faster and more explosive then a gasoline fire. I’ve seen some propane tanks rupture and catch fire… it’s wild and violent even very small amounts.
Butane has another serious problem for racing applications. It’s heavier then air so a leak will flood the surroundings and, when ignited, explosively burn in that area, especially when you need to carry large amounts of it.

On the other hand petrol just flood pools up and incinerates the driver.
There are always dangers if you carry around flammable liquids.
A carbon fiber gas tank would only rupture with extreme mechanical damage, when the car breaks into pieces. Not even the Grosjean crash accomplished that. At that point it's a lesser worry if the fuel turns into a fireball and floats away.
It seems to me that it's different, rather than more dangerous.

It's a big difference working with a gas vs working with a liquid. Liquid spil burns, gas leak explodes.
besides the car, there must be some kind of system to fuel the cars, in or around the padock/pit boxes. Some kind of traveling system of 10000 liters, accessible by the team, usable for ten garages and traveling around the world to 23 races.
lets say, there is a mobile "pump" system so every pit crew can fuel their own car. One leak in this system, one fault, damaged hose by a forklift truck or whatever and due to the relative low ignition point of propane and butane gas, you have a gas explosion that will level the whole pit complex.

besides, propane or butane tanks are not allowed on airplanes, some tunnels, boats, etc so... there is that problem.

oh, plus, when a crash like Grosjean would happen again, even when the tank doesn't rupture, there would be only one safe thing to do: evacuate that area and wait until the fire is over and everything is cooled down. A explosion of 200-300 liter propane or butane tank, especially one made to withstand extreme amounts of pressure, would potentially kill so many people, that LeMans 55 looks like a small incident.

[Zynerji]

You contradict yourself when you do that meanwhile you're pushing for ICE. A good degree of cognitive dissonance.



Methane is near as bad as hydrogen. Practically the second worse gas. Alkanes only start looking good for storage with propane/butane.
That's still a lot of weight because of their very poor energy density.
I wouldn't bet on it. Trends are changing at an accelerated rate right now. I think the V6 will look backward soon after the new PU formula is deployed.

Still mad that I have an opinion different than yours...

Full EV F1, while inevitable, is not interesting or compelling. It will kill my Fandom, and I'm assuming there are others that feel similar.

But don't worry. You can gloat and feel great about yourself after it's all implemented exactly as you feel best.

I often wonder how people come to claim to "have a different opinion" when proven wrong...

I'm sure you will find any number of excuses and blame for others when the ratings tank after the sport runs out of gas.

You mean like it did in the early two thousands? The racing got increasingly garbage, yet the ratings didn't tank.
The new regs can only help. As for electrification. As for the low number of loud whiners, I doubt they'll make a difference, especially since they watch F1 no matter what, by the looks of it. There were so many so wretched years.

You haven't proven anything but your bias and apparently a little harassment from your "thought police" perspective.

I don't like your idea, thought, concept, or world view on anything, including F1. And you need to be comfortable with that. Your angle of privilege is nauseating. Please stop.

[Rodak]

Speaking of propane in a crash.....
https://youtu.be/FsS3HxrXhsQ