2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
saviour stivala
saviour stivala
48
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:27 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 5:46 pm
mzso wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:46 pm
I meant ..no limit on recovery, keep deployment to 350kW.

Should eliminate traditional rear brakes as an added benefit.
1500 kW would do that - has the FIA agreed ?

unlikely there would be a gearbox helping the MG as much as the 2014-25 one has
The current PUs and the '26 PUs allow for a "gearbox" between the MGU and crankshaft, but it must be of fixed speed ratio.
At present ''the MGU-K mechaical link to the power train before the main clutch must be of fixed spped ratio to engine crankshaft and the rotational speed of the MGU-K may not exceed 50k RPM.

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

If they kept the 50krpm limit but allowed a CVT drive to it, how much more recovery would be achieved and how would it affect the cars behaviour under braking?
Also, there are potential benefits to connecting the KERS directly to the gearbox, rather than the ICE; it would allow Electric-only drive within the pit lane (which does scream “green-washing”, but ‘optics’).
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1403
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 pm
I was pointing out that RB doesn't go half-assed on developments.
Also that, as I remeber they were included in the development of the electric side.

There dozens of tested chemistries, usually in the solid state, sulfur cathode realm. Always with higher energy density, than common Li-ion. F1 need not restrict itself to off-the-shelf parts, it didn't use to.
Being thorough when designing a car or anything else is only half the picture. Without actual experience in designing, making and running such complex PUs, with many small and very significant details hiding in every step of the process, being thorough alone can't bring you to the top. Eddy currents in e motors alone are a very complex topic and you need a lot of studying and experimenting on how to minimise the losses to get somewhere. I'm not even gonna go into derating. And those two massive topics are mostly related to motor design alone, power electronics are way more important if you want to squeeze the final little bit of performance.

As for batteries, solid states chemistries are nowhere near an acceptable industrial level yet unfortunately. Many companies are making big claims, but have nothing reliable to show for. Daimler had a big recall of early batches of eCitaro buses in a few German cities not too long ago. Lithium dendrites are a nasty thing, especially when the cells get to be physically stressed a lot, like they do in F1 cars,
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 8:40 am
mzso wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 pm
I was pointing out that RB doesn't go half-assed on developments.
Also that, as I remeber they were included in the development of the electric side.

There dozens of tested chemistries, usually in the solid state, sulfur cathode realm. Always with higher energy density, than common Li-ion. F1 need not restrict itself to off-the-shelf parts, it didn't use to.
Being thorough when designing a car or anything else is only half the picture. Without actual experience in designing, making and running such complex PUs, with many small and very significant details hiding in every step of the process, being thorough alone can't bring you to the top. Eddy currents in e motors alone are a very complex topic and you need a lot of studying and experimenting on how to minimise the losses to get somewhere. I'm not even gonna go into derating. And those two massive topics are mostly related to motor design alone, power electronics are way more important if you want to squeeze the final little bit of performance.

As for batteries, solid states chemistries are nowhere near an acceptable industrial level yet unfortunately. Many companies are making big claims, but have nothing reliable to show for. Daimler had a big recall of early batches of eCitaro buses in a few German cities not too long ago. Lithium dendrites are a nasty thing, especially when the cells get to be physically stressed a lot, like they do in F1 cars,
I'd be surprised if RB didn't show up with a competitive PU, they made a bunch of good hires, since Honda announced their phony exit.

As for batteries, luckily F1 doesn't need industrial levels, only supply for twenty custom designed cars.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
622
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 7:26 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 5:46 pm
mzso wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:46 pm
I meant ..no limit on recovery, keep deployment to 350kW.
Should eliminate traditional rear brakes as an added benefit.
1500 kW would do that - has the FIA agreed ?
unlikely there would be a gearbox helping the MG as much as the 2014-25 one has
We're talking hypotheticals, so of course not. 😃
Not sure what you mean about the gearbox.
(atm 2024) there's 8 different mechanical relationships between the PU and this planet Earth
these 8 we call gears

eg the driver eg repeatedly downshifts throughout braking to keep at high PU rpm ie 'high' voltage
so (2024) GU-K action is kept at max 120 kW via voltage being 'high' in the designed range - and so the current is 'low'
(without downshifting there'd be low rpm ie 120 kW via 'low' voltage and 'high' current)
the rules anyway limit 'high' current/'low' voltage - clipping MG torque/power below c.5800 rpm

keeping rpm (voltage) 'high' and torque (current) 'low' gives higher efficiency from the MGU-K & so-called CE
so yes the gearbox helps the electric side
ie this benefit wouldn't exist if the MG drove the wheels directly

User avatar
Vanja #66
1403
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:31 am
F1 doesn't need industrial levels
I agree on this, in F1 the requirements are way higher than industrial...
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2024 8:07 am
mzso wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:31 am
F1 doesn't need industrial levels
I agree on this, in F1 the requirements are way higher than industrial...
Even with current rules you can use multiple battery packs a year. With road cars you want them to last at least a decade. And since usually the cycle-life is what's not where they want it they're better suited for F1.

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:10 pm
unlikely there would be a gearbox helping the MG as much as the 2014-25 one has

keeping rpm (voltage) 'high' and torque (current) 'low' gives higher efficiency from the MGU-K & so-called CE
so yes the gearbox helps the electric side
Okay, so this would be an area of interest for development. I see no issue.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1403
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:46 am
Even with current rules you can use multiple battery packs a year. With road cars you want them to last at least a decade. And since usually the cycle-life is what's not where they want it they're better suited for F1.
So you're saying charging and discharging the pack on average 1.5 times a lap for 55-60 laps during the race and about the same amount before the race, times 12 races a single pack should live through is not a lot of cycles? All with much higher physical and thermal stress included...

And that's the current rules, 2026 rules increase charging and discharging cycles by at least 100%.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
48
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:53 am
If they kept the 50krpm limit but allowed a CVT drive to it, how much more recovery would be achieved and how would it affect the cars behaviour under braking?
Also, there are potential benefits to connecting the KERS directly to the gearbox, rather than the ICE; it would allow Electric-only drive within the pit lane (which does scream “green-washing”, but ‘optics’).
"Electric only drive through the pit-lane''. The rule makers 2014 original intentions were for 'electric only drive through the pit-lane' but the teams objected to it. But apart from the rule makers relenting to the 'pit-lane only electric drive', the 2014 rules (1.25) actually stated "MGU-K. The kinetic motor generator unit is the electric machine mechanically linked to the drive train as part of the ERS''. Which means that in 2014 the MGU-K could have been linked anywhere between the fron of the crankshaft ands the rear wheels. Later rules mandating the MGU-K be linked to the ICE before the main clutch, made electric only drive totally inefficient as it would be rotating the crankshaft against compression. Another thing is the driver being able to restart a stalled engine by the MGU-K, In 2016 Adam Cooper was reporting that only FERRARI and Renault had chosen to make use of that ability.

wuzak
wuzak
447
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

From the 2014 rules:

5.2.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft.

2022 rules:
5.3.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft. An in-line, passive, dissipative energy torque limitation device may be incorporated in this link which temporarily allows the speed ratio to change for the sole purpose of protecting the components from dynamic torque overshoots. This device may only act above 220Nm when referred to crankshaft speed.

2026 rules
5.20 MGU-K
5.20.1 The MGU-K must be mechanically fixed to the survival cell, the ICE or both.
5.20.2 Under normal operating conditions all MGU-K rotating parts must be permanently mechanically linked to the ICE with a fixed speed ratio to the crankshaft. The MGU-K and its drive axis must be parallel to the crankshaft axis.
5.20.3 All mechanical power to and from the MGU-K must pass through a single shaft to the MGU-K transmission. The connection to the ICE crankshaft must be ahead of XPU=100.
5.20.4 An in-line, passive, dissipative energy torque limitation device may be incorporated in this link which temporarily allows the speed ratio to change for the sole purpose of protecting the components from dynamic torque overshoots. This device may only act above 520Nm when referred to crankshaft speed.
5.20.5 The relative rotational speed between any two parts of the MGU-K may not exceed 60,000rpm.


XPU = 0 at the mounting face between the engine and chassis.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
48
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

The 2014 rules. While 5.2.3 speaks only of out/inputs and storage of electrical power, 1.25 says ''motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K). The kinetic motor generator unit is the electrical machine mechanically linked to the 'DRIVETRAIN' as part of the ERS''. And 5.2.7 says ''MGU-K may only recover energy from or give back energy to the car via its mechanical link to the 'DRIVETRAIN'. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft and may be clutched''. Restarting a stalled engine by MGU-K. The first known case of a driver restarting after engine had stalled was that of Massa on the starting grid of the 2016 Malaysian GP. As per regulations when his engine stalled before the redlights went off, he signaled with both his hands and a yellow flag was promptly shown, when his engineer instructed him how to, he used one hand and managed to restart his stalled engine by MGU-K and the yellow flag was pulled off just before the red light went off so the race was started, BUT possible future engine restarts on the starting grid were killed by race director driver briefing at the next GP instructing drivers that they must signal a stalled engine on the starting grid by rising both hands. After that there was other drivers restarting their engines by MGU-K, The next one was Vettel when he restarted on the weighing scales before being pushed off the scales, he was fined for damaging the scales but not for restarting because this restart was not on the starting grid and so he did not need to rise both hands. Kime also restarted sometime after that but during a race and not on starting grid.

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:22 am
mzso wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:46 am
Even with current rules you can use multiple battery packs a year. With road cars you want them to last at least a decade. And since usually the cycle-life is what's not where they want it they're better suited for F1.
So you're saying charging and discharging the pack on average 1.5 times a lap for 55-60 laps during the race and about the same amount before the race, times 12 races a single pack should live through is not a lot of cycles? All with much higher physical and thermal stress included...

And that's the current rules, 2026 rules increase charging and discharging cycles by at least 100%.
Well, they don't need to last very long, seven races, if I remember correctly, and they don't do full charge/recharge cycles. Also some of them still have reasonable cycle-life, 1000-2000.
So, potentially, some of them might be used.

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
82
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

I feel the new regulations will not make a “bad” powerunit be lagging behind or blowing like we saw in 2014. There almost no room for that in the ice and we have seen already in formula-e that every manufacturer has a chance to built a good electric driveline, even the new and smaller ones.

I feel biggest difference will be made in the tuning and charge-recharge strategies and naturally Redbull is always good in that department.

Bill
Bill
8
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:28 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2024 10:57 am
I feel the new regulations will not make a “bad” powerunit be lagging behind or blowing like we saw in 2014. There almost no room for that in the ice and we have seen already in formula-e that every manufacturer has a chance to built a good electric driveline, even the new and smaller ones.

I feel biggest difference will be made in the tuning and charge-recharge strategies and naturally Redbull is always good in that department.
the pu will run very lean small amount of fuel and lots of air and they wont be any rev limit the mguk will be also much more powerful and work harder .thats a recipe for unreliability.