[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Taxi645]

I’m not going to reply to every quote, but rather focus on the bigger meaning.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Beware of combining much of this talk with respect to the 2026 regulations. See below as to what I view the actual purpose of the links you provide are...


This is goals for the 2026 car regulations, not the power unit regulations. And it is not a "push back", but stated design goals.

Car and power unit regulation can’t be looked at separately especially considering weight (but also car size). You can not have much lighter cars and still want a hybrid drivetrain with 50% power split between combustion and electric. It’s wanting your cooky and eating it. This configuration will mean you have an ICE and electric engine, a fuel tank and a sufficiently large battery and you will have the electronics unit and all the wiring. Then it takes up a lot of space which again makes the car larger and heavier. You can say you want it, but if you don’t act accordingly, you won’t be getting it.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So the end of your post is at odds with the start of your post. You call out a push back against the 2026 regulations (which I generally say is not true), but end with questions as to what happens after the 2026 regulations are done. And I think that is exactly where this is going. What will it look like circa 2030 or so???

From the Domenicali interview in the Autosport article posted earlier...

It's clear from the entire article he is talking about post 2026 regulations.

No, the wording was quite specifically chosen. I said “ The momentum against the 2026 regulation direction seems to be building”. It specifically did not say it was directly questioning the 2026 regulations itself. That said, alway’s ask yourself, why is someone (of influence) saying something? Why is he saying it now? Is there a change of direction being softened up in public? Are there any critical decision points outstanding and are stakeholder manoeuvring into their best position? Why is there talk 3 years before the next regulation change will be implemented for something that is indeed likely implemented in 2029/2030 at the earliest? Why would you do that? Or are some people not happy with the direction that is chosen and are they trying to undermine the status qua without actually wanting to say that specifically in public?

I indeed see two things:
1 People not happy with the exact power split of the 2026 regulation.
2 People questioning the desirability of such a high electric component in the first place (with all the weight implications that brings), considering that with synthetic fuel you car runs net zero if it’s produced sustainably.

So how there is only a very thin line between these two arguments. Also imagine how easy it is for someone who doesn’t like the 2026 regulation, to muddy the waters now long before even 2026 so some people will start to put one and one together and think: “Is this whole 2026 powerunit thing a good idea in the first place?”.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The bold above is mine not from the article. I find that last bit fascinating. My take on what is meant is that circa 2030, the world will have clearly moved beyond F1 as we know it. We view F1 as some type of "technical pinnacle", but it has been far from it for decades. The current generation of highly efficient combustion engines (and the competition to develop them) was maybe the last hurrah of "pure technology development" from F1 that might have implications outside of F1. The cars themselves are firmly rooted in very old technology. I have made the comparison before that F1 cars are high end, extremely finely crafted mechanical watches in a world of quartz watches. And the quartz watches are lower price and are much more accurate at telling time.

I think the point that Vettel is making is that in 2030, F1 will be the equivalent of horse and buggy racing. Tight technical regulations, but a throwback that fans can enjoy. That it will be OK to use relatively basic cars that use only combustion engines. Of course for sustainability reasons, the fuel will be from sustainable sources, but otherwise they might be much smaller, lighter and raw solutions much like F1 of yesterday. "Arts and Culture" as he says.

Richard

I don’t disagree with your interpretation. I think it is correct. A logical consequence of that line of thought could be, if we have reached that insight now, 3 year before 2026, why are we still marching onto a path of which we know is not the direction F1 in it’s traditional form (light, powerful fast cars) can ultimately take, because full electric will be too heavy and tame? Why, if we have this insight already and have sustainable fuel available in 2026, are we not acting upon this insight and choose a different direction. It might not be in the interests of greenwashing manufacturers, but it would be in the interest of racing and it’s fans.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

...Why is there talk 3 years before the next regulation change will be implemented for something that is indeed likely implemented in 2029/2030 at the earliest? Why would you do that? Or are some people not happy with the direction that is chosen and are they trying to undermine the status qua without actually wanting to say that specifically in public?

I indeed see two things:
1 People not happy with the exact power split of the 2026 regulation.
2 People questioning the desirability of such a high electric component in the first place (with all the weight implications that brings), considering that with synthetic fuel you car runs net zero if it’s produced sustainably...

for sure those things could be true but there is a number 3 also...they are just making noise in the media for the purpose of greenwashing. rather, this could be more about optics then making a genuine change to the 2026 regs.

agreed tho that this sounds more likely to be the direction post 2030.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Car and power unit regulation can’t be looked at separately especially considering weight (but also car size). You can not have much lighter cars and still want a hybrid drivetrain with 50% power split between combustion and electric. It’s wanting your cooky and eating it. This configuration will mean you have an ICE and electric engine, a fuel tank and a sufficiently large battery and you will have the electronics unit and all the wiring. Then it takes up a lot of space which again makes the car larger and heavier. You can say you want it, but if you don’t act accordingly, you won’t be getting it.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but I think you might be ignoring the fact that the 2026 power unit regulations are effectively set. So yes, they can't be looked at separately, but the are not being decided upon in parallel. And because the power unit regulations are set, and are likely to probably about as heavy (maybe more, maybe less) than today, and that the power unit has such an impact on car weight, there is only so much that can be done to make the car lighter.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

No, the wording was quite specifically chosen. I said “ The momentum against the 2026 regulation direction seems to be building”. It specifically did not say it was directly questioning the 2026 regulations itself. That said, alway’s ask yourself, why is someone (of influence) saying something? Why is he saying it now? Is there a change of direction being softened up in public? Are there any critical decision points outstanding and are stakeholder manoeuvring into their best position?

I can't find any momentum that you speak about. You broadly wave away all of my points that this is about post 2026 regulations without providing anything to back up your position. Why is this being talked about now? Probably because people are asking the questions just like they have always asked the questions. And as we know many don't like the heavy cars, but they have decided to continue with them for now, so yes, the undercurrents of wanting something else remains, so the questions will continue. It absolutely does not mean they will reverse course.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

A logical consequence of that line of thought could be, if we have reached that insight now, 3 year before 2026, why are we still marching onto a path of which we know is not the direction F1 in it’s traditional form (light, powerful fast cars) can ultimately take, because full electric will be too heavy and tame? Why, if we have this insight already and have sustainable fuel available in 2026, are we not acting upon this insight and choose a different direction. It might not be in the interests of greenwashing manufacturers, but it would be in the interest of racing and it’s fans.

There is no new insight that is being exposed now. There is nothing new here. The call outs by fans, drivers, etc. for cars that are more like they were decades ago is not new.

But... the commercial holders want manufactures. At a high level two things had to happen to rope them in. (1) The power units needed to be cheaper to develop and more likely to have performance parity and (2) they wanted them to be more sustainable/align with their product roadmaps. As to the first, the spec is simpler by removing the MGUH, more design constraints, more spec components, etc. And they also fixed development costs by putting in place power unit development cost caps. As to the second, they knew it needed to be fully sustainable and to have a larger electric component that mirrors (at least superficially) what they are marketing to the public. So this resulted in an increase on the electric side, but not going fully electrics, because otherwise F1 would just be replicating Formula E.

This was going to result in a general continuation of the current base technical solution. And by extension the bulk and weight of those same solutions. Which then drives the overall weight, bulk, size of the cars.

Unless FOM/Liberty was to change course on continuing and/or increased manufacture involvement there is really no other alternative given those constraints because all of that came out of direct negotiations with the various parties. As I have talked about in a number of posts in this thread is that what you are posting about is... what happens next. But not immediately "next", but after the 2026 regulations have run their course, because 2026 regulations are off and running. Pandora's box is open.

What happens when the world maybe has moved beyond the need to focus on combustion/electric hybrids. That might free up F1 to move away from that direction and pull back toward some of the ideas you call out. But is that going to drive significant change for the 2026 regulations? IMHO absolutely not. They WILL try to achieve their goals of reducing weight. While the chassis spec is still being defined, it can be adjusted, but it can only move so much.

But all of that talk about technical direction (non-hybrid combustion engines, lighter cars, etc.) is ancillary to keeping the existing and in particular new manufactures happy and also to ensure the sport is entertaining. There is a concept (cynical joke in some ways) called "Safety is third" that came about in the US and I don't know if it has really had global reach or not and if anyone is familiar with the idea or not. It can be defined in many ways. But I think part of the genesis is that companies will say things like "Safety is first here at Acme manufacturing!" when we know the top priority is really things like "maximizing shareholder value". So we can pretend that things like lightweight cars, NA V8/V10 power units and no hybrid solutions are the priority one and will drive the future, but they are not.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I guess when you have the Ferrari WEC car kicking out near 700bhp, I imagine with an engine that is hugely cheaper to produce, you do wonder if the F1 path is the correct one.

It has a road car engine in it (slightly modified 296 GTS engine), so indeed much, much cheaper to produce. The Ferrari F1 aerodynamicists would have a heart attack trying to incorporate a 120-degree wide angle V6 into a Grand Prix car though!

Eye candy: 296 GTS engine, Ferrari F 163 BC

It was bad enough when Ferrari insisted on running a flat-12 with no space for venturis, hence the swift switch to the 1.5L narrow-angle V6 turbo.

On the other hand, the hybrid system is probably more complicated than the F1 car with the front axle recovery and deployment.

So you suppose the LMH and LMDh approach of "use any engine you want and we'll use BOP to make the cars evenish" is the one to go for?

The Cadillac has a 5.5L road car based engine. The Acura has the abandoned 2.4L Indycar engine. The BMW has the old DTM V8 with turbos added. The Porsche has the old V8 from the RS Sypder LMP2 with turbos added. It's true that the faster cars are mostly twin-turbo V6s, but there is quite a variety.

Such a "run whatever racing or road engine you brung and we'll adjust" rule would be quite the departure for Formula 1 whose cars have traditionally been built to a "Formula" -- be it 2500cc, 1500cc, 3000cc or 1500cc supercharged, 3500cc, 3000cc, 3000cc V10 only, 2400cc V8 only etc.

[S griffin]

They need to keep things simple. Hybrids are very complicated pieces of kit and there's no reason why they shouldn't go back to simple power units. F1 doesn't need to be road relevant after all.

[Sodemo]

I'd much rather F1 teams be given an off the shelf road going EV unit and then allow them to modify it to make it more reliable/powerful, but give it a weight limit of say 50kg. That would be true road relevance. It would be cost effective, allow teams to still brand them as "hybrids" so the PR people are happy, but probably provide minimal actual power so then if you spend millions developing it you don't actually gain that much performance.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for sure those things could be true but there is a number 3 also...they are just making noise in the media for the purpose of greenwashing. rather, this could be more about optics then making a genuine change to the 2026 regs.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/cspro/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

agreed tho that this sounds more likely to be the direction post 2030.

I find it risky and odd for the F1 and FIA boss to question so loudly the direction that has been collectively decided upon, three years before the next regulations will go on track.

Normally if you try to sell a product, you will say it is the best things since sliced bread until you launch the next product. In this case they are saying our product will be crap 3 years before it will see the light of day! To me that is a very strange PR strategy.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but I think you might be ignoring the fact that the 2026 power unit regulations are effectively set. So yes, they can't be looked at separately, but the are not being decided upon in parallel.

Agreements are valid till the next agreement is made. If the consensus within F1 moves away from the direction taken and says, we made the wrong judgement call we need to readjust, that would be possible. It would be extremely unlikely I admit, but possible. The reason I don’t dismiss the possibility 100% is because of my reply tot Chillibowl. It does not make sense to me.


I could see this remote possibility:
F1/the FIA approach the manufacturers and say, look we hooked you up with the current 2026 power unit regulations. However we don’t think it is in the our collective best interest any more to keep pursuing this direction. We need to get these cars lighter and (as you rightfully point out) with the current 2026 proposal that is not possible (basically weight wise they replaced one weight dog, the MGU-H approach, with another; the battery).
The alternative option could be to postpone the regulation change one year and not throw the engine design work completely down the drain, but reuse it in a different configuration. Add KERS and market it as hybrid, the sustainable fuel can provide all the greenwashing they want, but at the same time you can slice more than 100kg of the final weight if you take inboard smaller cars and wheels. The manufacturers can still get what they want, but in the meantime the FIA, F1, independent teams, racers and fans get what they want as well, cheaper, smaller and lighter cars.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I can't find any momentum that you speak about. You broadly wave away all of my points that this is about post 2026 regulations without providing anything to back up your position. Why is this being talked about now? Probably because people are asking the questions just like they have always asked the questions. And as we know many don't like the heavy cars, but they have decided to continue with them for now, so yes, the undercurrents of wanting something else remains, so the questions will continue. It absolutely does not mean they will reverse course.

People at this level don’t simply answer questions, they have a PR strategy. If the FIA and F1 boss collectively communicate to the public they want lighter cars that they do that for a reason. As said, for the above reasons, I find it risky if they only did it to appease the fans.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I There is no new insight that is being exposed now. There is nothing new here. The call outs by fans, drivers, etc. for cars that are more like they were decades ago is not new.

This is both untrue and a simplification. You are framing it as an conservative nostalgic argument. It is not. We have way too heavy wheels and tyres because of Pirelli’s marketing department (opinion granted) and again (since 2014) have way too heavy power units because of the manufacturers marketing departments. Enough is enough. Synthetic fuel is a much more world relevant (yes, a twist on road relevant) than hybrid is and that will increase each year into the future. Aviation as we know it can only continue with synthetic fuel and in the next decade synthetic fuels will be produces in very large quantities.
Manufacturers like Porsche and Ferrari longer term want to maintain their identity by the use of synthetic fuel rather than electric only. Therefore for them for F1 to run on synthetic fuel is way more important and even desirable than for it to run extremely high electric components.
I’m not arguing for cars like decades ago, nor are the FIA and F1. The argument is for lighter cars and sustainable fuel allows for it. That is an argument that only the last years/months has started gaining momentum.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

But... the commercial holders want manufactures. At a high level two things had to happen to rope them in. (1) The power units needed to be cheaper to develop and more likely to have performance parity and (2) they wanted them to be more sustainable/align with their product roadmaps. As to the first, the spec is simpler by removing the MGUH, more design constraints, more spec components, etc. And they also fixed development costs by putting in place power unit development cost caps. As to the second, they knew it needed to be fully sustainable and to have a larger electric component that mirrors (at least superficially) what they are marketing to the public. So this resulted in an increase on the electric side, but not going fully electrics, because otherwise F1 would just be replicating Formula E.
Unless FOM/Liberty was to change course on continuing and/or increased manufacture involvement there is really no other alternative given those constraints because all of that came out of direct negotiations with the various parties.

Hybrid will be relegated to small niches in the automotive world fairly soon. Synthetic fuel on the other hand will be very relevant in the much broader world at the same time. They (including the manufacturers) betted on the wrong horse, the sooner they realise it, the better it is for all of us.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As I have talked about in a number of posts in this thread is that what you are posting about is... what happens next. But not immediately "next", but after the 2026 regulations have run their course, because 2026 regulations are off and running. Pandora's box is open.

What happens when the world maybe has moved beyond the need to focus on combustion/electric hybrids. That might free up F1 to move away from that direction and pull back toward some of the ideas you call out. But is that going to drive significant change for the 2026 regulations? IMHO absolutely not.

The thing is, by 2026 battery tech will already have moved on so much (price mainly), it will not make any sense to still produce hybrids in the automotive market. So the first year F1 implements its new power unit regulations with a 50% electric PU component, it has already become irrelevant. It will not be road relevant. I see a small simmer of hope that the FIA, F1 but ultimately also the manufacturers themselves will understand this and change course before it’s too late.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

But all of that talk about technical direction (non-hybrid combustion engines, lighter cars, etc.) is ancillary to keeping the existing and in particular new manufactures happy and also to ensure the sport is entertaining. There is a concept (cynical joke in some ways) called "Safety is third" that came about in the US and I don't know if it has really had global reach or not and if anyone is familiar with the idea or not. It can be defined in many ways. But I think part of the genesis is that companies will say things like "Safety is first here at Acme manufacturing!" when we know the top priority is really things like "maximizing shareholder value". So we can pretend that things like lightweight cars, NA V8/V10 power units and no hybrid solutions are the priority one and will drive the future, but they are not.

Richard

This time that attitude might bight them in the arse.


P.S. I hope you don’t shoot me too hard if I won’t keep this discussion going. We have said what we’ve said, we agree and disagree, but my spare time is limited.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

P.S. I hope you don’t shoot me too hard if I won’t keep this discussion going. We have said what we’ve said, we agree and disagree, but my spare time is limited.

No, I am with you. I am pretty much talked out myself. I am posting this follow up, but I am not trying to get the last word in, but did want to make a few comments.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I find it risky and odd for the F1 and FIA boss to question so loudly the direction that has been collectively decided upon, three years before the next regulations will go on track.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Hybrid will be relegated to small niches in the automotive world fairly soon. Synthetic fuel on the other hand will be very relevant in the much broader world at the same time. They (including the manufacturers) betted on the wrong horse, the sooner they realise it, the better it is for all of us.

I think we might be at this inflection point around carbon > hybrid (carbon+electric) > electric. That is a simplification of things, but broadly I think that is it. And the question is to exactly when we are more electric than hybrid. And the rule makers (and the manufactures they are serving) are trying to predict when that will be. And from a "F1 as PR exercise" they are trying to ensure the regulations match their expectations as to when that pivot will happen.

When you say that hybrids will be in niche markets "soon". The question really is "exactly when is soon?" I think based upon your posts that you think it is closer to 2026 and for me maybe it is closer to 2030+ (Note: 2030 is arbitrary ending point for the future 2026 regulations, those probably will run longer than four years).

I broadly agree with you on it eventually being a niche solution, but just disagree on timing and by extension the purpose behind some of the comments you mention by F1 and others. As I interpret those same comments different, I tend to think they agree with my position (later) and not yours (sooner).

I think we talk as if 2026 and even 2030+ are a long time away. But in some ways they are not that far away. I don't feel FIA/F1 talking about "what is next" now as being overly critical as to what is planned for 2026. I don't know when they will settle on the 2026 technical regulations (chassis/aero regulations) to match up with the 2026 power unit regulations, but it probably is relatively soon. No doubt there remains items to work out and that is rooted of the current rumbling (such as from RBR). But in the end, just like teams have to develop cars for next year in the current season, its normal to have talk about the next set of technical regulations as this set is wrapping up.

Anyhow, I enjoy the discussion and apologize if I am overly critical in my responses. It is just me being passionate about my opinions.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I'd much rather F1 teams be given an off the shelf road going EV unit and then allow them to modify it to make it more reliable/powerful, but give it a weight limit of say 50kg. That would be true road relevance. It would be cost effective, allow teams to still brand them as "hybrids" so the PR people are happy, but probably provide minimal actual power so then if you spend millions developing it you don't actually gain that much performance.

That's the exact opposite of the intention of the 2026 power unit regulations!

The idea is exactly for it to be battle ground of hybrid development.

[Richard C]

Exactly! There are significant controls over development (cost, equipment, etc.). Combustion portion is highly prescribed with some design flexibility on the top end of the engine. The differentiator is likely to be on the electric side.

Richard

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

That's the exact opposite of the intention of the 2026 power unit regulations!

The idea is exactly for it to be battle ground of hybrid development.

Which will be super expensive!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Which will be super expensive!

Of course! That's what Mercedes, Renault etc want (for some reason).

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Exactly! There are significant controls over development (cost, equipment, etc.).

True. That level ($140m p/a, similar to team cost caps I believe) is still well beyond what a Judd or Gibson or AER or any other independent could feasibly spend on an F1 engine project though.

But if not for the convoluted 2014 regulations, would we have technically marvellous engines with 18:1 compression, 30:1 air fuel ratio and ~50% thermal efficiency? Using pre-chamber turbulent jet injection and clever engineering to survive on such lean mixtures (and ultra high compression with 70 psi turbo boost on top) that would make lesser engines explode in short order? Probably not.

Then all the fancy MGU-H and MGU-K strategies on top of that too (albeit MGU-H soon being removed to "simplify" the 2026 units).

(Do fans care and just want inefficient V10s or V12s anyway...? Hmm...)

[Sodemo]

Drivers after Monza once again saying that the cars are almost as bad as the 2021 cars now in terms of being able to follow one another closely.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...vers/10516681/

[Taxi645]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...abtrieb-motor/


AMS is indicating that the new power unit regulation add another 36kg on top of what we got when the hybrids were introduced and all the incremental weight gains we have gotten since then. Yet, due to the smaller cars and narrower wheels and tyres they still think they can reduce it 20kg. 798kg - 20 makes 778kg.


Now imagine, what we could've ended up with if they had just chosen simple V6 turbo's with KERS (to call it hybrid) running on synthetic fuel.


778kg - 36kg mentioned in the article makes: 742kg (for the current PU).


742kg - 35kg makes: 707kg (MGU-H with larger battery and electronics).


707kg - 17kg makes 690kg (not only narrower tyres but also smaller diameter tyres and wheels).


690kg! With all the current safety standards and cost restrictions! Oh well.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Now imagine, what we could've ended up with if they had just chosen simple V6 turbo's with KERS (to call it hybrid) running on synthetic fuel.

I can't read the AMuS article due to paywall, so I can't really comment on what they are saying. They are loosing the weight and complexity of the MGU-H, but I wonder if the overall weight increase is the larger battery pack.

And while no doubt the PU could be even more simpler, I think it is supposed to be pretty simple in this 2026 spec. V6, turbo, kinetic recovery and synthetic fuel. Maybe the delta is that the 2026 spec will rely upon battery power/electric power more than the current spec (hence, larger battery packs).

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I can't read the AMuS article due to paywall, so I can't really comment on what they are saying. They are loosing the weight and complexity of the MGU-H, but I wonder if the overall weight increase is the larger battery pack.

And while no doubt the PU could be even more simpler, I think it is supposed to be pretty simple in this 2026 spec. V6, turbo, kinetic recovery and synthetic fuel. Maybe the delta is that the 2026 spec will rely upon battery power/electric power more than the current spec (hence, larger battery packs).

Richard

Yes, that is the reason. After the huge weight gain after the introduction of the hybrids they added another 36kg due the 50% electric component for 2026. Madness in my view.

[Adam43]

Sorry, not been following. When you say 50% electric component, what does the 50% refer to?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Sorry, not been following. When you say 50% electric component, what does the 50% refer to?

50% of the power output being electric, the being the ICE. This requires larger heavier electric components for recuperation, power output and a much larger and heavier battery.

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1037265/1/f1-2026-rule-details-emerge-smaller-cars-40-cent-less-downforce

[Adam43]

Thanks.

50% will be recovered EV and the recovery won’t have MGU-H. Impressive. For only 36kg more. although I don’t see the 36kg in the article, is that net after the other changes or just the increased battery?

Sounds like they are making the cars narrower and shorter too. Again impressive if they can do that. And they run with less fuel.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Thanks.

50% will be recovered EV and the recovery won’t have MGU-H. Impressive. For only 36kg more. although I don’t see the 36kg in the article, is that net after the other changes or just the increased battery?

Sounds like they are making the cars narrower and shorter too. Again impressive if they can do that. And they run with less fuel.

The article mentions the power train will be 193kg or 23% more. That works out to +36kg. I take it as the net regarding the power train with an overall realistic goal of -20kg mentioned. But there is a school that wants to go lighter and then more drastic changes are needed.


I see where you coming from when you say only +36kg is impressive. However it is 36kg on top of an already very heavy power train for open wheel racing which has let to far to heavy cars even today.

[Adam43]

I am aware of the whole too heavy, add lightness stuff. I get it.

Here, I was just commenting on the technical aspect that I thought it quite clever. Richard added a bit more in another thread as I’m sure you’ve seen. https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=208

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I am aware of the whole too heavy, add lightness stuff. I get it.

Here, I was just commenting on the technical aspect that I thought it quite clever. Richard added a bit more in another thread as I’m sure you’ve seen. https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=208

Originally Posted by Richard C

Wants to provide some extra context on this. As always the power unit regulations are very complex. But a few key points...

* Revised (lower) flow rates which effectively drop power from the ICE by about 33%
* Energy storage in the batter is the same (I have been wrong by saying things like "bigger battery pack" is adding weight. It's probably other stuff such as the MGU-K)
* Increase in the rate of power that can be recovered or deployed by MGU-K
* Overall power is about the same, but at peak power, less is from the ICE and more from the electric motor.

Watch the following video at about 7min 40sec. It goes into where if you are dumping power out of the battery, given the higher power flow rates, you will deplete the battery much faster. So you can run out of "power" before the end of long straights. Video provides specifics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxDQBVzXWt4

The entire video is very good and talks about many differences from a power generation, recovery and application for the current vs. next gen power units.

Apologies as this appears somewhat off topic, but it speaks as to why they want to reduce drag, because with less drag, it takes less power to maintain high speeds on straight. And all of this is about not having the cars be slower than current.

Richard

Thanks for pointing to that video that is quite interesting. So the I was also mistaken thinking that the battery was going to get larger. But then the 36kg extra is a bit more puzzling. So despite loosing the MGU-H and maintaining the same battery size, Auto-motor-and-spurt is claiming the power train is still gaining 36kg. That MGU-K and the electric hardware along with it must really be gaining a lot of weight.

[Sodemo]

They should just set the min weight at 700kg and let the teams do a race to make the cars as light as possible. In that situation I wonder how many teams would just ditch off the Hybrid stuff or elements of it…?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

So despite loosing the MGU-H and maintaining the same battery size, Auto-motor-and-spurt is claiming the power train is still gaining 36kg. That MGU-K and the electric hardware along with it must really be gaining a lot of weight.

Thanks for quoting my post over here. I should have posted it here in the first place. As to the weight gain... I am assuming that is the situation. If the MGU-K is going to be harvesting and deploying more power then the physical dimensions of the device may have grown to accommodate the extra performance.

There is one other change to the 2026 spec that I wonder if if might have weight increase consequences. For safety purposes....

Better safety - With the MGU-K set to be enclosed within the chassis, next to the battery and control electronics, all high-voltage equipment will now be contained within the safety cell – making for a safer car.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...QO7jtFxQR.html

I don't know if that change to the MGU-K and related electronics location is weight neutral, but I suspect it may result in a weight increase as it is moved and encapsulated.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They should just set the min weight at 700kg and let the teams do a race to make the cars as light as possible. In that situation I wonder how many teams would just ditch off the Hybrid stuff or elements of it…?

There is an excellent idea someone had (might have been Taxi's) to start with a higher minimum weight so that teams can meet it initially when a new spec is released, but then have a progressively shrinking minimum over time as teams engineer out the weight.

Richard