Aston Martin team principal Mike Krack says he shares Red Bull counterpart Christian Horner’s concerns over Formula 1’s 2026 power unit regulations.
Red Bull’s Horner has repeatedly expressed worries this year about the power unit regulations set to be introduced in 2026. Although 1.6-litre V6 engines will be retained, the power unit designs will see heavily revised as F1 plans to drop the MGU-H element and greatly increases electrical power as a proportion of overall output.Horner suggested that the rules risk creating “Frankenstein” cars and could lead to undesirable driving situations where drivers would have to shift down on long straights to maximise power unit performance. Reigning world champion Max Verstappen has also said the current regulations would produce “terrible” cars based on Red Bull’s early simulator analysis.
In an exclusive conversation with RaceFans, Krack was asked whether the 2026 regulations were a concern to him and his response was: “Yes, it is.”
“It is for all of us,” he continued. “I think the engine manufacturers – or the PU manufacturers that we have to call them – together with the FIA, they made this set of regulations believing that the chassis can follow. And then we have seen that we have to take some drastic steps on the chassis regulations to make it work. But it is technically possible.
“That is why I always say let’s work together in the interests of the whole thing to make it work. I’m quite confident that we can find a set of regs that will make it work and that everybody will be happy with.”
Aston Martin will move on from a long-term partnership with Mercedes predating the 1.6L V6 era when the 2026 power unit formula comes into effect as they switch supplier to Honda. Krack says that his team are already involved in heavy discussions with the Japanese manufacturer about the new power units.
“There is a dialogue on all fronts,” he said. “Be it from sporting – how many passes do you need – be it what structure you need in the paddock, do we sit together, do we do separate, these kind of things because they also have long, long lead times.
“But then it’s also about how is the packaging of the engine in a ’26 chassis from what we know so far. So these are these preliminary talks. You discuss basically from sporting, finance, technical, the whole areas, we all have defined partners or business partners. And the collaboration has started there with discussions regularly. We try to see each other here and there.”
Despite Honda infamously struggling during the early years of the hybrid turbo V6 era after they rejoined F1 as a power unit supplier in 2015, Krack says he is “very confident” that Honda will deliver a strong power unit in 2026.
“I’m very confident because from what I see Honda is fantastic, they are real racers,” Krack said. “They push everything and you see, they are giving the world championship engine.
“It is more about being humble, like how can we cope and how can we maintain a high level with them. But there is no prejudice at all, from what I have seen so far I’m very impressed.”
Don’t miss RaceFans’ exclusive interview with Mike Krack to be published on Friday
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2026 F1 season
- Hulkenberg named Audi’s first F1 driver for 2026
- Alonso set to become F1’s oldest driver for more than 50 years
- F1’s 2026 cars will have 1,000 horsepower, less downforce and weight – Symonds
- Audi announces ‘expanded commitment’ to F1 and full takeover of Sauber
- Silverstone announces new, 10-year Formula 1 grand prix deal
Johns
16th August 2023, 14:44
They should just create a Prius class, with better brakes. Curious if regulators realize electric cars are heavy, like Tesla S weighs as much as my full size Silverado. Getting rid of the weight of the batteries will probably make the cars use less fuel overall.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 14:57
Unlikely, at least without accepting significantly lower power output and top speeds. The v8s, for instance, put out less power and gave slower lap times while consuming far more fuel, even though the engines and cars weighed significantly less.
That said, power and speed aren’t necessarily the be all and end all. Maybe accepting slower cars would lead to better on-track action. It wouldn’t be a great way to attract engine manufacturers, of course, using old technology which won’t be around in new road cars in quite a short time, but I guess it all depends what people want.
johnS
16th August 2023, 16:22
if you haven’t heard, the large American car manufacturers are abandoning electric vehicles as fast as possible. Ford reported to be loosing tens of thousands on each vehicle, and the largest miner reported that on 10% of the materials needed for the future EVs will be available. There is no future for EVs.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 16:40
If that’s the case, then there is likely no future for personal transport. We cannot keep using fossil fuels to power them, and we a long way off producing enough renewable energy to be able to produce synthetic fuels to power them.
The only other technology with any hope of being viable for mass use in personal transport is hydrogen fuel cells, and that suffers from the same problem as synthetic fuels: We don’t have enough renewable energy available to produce it, and given the seriously-low efficiencies of producing either means it would produce significantly more CO2 to manufacture them than just to burn them in a car in the first place, which is already an unacceptable amount.
There would need to be a massive revolution in something to make any alternative viable. If EVs are not going to be the solution, I can’t see what could be.
S
16th August 2023, 17:02
Of course there is. As humanity has always done, we’ll make use of whatever is available – and if there’s nothing suitable, we’ll create it.
The other important factor to consider is that people will be using a range of solutions – not just one.
And what do you suppose will continue power existing vehicles, industrial equipment, small engine machinery and aircraft for the foreseeable future?
There’s quite a future yet for the old dinosaur juice.
Not revolution – evolution. It will take time, and there’s no getting around that fact.
It’s already taken 200 years for electric to start to become viable in cars…
Besides – reducing emissions by driving electric cars is proving to actually only shift a fair chunk of those emissions upstream to the mines and factories producing the batteries. That’s not a long term solution, nor even a particularly attractive short term one.
Facts&Stats
16th August 2023, 17:29
It’s actually not even that difficult (a bit inefficient and expensive still though) to create carbon-based fuels without using decaying dinosaurs and their habitat.
MichaelN
16th August 2023, 17:32
Efficiency of renewable sources is highly dependent on location. EVs must be charged with the local grid, which has to use local energy sources because of the inherent relation between distance and loss when ‘transporting’ electricity over wires. Synthetic fuels, while certainly not without flaws, can be manufactured in places where renewable sources are near peak efficiency, and then transported – without loss – to vehicles all over the world.
EVs are great for some uses, but not for others. There is never just one solution.
S
16th August 2023, 17:44
Yeah, absolutely. I hope someone starts mass-producing and bringing the cost down soon.
But until that happens, fossil fuels will inevitably remain with us for a while yet.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 19:32
The problem is the amount of power needed to produce those synthetic fuels is huge, and until we have a surplus of renewable energy, it will come from fossil fuels anyway. That will then be used to power a highly inefficient process to produce synthetic fuels, transported around the country/world, to then be burned in a highly inefficient engine.
It will likely take more than 5x was much fossil fuel, and produce 5x as much CO2, to run the existing fleet of ICEs as it does at present done this way. And to run it all from renewables would take 5x the surplus of renewable energy than we would need to power a fleet of EVs.
Unless we can either ramp up renewable energy build out massively or find some abundant low-carbon alternative, running ICE-powered vehicles is not going to be acceptable, and the fuel is going to be incredibly expensive. It may be acceptable for small numbers of classic cars, but not for mainstream personal transport.
Note that there is that get-out clause there: if we can massively increase the amount of energy generated from renewable, nuclear, or other such sources, it may become viable. However, it would need to be such a massive increase that I can’t see it happening without a breakthrough in nuclear fusion.
S
17th August 2023, 3:29
Yes – it is a process of evolution over time, as I said before.
And no – that energy doesn’t need to come from fossil fuels. It can come from a dedicated clean energy system.
There will never be an enormous over-surplus of energy – clean or dirty – because it exists in a world that loves capitalism too much. Supply and demand are a permanent thing, and money/profit is the driving force behind almost everything that happens in it.
But the point of it all is that over time, the source of that energy will become increasingly clean, green and sustainable, and there will be more of it available.
Many years down the track, it can be almost completely carbon neutral – it will just take time to get there.
Same with batteries – but first they need to figure out how to produce batteries of sufficient energy density that don’t require mining the Earth’s rarest resources from hard-to-reach places and spending a comparable amount of ‘dirty’ energy transporting them and processing them into a final product.
It’s a good thing that nobody with any knowledge of what’s required is suggesting it can be all changed over in a year or two then, isn’t it. It is a process of evolution, remember.
Too bad, because it will remain necessary for at least a few decades yet – like it or not.
You seem as though you have a particular date in mind for when all this change needs to be complete.
It’s not all going to happen in the next 10-15 years – and anyone who makes a prediction (or forces an outcome) that it will is almost certainly going to be dissatisfied with the real-world results.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 9:15
If we keep producing similar amounts of CO2 from personal transport for “at least a few decades” the consequences are likely to be very bad.
We need to be making very significant reductions in global CO2 emissions within the next few decades. As transport makes up about a quarter of total global CO2 emissions and personal transport makes up around 45% of that, cars etc are putting out over 10% of all the CO2 emissions around the world. That’s massive.
I don’t have a particular date in mind, and I don’t expect it to be finished in 10-15 years. However, I do hope it will be well on its way in 10-15 years, for all our sakes. If we are still putting new ICE vehicles on the road then and haven’t found a miracle which allows us to make enough synthetic fuel for them from clean sources, we’re going to be in serious trouble.
As for
That still doesn’t make them sustainable, sorry. That “dedicated” clean energy source could still be used to power other things, so using it to (inefficiently) produce “sustainable” fuel to be used in (inefficient) ICEs is forcing more “dirty” energy to be produced elsewhere to power other things which need it. Saying it could be run on “dedicated” clean energy is just saying “we will produce more clean energy, but we’re going to be selfish and tie it to this one inefficient process instead of making it available to be put to good use elsewhere”.
The difference with EVs is that they are already making a significant reduction to CO2 output now, even with gas still being the main contributor to electrical generation. They have some issues around weight and resources used, but they are having a positive impact to the main environmental challenge facing the world right now.
They are not perfect, far from it, but then again a lot of the reason for this is down to human perception. EVs do not need the large batteries that are put in most now. Most people travel around 30 miles a day and rarely (a few times per year at most) travel more than 100. Battery sizes could, therefore, be cut down to less than a third, probably down to about a fifth, of the size. The money and resources saved could then go towards, e.g., hire of a longer range vehicle for those few occasions where a longer trip is needed.
S
17th August 2023, 10:33
It will be an evolutionary change – not a revolutionary one….
Anyway – so what’s the solution then?
Governments are leaving it up to the private market to determine (fund) its own solutions, and they won’t do anything that doesn’t pull them a profit.
Nothing will make this whole issue go away – except time. More than many people would like.
As noted before – simply pushing those emissions upstream into more intensive manufacturing isn’t solving the problem, it’s just moving it somewhere else.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as some might say.
It does, actually – for two reasons:
Firstly, because this particular sustainable energy may not have been harnessed otherwise (typically, such large scale projects are funded only for a specific purpose, not for general usage) and;
Secondly, because it can exist off-grid, powering only itself in a location unsuitable for other uses. A solar farm 500km out in the desert isn’t much use to a city on the coast, for example, as so much of that energy would be lost in transmission – however it can be used to create a liquid fuel (on site) that can be transported without any losses to that city.
You keep saying “inefficient” when the energy source is actually free. It costs some money to capture it and make it useful, but the same is true for any every energy source too.
Perhaps it’s more a philosophical question to ask if losing something that is free and otherwise wasted is actually a loss at all….
That’s exactly what every business and government does. That’s capitalism, as I said.
It’s also exactly what electric cars are about at the moment too – reducing actual driving emissions that have already been released due to increased production footprints upstream, and often in another country – and reliant on multiple power grids (wherever and however they get their energy).
On the current EV situation – car manufacturers will (almost) always design cars that appeal to the largest consumer base possible (remember, capitalism). Exceptions are typically for the extremely wealthy where mass volume is not necessary for profit creation.
It’s all well and good saying that car companies could make X, Y and Z, but they need people to want to buy those products. They do a fair bit of market research, and clearly they aren’t making them because not enough people want to buy them.
That’s not perception – it’s preference. For there to be change, individuals have to want to change, as a result of their own free will.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 11:41
The problem is that the cheapest, most profitable solutions are often those which do the most damage to the planet. It’s much more profitable to dump waste into a nearby river than to dispose of it properly, for instance. Consumers, too, will generally be more interested in cost than environmental impact.
The big car manufacturers have a vested interest right now in keeping ICEs alive as long as possible. They have years of experience with them, many patents they want to exploit, factories set up for them. It will take them significant investment to produce cars using different technologies, and will devalue their own IP to reduce the volume of ICE vehicles sold. Newer technologies make it easier for new players to take market share away from them. Environmental issues do not get much of a look in unless there is another factor. Public perception makes a small difference, but financial concerns will always outweigh that.
If governments don’t either enforce rules about environmental impact or give them a financial impact, companies will continue as they are.
S
17th August 2023, 12:15
Yep. Yay for capitalism.
Even if governments do enforce change, the resulting solutions will still be profit based – any additional expenses incurred by manufactures will, as always, simply be passed on to the consumer.
And as we are already seeing, China is manufacturing electric vehicles faster and cheaper than just about anywhere else – but how are their industrial environmental credentials….
Anyone who is willing to buy a brand new electric vehicle is also guilty of making the environmental problem worse through increased/ongoing consumption.
As has been noted elsewhere – the only true solution to climate change (and many other problems) is to end capitalism.
Facts&Stats
16th August 2023, 17:13
I haven’t heard that.
Fun facts: What I did read today is that a ‘Vietnam EV maker valued at more than Ford or GM‘.
I also heard that we will run out of oil this century if we don’t move to alternative energy sources soon. But that’s also scaremongering as we all know oil will self replenish over the next couple of million years.
MichaelN
16th August 2023, 17:24
A first day of trading is not a proper way to evaluate a business’ value. If anything, such a surge should be a sign of concern for the people wanting to buy stock.
Facts&Stats
16th August 2023, 17:31
Indeed, and to all readers “the above comment is not a financial advice”.
Kerry Maxwell (@kerrymaxwell)
17th August 2023, 15:09
“if you haven’t heard, the large American car manufacturers are abandoning electric vehicles as fast as possible. Ford reported to be loosing tens of thousands on each vehicle.”
This a context-free assertion that omits the fact that despite these losses Ford is seeing record profits. Not to mention that these “losses” are part of a creative accounting shell game. Ford is not “abandoning” EVs, and EVs are not going away any time soon.
George.be
17th August 2023, 22:46
They did not even want to start it in the first place. Old dogs, new tricks… Nokia had a similar strategy.
What are they making? For which customer?
In 1974 the world expected to run out of oil before 1990, what does that tell you about the predictions of the mining specialists?
The future of EV’s depends on the evolution of EV’s, we’re at baby-steps and comparing this with a transportation model that is over 100 years evolved. Maybe, in 10 years we’ll have highways that don’t need battery storage because cars are put on shuttles for large distances and only the local traffic will need storage. Maybe we’ll get highways that provide juice while driving. Maybe we’ll stop producing 3000 kg transportation equipment that moves X*70kg net, where X is most often 1. Maybe a calamity will reduce the world population so that there is no need to bother with…
ADUB SMALLBLOCK (@waptraveler)
16th August 2023, 20:57
Asking the Knowledgable persons here. If “electrical production” is to be increased, is the battery larger/smaller/the same under the new rules. With the MGU-H eliminated, will the cars need to spend a greater portion of a lap recharging the battery for attack/defense?
Thanks.
ADUB SMALLBLOCK (@waptraveler)
16th August 2023, 20:58
Sorry, did not mean for this to be a reply.
Nick T.
17th August 2023, 23:39
The next generation of cars is going to be so bad people will even be nostalgic for this current generation of pigs.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 14:49
The thing which concerns me the most about the new regs is that they are increasing the electrical power output while keeping the maximum effective battery capacity the same. At 350kW, the 4MJ maximum capacity will be used up in 11s. OK, they can recover energy into the braking zones, but at many track this will be nowhere near enough. There’s also, IIRC, a limit to the amount they can recover over the course of a lap.
That said, this will then become a tactical decision: Where can we deploy energy, and where can we recover it? It could make it more interesting.
Alongside this, it would make the perfect opportunity to use DRS, or something similar, properly instead of as an overtaking aid.
Dusty
16th August 2023, 15:15
As you pointed out they can’t harvest enough energy just from braking zones. So they will be using the end of straights to harvest from the ICE. Cutting deployment and using part of the ICE output to recharge causes noticeable speed drop before the braking zone, drivers might be pedal to the metal while speeds drop and might even downshift to keep revs on the ideal range.
If things are as bad as predicted we might also enjoy the sound of on throttle engines for the whole braking zones and mid corners. I’m scared everything will sound quite weird in 2026.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 16:06
I guess that depends on how they are used, though, and that’s going to be a strategic decision. It may make more sense, for example, to deploy at a lower power for longer, or to deploy more towards the end of a straight. It may even be one of the factors which shows up the best drivers, those who can find the best place to deploy their electrical power on a given lap.
I suspect there will, at some tracks at least, be engines at full throttle mid corner and the like, similar to when we had blown diffusers. However, as IIRC there is a maximum they are allowed to harvest over the course of a lap, it’s not going to be able to be all the time, and even that’s not going to completely make up for the limited effective energy store capacity. Plus, you have to remember that doing so burns more fuel, and they have a limited amount of that, too.
Facts&Stats
16th August 2023, 17:47
If only they had some kind of smart device which could harvest the excess energy from the hot exhaust gasses through some kind of turbine. They might even use that to connect it to the compressor to use this energy to skip the turbo gap.
Dusty
16th August 2023, 18:25
I doubt this helps showing the best drivers. Deployment strategy comes from engineering team and their computer models, the whole logic and modes are loaded into the car. Drivers can still override harvest and deploy to set up an overtake, all scenarios previously evaluated by the model and engineering team.
And yes, doing so burns more fuel, which they will all carry around the track in order to make these regulations work. Nice to have heavier cars and lots of fuel onboard!
MichaelN
16th August 2023, 17:26
The deployment is gradually capped from 2026 levels to current levels when above 300 km/h. It will never ‘cut off’.
Dusty
16th August 2023, 18:15
Never ever?
Is there a rule not allowing complete cut off on deployment? Otherwise surely there will be complete cut offs before every braking zone. I give it to you that an intermediate deployment state might exist to maintain the speed after the full power acceleration phase, if not for optimal lap time, to not be too vulnerable to lose track position.
MichaelN
16th August 2023, 19:07
The limit on the energy store (4 MJ) is a concern when you look at a track like Baku, which has an almost 25 or so second straight. But it becomes less of a concern because of reduced output above 300km/h, and the aero-changes meant to facilitate getting there faster. It will probably still drain the battery, but that’s fine. They can recharge far more (up to 9MJ/lap) too, so they’ll still be able to use the electric motor again soon after.
The one track where there might be a problem is Monza, because it has so much full throttle driving and even the corners are quite high speed so braking zones, or idle time, are very short.
Coventry Climax
16th August 2023, 18:08
The whole hybrid addition to the ice, has the single purpose of augmenting the efficiency of the fuel used. Heat, braking are area’s where energy is generally lost, and the aim of hybrid is to recuperate that into useable energy.
The idea is, to have 50% of the power being electric. That is, in itself, an impossibility, if it weren’t for the ICE to first bring a car up to speed. The energy store itself, without being replenished, wouldn’t even last a full lap. (Calculated that some time ago already. Can’t find where I put it, if indeed I saved it somewhere.) Won’t repeat the calculation, but it’s like this: We know the energy density of fuel, we know the distance they do, so we know the amount of energy needed per lap. Ofcourse, that’s an average and an approximation, but it gives a decent order of magnitude.
So whichever way you turn this, all of the energy delivered by an F1 car, comes from fuel alone. (Except when the batteries are charged externally, before the start of a session.)
What worries me is: If all the fuel they use is sustainable, why bother with this hybrid stuff in the first place? If you’re on a mission to use the ‘fully sustainable fuel’ in a more efficient way, than all the extra weight isn’t helpful at all, and maybe the ‘fully sustainable’ part of that fuel is a hoax?
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 20:06
As things stand, the “fully sustainable fuel” is a hoax. We aren’t generating enough renewable energy to power what we already have, so any synthetic fuel production will, effectively, be powered by fossil fuels*. As neither the production process nor the energy generation will be 100% efficient, it will mean more fossil fuels are used than of they were used directly.
* even if they use renewables to power it, there are existing things which could have used that renewable energy. Using it to produce synthetic fuels just increases the amount of fossil fuels used for power generation elsewhere.
Coventry Climax
17th August 2023, 0:18
Glad you’re saying it. The question mark at the end of my comment isn’t really a question mark to me, but it would appear I have to watch what I’m saying here.
Coventry Climax
17th August 2023, 1:49
Addendum:
“Fully sustainable fuel” would effectively mean: Use as much as there is, no harm done.
That’s why the combination of fully sustainable fuel and fuel saving (hybrid) is nonsense.
For @drmouse only:
Regarding our discussion recently: Air resistance is proportional to the square of the vehicle’s speed.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 11:45
If I remember correctly, the force of air resistance is proportional to the square of the speed. As Power = Force x velocity, the power required to overcome air resistance is proportional to the cube of velocity.
S
17th August 2023, 5:50
That’s not true at all.
It can be produced sustainably – but currently only in limited quantities. That is no hoax.
Even the already existing and widely used vegetable oil-based replacements for diesel fuel are also fully sustainable – but again, only in limited quantities.
Further – “fully sustainable” doesn’t have to have any relationship to “efficient”. They are two entirely separate concepts altogether.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 12:13
For me, it is a hoax that we can, now or in the near future (next couple of decades), produce anywhere near enough “sustainable fuel” to run even reasonable proportion of our transport on it, or have any meaningful impact on our CO2 emissions. The possibilities for the longer term exist, but it is not likely to happen quick enough to help us.
If we want to do something about climate change, we need to be reducing our transport emissions now, and quickly. We can’t just hope that technology will develop over the next several decades to fix it. Every delay further increases the amount of damage done and the amount of “new technology” which will be needed to stop it.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t be developing synthetic fuels. It makes sense to hedge our bets. But there are technologies here now, available today, which will vastly reduce our personal transport emissions. Ignoring them in the hope that something will be there tomorrow to fix all our problems is foolish.
With limited resources, efficiency and sustainability are definitely linked. We have limited sustainable generation capacity.
If you can build enough generating capacity to produce enough synthetic fuel to power a million vehicles, that capacity could power ITRO 5 million EVs. That means that using it to produce synthetic fuel is, effectively, increasing the emissions by that of 4 million vehicles.
S
17th August 2023, 12:46
It’s only a hoax if the assertion is that it can be done easily and cheaply within a certain, short-term, time frame.
If you are going to put forward an impossible set of conditions – then yes, it will fail under those limitations. But it doesn’t mean it will ultimately be a failure beyond that – overall.
Petrol and diesel also went through this same phase in the past. There wasn’t enough – until there was.
Again, that depends on your time frame.
The Earth itself doesn’t have a clock – and it is in a constant state of change. It is already a vastly different environment than it was 100 years ago, and 1,000 years, and more still than 1,000,000 years ago.
Well, part of that problem is that not everyone does want to do enough about it – least of all those with the means to do so (under society’s current structure). The poor certainly don’t, and the wealthy only do it when there is something to gain personally from it – typically more of what they already have. Money and power.
That’s true – but much like the current battery situation, we shouldn’t just be grasping at the nearest solution that seems better (but actually isn’t) and forcing it on everyone. It could well be worse.
And always will. However, that still doesn’t make them intrinsically linked.
There isn’t a limit to this resource – the sun’s energy is effectively infinite (for this purpose) – all that is limited is humanity’s desire to make use of it. We already have the resources to capture enough for this processing use, but it isn’t financially attractive to allocate it all to it.
Maybe so – but you’ve still got to produce all those new vehicles and their batteries. As they are made from different materials than current cars, they can’t just be produced by recycling the old ones. The production of these newer electric cars is where their biggest negatives exist.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 14:00
But they will keep producing new vehicles anyway. I’m not proposing scrapping all the cars out there right now, but gradually replacing them.
The additional resource and emissions in terms of an EV vs an equivalent-sized ICE vehicle is more than offset over its lifetime use*, and even then the batteries can be reclaimed and refurbished/recycled, whether for use in other EVs, static energy storage, or other situations. The vast majority of the motors themselves will still be usable even at the end of the vehicle’s life.
Long term, the resources expended on replacing the existing fleet of personal vehicles with EVs will likely be far less than developing and producing synthetic fuels in sufficient quantity to power ICE personal vehicles, when you include the increased power generation requirements of each. Remember that one of the criticisms often levelled at EVs is the extra power generation capacity needed to charge them, but synthetic fuels would need around 5 times as much. That’s a massive amount of construction needed to produce all that fuel, which would offset at least a significant chunk of the additional manufacturing costs of the electric vehicles.
At the end of the day, EVs may not be best best solution, but they are the best solution we have available right now to reduce personal transport emissions quickly. I’d rather get started now than wait, hope and pray that a magic bullet comes along before we do too much more damage.
* That’s even without taking into account that most estimates are that the average lifespan of an EV will actually be significantly longer than that of an ICE vehicle.
S
17th August 2023, 15:05
Data is clearly conflicting on this, or these estimates are on the extremely optimistic end of the scale. Current batteries are typically expected to last 10-15 years at most before storage is reduced to levels where they need to be replaced for practical reasons.
A typical petrol engine, on the other hand, is proven to last (with approximately the same performance as new) for 300,000km/20 years+ and very, very regularly a lot longer than that. The car (chassis) itself will last approximately the same amount of time, depending entirely on the level of use and care (assuming quality of materials and build is also approximately the same).
I guess that discounts the bulking up of the power grid to supply this massive extra energy requirement…
Anyway, nobody (serious) is suggesting that that be the only solution. Electric is not supposed to be a replacement for every private vehicle on the planet. Not necessarily even the majority of them, given the varying requirements people have based on their location, lifestyle and preferences.
Besides – how long is a piece of string? That “long term” could well be 100 years from now.
Electric has already started, and is far too far from ‘perfect’ to settle on. To stop there and focus only on that one thing would be a true disgrace for humankind.
To waste the resources that we already have available and fail to exploit their maximum lifespan, we would be going backwards. Combustion engines are everywhere and proven to tick every box for both function and form, except that their only fault is the ‘dirty’ fuel that goes into them.
There are parallels here with the search for the cure for cancer. Should we focus all our resources on rolling out whatever solutions we have available today, or should we diversify those resources and look at as many possible improvements for the future as possible? We can’t find something if we stop looking…
Nobody is praying for a magic bullet – praying solves nothing – but resources do need to be allocated to search for improvements wherever they may be found. Clearly, putting a cleaner fuel into an existing engine is a massively positive outcome in the short term, and and even cleaner fuel can be created thereafter when other means of capturing and processing energy have improved in parallel.
This is a constant process without an end goal. Even after the next great thing comes along, that won’t be good enough either, because there will always be improvements to be found.
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 16:50
Very few engines get to that mileage with servicing alone, and even those have usually lost significant performance and efficiency by then. To keep them going requires significant maintenance, rebuilding the engine and replacing or refurbishing the majority of the components. Very few people are willing to do so, they are not worth enough, and the cars will normally be scrapped long before then.
The motors in EVs, on the other hand, will last much longer than that. Battery packs have been shown to last 500,000 miles without replacement, and even then can be refurbished and brought back to a serviceable capacity by replacement of only a portion of the cells. The cells removed also often still have life in them, and can be repurposed. For those which can’t can be recycled, the materials in them used to produce new cells.
In terms of longevity, there is less work taking fewer parts to keep an EV going for longer, unless the battery pack is mistreated of course, but the same is true if the ICE is mistreated…
S
18th August 2023, 3:41
You need to buy better cars then. I’ve owned 3, and two of those easily made it over 275,000 (one was 340,000 when sold) and the third is still driving like new at 200,000. None ever had significant work done – only regular standard servicing.
Every machine requires time, effort and money on maintenance – cars are no different. Electric cars included.
Anyone who is not maintaining their cars are wasting their potential. That is not an extra cost or burden – it is expected.
They’ll still need bearings swapped, gearing lubricated, accessories maintained – all moving parts require attention.
Yep, you love EV’s – that’s great. But not many are going to make it anywhere near 500,000 miles without new batteries – and those that do would only be travelling very short distances before they are flat. And putting degraded battery cells into other uses isn’t removing/balancing their environmental footprint, anyway. It’s just shifting it away from the car it was produced for.
Nobody’s doubting that EV’s and their footprints will improve over time – but so should liquid fuels for existing machines already in existence and operation. Their footprint after manufacturing is almost entirely the fuel they are run on – not the materials they are made from.
Coventry Climax
16th August 2023, 18:32
There’s a lot of merit in what you say @drmouse. Your inner engineer does a decent job! ;-)
drmouse (@drmouse)
17th August 2023, 12:15
It does help that I have a degree in mechanical and electronic engineering lol. It isn’t my day job, but I have learned to think like an engineer.
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
16th August 2023, 15:44
Frankenstein cars – like the sound of that – maybe some variety at least?
Until they become sentient of course.
Coventry Climax
16th August 2023, 18:31
Yeah, and we can expect full wet, bad weather races again, as they’d need the lightning to fire up!
Tristan (@skipgamer)
16th August 2023, 15:49
This is nothing but hilarious posturing. The engine will be taking up less space, how could they possibly not be able to package it? We all know the reason Red Bull wants new regs that significantly alter the cars shape. They have proven time and time again that they are the best when it comes to developing aero.
All this news reveals is that there is some form of relationship between Red Bull and Aston Martin.
It’s all politics… And Red Bull have shown how good they are at that too… What was that? you needed an engine freeze because you don’t have an engine supplier? Oh…
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
16th August 2023, 15:53
There was a ban on special qualy modes simply because Honda didn’t have one…
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 16:08
And they are currently very keen on getting the Renault engine “equalised”, which will drag Alpine into the mix and make it even less likely anyone will beat them.
George.be
16th August 2023, 16:48
Where do you see that big weight / size improvement? The electric part of the MGU-H is rather small and not too heavy.
Offset that to the added weight for the more potent MGU-K electronics and storage. I wouldn’t bet on the total drive-train being less heavy.
Just like you, I don’t believe RB is scared of repackaging and redesigning the aero. The opposite in fact. But they might be afraid of losing out to teams that have the capability and will probably make road car mules with a 2026 spec engine long before the 2025-26 tests arrive.
If the MGU-H is dropped, the efficiency of the total PU will probably drop with a large percentage. Regaining what escaped trough the exhaust is impossible, so the teams will probably keep the CE part longer at higher revs, to recharge and keep the turbo up in speed. The proposed drop in electric drive at a certain speed will bring the teams close in max velocity, but make overtaking extra hard. The most hated solution (DRS) will become even more important.
The engine freeze of today and the qualy mode ban is not a bad thing, IMHO. The PU’s are rather close in power and reliable enough, so not spending a lot of money on these engines seems a logic cost saving. It isn’t the 2014 situation with a token system, where a 15+ percent delta was frozen in. The qualy mode ban brings the customer teams closer to the factory teams, which is the right thing to do. I’m not so convinced these qualy modes were all legal anyway… Ferrari might ‘ve been the only one caught, more or less, but I’m sure other teams were also on or over the limits at times… There is a reason the rules about Oil burning and fuel line content have been restricted year after year.
drmouse (@drmouse)
16th August 2023, 17:00
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, though personally I would prefer to see more engine development. I find it much more interesting than aero development, though admittedly that’s because I understand it better. I would also prefer to see different skillsets in play in car development, rather than it being a pure aero competition.
I think the main objection is that it was brought in for a specific reason: RBR were “losing” Honda and choosing* to set up their own engine supply instead, but they didn’t want to be left behind being so new to engine development. Then, within a season, Honda came back. That negates the main, specific reason it was brought in in the first place.
It also makes it look like it may have been a ruse in the first place, just a way for RBR to get the engine freeze they wanted and make the competition completely aero-dominant once more.
* Yes, they chose this. They had the option of using Renault engines, even though Renault didn’t want them back because of the amount they complained about their engines before. Renault, being the supplier with the fewest teams to supply, would have had no choice under the regulations if Mercedes and Ferrari refused to supply them.
Tristan (@skipgamer)
17th August 2023, 9:55
MGU-H is not that big or heavy? That’s just wrong. Go look at any of the teams released diagrams of the size of the unit and take into account its turbine, housing and control unit. It is at least half the size of the ICU.
It’s weight, particularly, adding top-heaviness to the engine is a core reason that has been stated for why it should be removed in the first place!
Facts&Stats
17th August 2023, 12:50
According to Honda (see my link a few days ago) the MGU-H is a mere 4kg.
It’s unclear if that includes the turbine/compressor, which will be retained of course.
The MGU-H is many times lighter than the extra fuel they need due to reduced efficiency, and smaller than the resulting bigger fuel tank.
You won’t see these numbers, because F1 plans to offset part of the lost power and efficiency by bigger KERS and allowances to harvest and use the energy.
George.be
17th August 2023, 22:12
As Facts&Stats mentioned, the MGU-H is part of the Turbo, and most of that will remain. The heaviest part of a turbo MGU-H, about 40% of the total weight is the turbine housing and bearing housing assembly. My guess is that the 4kg is just the electric motor/generator part, which isn’t a lot, if you take into account the power it handles.
Without the MGU-H, the turbine and compressor components will get heavier, because the ICE needs efficient boost in all conditions.
In case of the MGU-H that’s “simple”: When the compressor needs less power than available from the turbine, the overflow is pushed to the MGU-K or the electric storage. If the turbo is lagging, the MGU-H can spool up the compressor. The waste gate opens only when the storage can’t accept energy because the MGU-K is delivering at max rate. On the other hand: Not “simple” because to make that work perfect in all conditions, one needs to predict the requirements of all components to keep the driveability smooth. This probably means engine setting that are track and condition dependent. A balancing act for professionals.
To achieve the same mechanically, the most efficient way to achieve that is using variable geometric parts on both sides of the turbo, a ICE mapping to keep the turbo alive in low RPMs, combined with a larger waste gate that opens as soon as the intake pressure is at max level. On the “plus” side, this will mean a lot more noise from the ICE.
The main reason the FIA wanted to ditch the MGU-H is that an entry of a certain German constructor was not going to happen, out of fear for getting their eyes wet by doing a “Honda-GP2-project”. It isn’t the mechanical or electrical side that is too hard, it’s the software to get the balancing act working and getting the maximum performance that is hard to achieve.
Patrick (@anunaki)
16th August 2023, 21:27
If they can up the energy to 1.21 giga Joules they can add a flux capacitor.
That would be fun
Coventry Climax
17th August 2023, 0:42
Just your comment is fun already.
George.be
17th August 2023, 22:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-77xulkB_U to help those that aren’t born before the 80’s
Tristan (@skipgamer)
17th August 2023, 9:54
MGU-H is not that big or heavy? That’s just wrong. Go look at any of the teams released diagrams of the size of the unit and take into account its turbine, housing and control unit. It is at least half the size of the ICU.
It’s weight, particularly, adding top-heaviness to the engine is a core reason that has been stated for why it should be removed in the first place!
Tristan (@skipgamer)
17th August 2023, 9:54
how does this website still not have any sort of comment editing/deletion functionality?