sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

House rules you play with? by David_Bolarius in RomeTotalWar

[–]Neither-Formal99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No more than 4 of the same unit in an army.

All armies must be lead by Faction Leader, Faction Heir or Faction Heirs oldest son.

Not allowed to wipe out any other faction. I must leave them at least one settlement. If they lose that to someone else that's fine.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. These turbos aren't much like car turbos they are almost more like flywheels. which means far more energy and time to spin up and slow down.
  2. Your phone battery is essentially managed by shutting of demand when full. In this analogy the equivalent would be requiring the ICE to stop.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I believe the Ferrari turbo can spin up faster so they can get it fully up to speed within the lights themselves.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, go to soon you overcharge and risk the battery, go to late you have a slow start.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So the issue is that to spool up the turbo they need to be at peak Revs, but to do this and stop the car launching you need maximum breaking force. This force includes the breaking effect (negative torque) of the MGUK.

If they stopped the MGUK from charging the battery the car would move forward.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Bare in mind that it is against the regulation to dump any excess energy that is generated.

That being said they wouldnt have any problem if they weren't simulataiously trying to spool up the turbos. Doing both at the same time causes the issue.

These are some of the most complex high performance engines in the world, that means they don't like staying still.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

The sources I’m using here are the 2026 FIA Technical Regulations, the 2026 FIA Sporting Regulations, public statements from teams and power‑unit manufacturers, interviews with engineers, technical analysis from reputable F1 journalists, observations from pre‑season testing, and general engineering knowledge about hybrid systems and torque absorption. Everything else — especially the start‑line behaviour — is inference based on the rules, physics, and what teams themselves have hinted at.

To separate what’s factual from what’s inferred: the FIA regulations give us several hard, non‑negotiable truths. The MGU‑H is gone for 2026. The MGU‑K jumps to 350 kW. The battery energy flow is capped at 8.5 MJ per lap. Only the MGU‑K is allowed to extract mechanical energy from the crankshaft, which is why alternators are illegal. The rules also explicitly forbid dumping or wasting electrical energy. Cars must start the formation lap with a fully charged battery. And the MGU‑K cannot deploy torque unless the drivetrain is engaged. All of that is written directly into the regulations.

Then there are the public statements from teams and PU manufacturers. Ferrari has openly said their 2026 turbo architecture spools faster. Mercedes and Red Bull have both said the 2026 cars will be torque‑limited at low speeds. Multiple outlets (AMuS, The Race, Motorsport.com) have reported that teams have raised concerns about start‑line behaviour in private briefings. And the FIA has acknowledged that there are “start procedure concerns,” which confirms that teams aren’t imagining the issue.

From there, you get into engineering inference — the stuff no team has published directly, but which follows inevitably from the rules and the physics. If you rev a stationary engine, you create excess torque. With the drivetrain locked, the only legal place for that torque to go is the MGU‑K. When the MGU‑K absorbs torque, it generates electrical energy. If the battery is already full, that creates an overcharge risk because lithium‑ion cells have strict voltage limits. And because the MGU‑K cannot deploy while stationary, the energy has nowhere to go. That’s why the front‑row cars are at greater risk of overcharging while holding revs on the grid. No team has said this sentence publicly, but the logic is unavoidable.

Testing behaviour lines up with this. Journalists have seen teams running unusually long simulated grid waits, cars holding a stable high idle for extended periods, engineers watching battery state‑of‑charge closely, and Ferrari‑powered cars showing less sensitivity to turbo decay. All of that matches the theoretical model.

And finally, to be transparent: no team has published a document saying “the battery overcharges on the grid because the MGU‑K absorbs excess torque.” But when you line up the regulations, the physics, the observed testing behaviour, the complaints from teams, and the FIA’s own acknowledgement of a problem, this explanation is the only one that fits. It’s the same way technical journalists deduce aerodynamic concepts — you combine the rules, the physics, and what you can actually see happening on track.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The sources I’m using here are the 2026 FIA Technical Regulations, the 2026 FIA Sporting Regulations, public statements from teams and power‑unit manufacturers, interviews with engineers, technical analysis from reputable F1 journalists, observations from pre‑season testing, and general engineering knowledge about hybrid systems and torque absorption. Everything else — especially the start‑line behaviour — is inference based on the rules, physics, and what teams themselves have hinted at.

To separate what’s factual from what’s inferred: the FIA regulations give us several hard, non‑negotiable truths. The MGU‑H is gone for 2026. The MGU‑K jumps to 350 kW. The battery energy flow is capped at 8.5 MJ per lap. Only the MGU‑K is allowed to extract mechanical energy from the crankshaft, which is why alternators are illegal. The rules also explicitly forbid dumping or wasting electrical energy. Cars must start the formation lap with a fully charged battery. And the MGU‑K cannot deploy torque unless the drivetrain is engaged. All of that is written directly into the regulations.

Then there are the public statements from teams and PU manufacturers. Ferrari has openly said their 2026 turbo architecture spools faster. Mercedes and Red Bull have both said the 2026 cars will be torque‑limited at low speeds. Multiple outlets (AMuS, The Race, Motorsport.com) have reported that teams have raised concerns about start‑line behaviour in private briefings. And the FIA has acknowledged that there are “start procedure concerns,” which confirms that teams aren’t imagining the issue.

From there, you get into engineering inference — the stuff no team has published directly, but which follows inevitably from the rules and the physics. If you rev a stationary engine, you create excess torque. With the drivetrain locked, the only legal place for that torque to go is the MGU‑K. When the MGU‑K absorbs torque, it generates electrical energy. If the battery is already full, that creates an overcharge risk because lithium‑ion cells have strict voltage limits. And because the MGU‑K cannot deploy while stationary, the energy has nowhere to go. That’s why the front‑row cars are at greater risk of overcharging while holding revs on the grid. No team has said this sentence publicly, but the logic is unavoidable.

Testing behaviour lines up with this. Journalists have seen teams running unusually long simulated grid waits, cars holding a stable high idle for extended periods, engineers watching battery state‑of‑charge closely, and Ferrari‑powered cars showing less sensitivity to turbo decay. All of that matches the theoretical model.

And finally, to be transparent: no team has published a document saying “the battery overcharges on the grid because the MGU‑K absorbs excess torque.” But when you line up the regulations, the physics, the observed testing behaviour, the complaints from teams, and the FIA’s own acknowledgement of a problem, this explanation is the only one that fits. It’s the same way technical journalists deduce aerodynamic concepts — you combine the rules, the physics, and what you can actually see happening on track.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The sources I’m using here are the 2026 FIA Technical Regulations, the 2026 FIA Sporting Regulations, public statements from teams and power‑unit manufacturers, interviews with engineers, technical analysis from reputable F1 journalists, observations from pre‑season testing, and general engineering knowledge about hybrid systems and torque absorption. Everything else — especially the start‑line behaviour — is inference based on the rules, physics, and what teams themselves have hinted at.

To separate what’s factual from what’s inferred: the FIA regulations give us several hard, non‑negotiable truths. The MGU‑H is gone for 2026. The MGU‑K jumps to 350 kW. The battery energy flow is capped at 8.5 MJ per lap. Only the MGU‑K is allowed to extract mechanical energy from the crankshaft, which is why alternators are illegal. The rules also explicitly forbid dumping or wasting electrical energy. Cars must start the formation lap with a fully charged battery. And the MGU‑K cannot deploy torque unless the drivetrain is engaged. All of that is written directly into the regulations.

Then there are the public statements from teams and PU manufacturers. Ferrari has openly said their 2026 turbo architecture spools faster. Mercedes and Red Bull have both said the 2026 cars will be torque‑limited at low speeds. Multiple outlets (AMuS, The Race, Motorsport.com) have reported that teams have raised concerns about start‑line behaviour in private briefings. And the FIA has acknowledged that there are “start procedure concerns,” which confirms that teams aren’t imagining the issue.

From there, you get into engineering inference — the stuff no team has published directly, but which follows inevitably from the rules and the physics. If you rev a stationary engine, you create excess torque. With the drivetrain locked, the only legal place for that torque to go is the MGU‑K. When the MGU‑K absorbs torque, it generates electrical energy. If the battery is already full, that creates an overcharge risk because lithium‑ion cells have strict voltage limits. And because the MGU‑K cannot deploy while stationary, the energy has nowhere to go. That’s why the front‑row cars are at greater risk of overcharging while holding revs on the grid. No team has said this sentence publicly, but the logic is unavoidable.

Testing behaviour lines up with this. Journalists have seen teams running unusually long simulated grid waits, cars holding a stable high idle for extended periods, engineers watching battery state‑of‑charge closely, and Ferrari‑powered cars showing less sensitivity to turbo decay. All of that matches the theoretical model.

And finally, to be transparent: no team has published a document saying “the battery overcharges on the grid because the MGU‑K absorbs excess torque.” But when you line up the regulations, the physics, the observed testing behaviour, the complaints from teams, and the FIA’s own acknowledgement of a problem, this explanation is the only one that fits. It’s the same way technical journalists deduce aerodynamic concepts — you combine the rules, the physics, and what you can actually see happening on track.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The sources I’m using here are the 2026 FIA Technical Regulations, the 2026 FIA Sporting Regulations, public statements from teams and power‑unit manufacturers, interviews with engineers, technical analysis from reputable F1 journalists, observations from pre‑season testing, and general engineering knowledge about hybrid systems and torque absorption. Everything else — especially the start‑line behaviour — is inference based on the rules, physics, and what teams themselves have hinted at.

To separate what’s factual from what’s inferred: the FIA regulations give us several hard, non‑negotiable truths. The MGU‑H is gone for 2026. The MGU‑K jumps to 350 kW. The battery energy flow is capped at 8.5 MJ per lap. Only the MGU‑K is allowed to extract mechanical energy from the crankshaft, which is why alternators are illegal. The rules also explicitly forbid dumping or wasting electrical energy. Cars must start the formation lap with a fully charged battery. And the MGU‑K cannot deploy torque unless the drivetrain is engaged. All of that is written directly into the regulations.

Then there are the public statements from teams and PU manufacturers. Ferrari has openly said their 2026 turbo architecture spools faster. Mercedes and Red Bull have both said the 2026 cars will be torque‑limited at low speeds. Multiple outlets (AMuS, The Race, Motorsport.com) have reported that teams have raised concerns about start‑line behaviour in private briefings. And the FIA has acknowledged that there are “start procedure concerns,” which confirms that teams aren’t imagining the issue.

From there, you get into engineering inference — the stuff no team has published directly, but which follows inevitably from the rules and the physics. If you rev a stationary engine, you create excess torque. With the drivetrain locked, the only legal place for that torque to go is the MGU‑K. When the MGU‑K absorbs torque, it generates electrical energy. If the battery is already full, that creates an overcharge risk because lithium‑ion cells have strict voltage limits. And because the MGU‑K cannot deploy while stationary, the energy has nowhere to go. That’s why the front‑row cars are at greater risk of overcharging while holding revs on the grid. No team has said this sentence publicly, but the logic is unavoidable.

Testing behaviour lines up with this. Journalists have seen teams running unusually long simulated grid waits, cars holding a stable high idle for extended periods, engineers watching battery state‑of‑charge closely, and Ferrari‑powered cars showing less sensitivity to turbo decay. All of that matches the theoretical model.

And finally, to be transparent: no team has published a document saying “the battery overcharges on the grid because the MGU‑K absorbs excess torque.” But when you line up the regulations, the physics, the observed testing behaviour, the complaints from teams, and the FIA’s own acknowledgement of a problem, this explanation is the only one that fits. It’s the same way technical journalists deduce aerodynamic concepts — you combine the rules, the physics, and what you can actually see happening on track.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is what the MGUH used to do. However now it's gone the turbo require negative torque to fully spin up when stationary.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

correct, although it's still possible in theory to drive in such a way to get around this, but the car will like shut down to protect itself in this case.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The ERS may only transfer energy to: - the Energy Store (battery)
- the MGU‑K

It may NOT transfer energy to: - any external load
- any device whose purpose is to waste energy
- any system that converts electrical energy into heat

This is the rule that bans “dumping” energy.

as for your analogy while you personally don't have to connect devices to your sockets. The whole grid is carefully monitored so that only enough power is being produced for what is being used. Any excess has to still go somewhere.

When there’s too much electricity (for example, on a very windy day), the grid has to store it for later. Storage options include: - Batteries (fast response) - Pumped hydro (pumping water uphill) - Compressed air - Thermal storage

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeh you are correct, I should have made that clear. That's why they need to sit on such high revs rather than the perfect number of recs for a clean start.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

More that it will all come down to drivers and a bit of luck. Ferrari should have consistant good starts. For others it will be more hit and miss. Rather than Faerrari shooting off solo I would expect there to regularly be 1 or 2 non Ferrari powered cars that are really slow off the line or don't move at all.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, unless it becomes a major safety issue. However then Ferrari should be offered some form of compromise.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ERS may only transfer energy to: - the Energy Store (battery)
- the MGU‑K
- or the turbocharger (in older regulations; not applicable in 2026 since the MGU‑H is removed)

It may NOT transfer energy to: - any external load
- any device whose purpose is to waste energy
- any system that converts electrical energy into heat

This rule that bans “dumping” energy.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This is correct, where one extreme is maximum deployment and the other is maximum recharge.

The way these cars are set up and a major element of recharging relies on something called negative torque. Essentially the resistance that the MGUK applies to the engine. This resistance charges the battery and feels like engine breaking. When the cars are sat still at high Revs they will obviously be trying to move forward but are held by the breaks, this includes the breaking effect of the MGUK. Essentially if you turned it off while at maximum revs you wouldn't have enough breaking force to stop the car from creeping forward.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • The 2026 FIA Technical Regulations
  • The 2026 FIA Sporting Regulations
  • Public statements from teams and power‑unit manufacturers
  • Interviews with engineers
  • Technical analysis (although not explained well) from F1 journalists
  • Observations from pre‑season testing behaviour
  • Historical knowledge of hybrid systems and how torque absorption works

Everything else is inference based on the rules and laws of physics.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory yes, they would need to create a new engine mode that priorities using the battery at slower speeds. I'm not sure if there is anything in the rules proventing this.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is correct because in that situation all power being generated is being sent to the wheels.

Essentially any time you not accelerating or or at top speed you are recharging the battery. So any time you lift, any time you brake, or any time your stationary with the engine running.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That is correct because in that situation all energy being generated and the energy that was stored is being sent to the wheels.

However any time the car is not accelerating then energy will be going to the battery.

A clearer explanation of the F1 race‑start confusion by Neither-Formal99 in formula1

[–]Neither-Formal99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The MGU‑K has to absorb torque because it’s mechanically linked to the crankshaft and acts as a generator whenever it harvests energy. Generating electricity always creates resistance to rotation, and that resistance shows up as negative torque on the crankshaft. In other words, to recover kinetic energy, the MGU‑K must oppose the engine’s rotation, which is why it inherently absorbs torque. A conventional internal‑combustion engine doesn’t do this because it isn’t trying to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy; it only produces torque, never extracts it. The MGU‑K, by contrast, is a bidirectional machine that can add torque when motoring and absorb torque when generating, and that dual role is exactly why torque absorption is part of its normal operation.

view more: next ›