Yeah content loudness for this video is -17dB while other normal youtube videos have a -2 to -5dB content loudness.

Yes they are very quiet compared to the ads that blasted my speakers because I had to turn the volume up

The audio is always problematic on this channel for some reason. I know they've had to have seen the comments about it, there are multiple on almost every video I've seen on the channel. It's been a longstanding issue.

@@anonymousarmadillo6589 Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16)🥳❤️😁❤️✨️❤️

This is a fascinating topic - great video! But yes, the audio level is way too low !

I’d watch formula e if it didn’t feel so gimmicky.

so true MGU-H is a truly incredible technology

yes and no. Formula E contributes very little to electric car development as its mostly off the shelf roadcar components. Its mostly a marketing and advertising gimmick. And part of that brand is cheap and cheerful, hence why they're able to go into these developing countries' cities. Different market segment too. Formula 1 have and will always be a flagship sport. Even if F1 does go all electric, it will be 1000+hp 350kph electric prototypes racing in premier tracks and destinations while attracting (and spending) billions. I would even argue that the E in Formula E actually can stand for Economy. Electric single spec-chassis single seaters adds to this "economy" brand since the cost to manufacture and maintain one is considerably lower than even junior single seaters from the lack of moving and explodey bits.

So it's just FIA being FIA

​@@wiryantirta Formula E is also E-volving ;) Yes, it was all single-spec and off-the-shelf in the beginning to keep entry cost low and promote competitive racing to attract fans (=money to sustain the series), but with Gen2 they already left the design of engines and power trains to the teams while keeping the same battery, which helped a lot in testing out the most efficient power train setups. Hopefully they will keep opening up other parts of the car for individual design in the future (e.g. limit battery weight and/or dimensions but not capacity). Audi and Merc already left the series to focus on F1 because they felt they had achieved their R&D goals and it wasn't beneficial anymore for them, so the message to Formula E management was pretty clear.

or Häkkinen ends his sabbatical xD

So he pulls a Michael Schumacher builds up a team like Merc, so prob Audi, that will later dominate. Would be nice but i think Seb will like spending more time with his family and doing more for his causes outside of motorsport.

@@vince4225 Yeah this is almost definitely not gonna be a thing but one can always dream

@@Glyn-Leine Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16)🥳❤️😁❤️✨️❤️

@@alunesh12345 Allah is the only truth, shut up.

the teams themselves are happy with it so what makes you so special

The mguH was forced on teams by the FIA... it’s incredibly inefficient and teams have wanted it gone for years for exactly that reason

@@mikko3 lol no, because the 2014-current engine is more relevant in modern technologies

​@@gavcom4060 literally Scott said in the video that no road car uses the mgu-h. But if we want to go deeper into that, this is one of the biggest lies about the 2014 engines. The idea FIA presented was that they wanted a new engine that would appeal to new manufacturers because F1 was in a bad place after so many engine manufacturers left the sport after the 2008 market crash. But in reality, the argument it's rubbish because these are the most complicated, expensive, hard to develop engines in F1 history. As a new entrant it would take years to reach a somewhat equal development with the almost established manufacturers who are already present in F1. Why would anyone commit to that? But the real reason why this engine was introduced was because the big teams wanted it. Mercedes and Ferrari. If anything, those engine regulations showed the sad state of the sport where the big teams now had the say on where F1 should be going. And it worked great for them. Mercedes and Ferrari started dominating the sport after they were nowhere on par with Red Bull-Renault in the late V8 era. And as a consequence of these expensive engines, Cosworth left F1. Cosworth, who supplied F1 teams since the 60's and was the backbone of small F1 teams, left because they were small and simply had no money to compete against the giants. The 2014 regs changes were a mistake, probably the biggest mistake in F1 history. It completely prevented small engine manufacturers to enter F1, hell, even the big ones didnt come either (only Honda came in, but they had a history with F1 already), the big teams started to have a monopoly on the grid and these engines just aren't road relevant at all. No one, absolutely no road car uses the F1's V6 turbo hybrid concept.

@@apophisRO Mercedes? Hello?

Right?

Turn the volume up then 🙄

@@escos0410 It's maxed but it's still too low.

Ironically enough, yes the sound in this video is too low

@@andredeketeleastutecomplexdeaf

Right?

isnt it cause f1 want to have more Power unit suppliers ? also is not just Porsche, Audi Aswell, r?

Porsche is in f1 in more ways then just a car...

same happed with mercades. turbo hybrids were originally planned to be v4, only for them to be released as v6’s that were based on merc technology.

@@tuttutteddy8889 Incorrect. Originally the engines were to be inline 4s, and part of that was to appease Volkswagen-Audi Group (VAG), who were participants in developing the rules for a while. When they dropped out there was a push from Ferrari and others for a V6. I believe Newey was in favour of the V6 as it integrates into the chassis better.

I think bcoz mgu h innovation is peaked. Let's focus on optimising with different design implementations as well. F1 is an Engineering sport as well.

Blipping the throttle like Senna used to do would also used a lot of extra fuel in much the same way that traditional anti lag systems do, so I don't think anyone would bother doing that

@@Fixer29 I think such a technique might be used situationally, when fighting for position but not for average lap. If that would be the case we might see cars running out of fuel more often..

With a hybrid system they can program the battery to release its energy when the turbo is lagging behind

they would shred the tyres

It won´t be necessary. The engines will be detuned so smaller turbos and no lagg (fuel flow will be reduced a lot by the rules. The engines lose a third of their power). This will be added in electric power.

FIA is trying to sustain stupid decisions.

probably not a technology many manufacturers are willing to adopt due to excessive complexity. only manufacturer that has done so is mercedes

yup same

If they hadn't banned it then no new power unit manufacturers would ever join F1. Forcing someone to use vast amounts of money on R&D of what is essentially a useless device outside of F1 isn't exactly attractive to potential newcomers.

@@bergur93 porsche?

F1 was the Pinnacle of Motorsport...

@@bergur93 it makes engines much more efficient with more power and produce less co2. It objectively improves the sport and removing it makes the cars less powerful and less energy efficient.

Definitely take your point but they were looking fir ways of making things more affordable. The MGUH has also been the prime failure point since 2014. Because the unit essentially acts as a brake on the turbine shaft, when.it dies fail it almost always takes the turbo with it and very often takes the engine too.

You're commenting as if the engineers have just exhausted all their ideas and nothing new can be created after MGU-H. 😀 Trust me they will find something to recoup the losses. This is just to push them away from a direction that has nothing to do with non-racing cars.

Yes, the development costs have already been applied but only for the teams that are currently in F1. Teams that want to join are thus interested in it being removed.

F1 has banned a lot of ingenious stuff over the years... Williams was the best with their adaptive suspension and CVT. Those were both really useful things for production cars too! But nope. Banned. Same with ABS. They're stifling the power engineers have. They clearly stated they care more about the driver being a great driver than the engineers being able to make a great car, and want to keep racing as close as possible too. Funnily enough, the companies with the most money win now... (pssst, its because the engineers get more money for development). If they want development, let all the teams go crazy with systems such as ABS, adaptive suspension, regenerative braking, hybrid, electric, but implement a cost limit. If they want close racing, then they might as well just supply stock cars to every team. These restrictions are _really_ annoying.

@@AHSEN. Yeah, most of those innovations were banned because theyre too expensive, so it would only make sense to unban them all now that we have a budget cap. Teams should decide for themselves what idea is worth spending money on.

No, the battery capacity is going to stay the same, at 4 kWh. But the maximum harvesting capacity of the MGU-K is going to rise, from 120 bhp to 325 bhp, or to put it into perspective to 9 kWh. So the drivers will have to use a lot of their gained braking energy has to be deployed almost immediately, as they would waste a lot of energy otherwise. The loss of the electrical regeneration of the MGU-H‘s loss is therefore balanced by the increased power of the MGU-K. Nonetheless there is an issue that Scarbs and Scott explained. The turbo is activated a few seconds after the initial deployment of the throttle, because it needs a certain pressure of the exhaust gases in order to work. The turbo is responsible for a lot of power, so the car will be very unpredictable exiting the corners. There will be wheelspin, oversteer and a massive loss in terms of lap time. The MGU-H redeploys some energy into the turbo, spins it up. It helps the engine be more predictable and a lot smoother, and by with the loss of that it will be far more difficult to drive flawless laps. It either provides better racing, or divides the field massively

Yep, another stupid change, now cars will need 2-3 laps for a full charge... also when deploying it is more important so more "battery management" from the drivers

@@cosminlesutan3574 Er, no. The MGU-K can now regenerate 9 kWh over the course of a lap. The battery can only store 4. So it will take the drivers half a lap to restore the battery

@@lukasgerhardstiel164 Now they harness only from braking... please tell me you don't believe they can charge it on track without hard braking zones... Even now, with the H there, they need 1 harnest lap

@@cosminlesutan3574 You know that most of the energy is already generated by the MGU-K. Read my comment above so you will have a more detailed description of how the MGU-H‘s ban will affect the car. And by giving the MGU-K more peak energy to regenerate (9kWh/lap) you will recharge the battery a lot faster, and therefore have to use a lot more over the course of a lap, as the battery can only store 4kWh. And you don’t necessarily need a lot of heavy breaking zones. You will gain enough energy from all breaking zones combined. At the moment, a lot of the MGU-K‘s potential is wasted. Believe me, the engineers developing the new regulations will surely have thought about that. This problem would also occur in the LMP2 and the WEC (Endurance), where a hybrid engine with an MGU-K and no MGU-H is used. And there it does not exist at all

To me it sounded like turbo flutter. The escaping overpressure in the compressor, aka compressor surge. Some racers don't care about the life length of the turbo and don't bother with BO. BOs gives just off one "chuuu" sound, while flutter many "chuchuchuchu", just like in the clip. But you are correct that it's not a wastegate.

Yeah that is not a waste gate it's a compressor stall

Nope, the sound was definitely the blow-off valve. One setup for track work not drag work so it opens in each pulse of back pressure from the throttle plate.

@@Silverhks nope thats compressor surge.

Yeah, if you wanna hear some nice waste gate bangs, go watch F2 :)

Exactly. With the introduction of the budget cap, I think we should start to see more freedom in how that money is spent. The costs will be controlled by the budget cap already.

Check the rules... the engines are more "standard" than ever for 2026... almost everything in the ICU is locked for development ...

@@cosminlesutan3574 those rules are afaik not finalized yet. And it’s not illegal to have an opinion on them right?

It has always been optional but youd lose an insane amount of performance by not having it without any compensation...

Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16)🥳❤️😁

Because it's expensive, fragile, and worthless to industry. Nobody adopted it for a reason

@@alunesh12345 how do you know this to be true, do you have some sort of way to communicate with any type of deity? Don't say the Bible, that has been changed from the original version many times based on the interpretation of the person who rewrote it.

@@btoiscool your'e right

Senna looking around the corner when the cars will lag

I have a really bad feeling that these regs might F1 way slow or maybe the racing will be bad And i don't understand why the heck Porsche doesn't want mgu-h

@@blazeyt843 they don’t want mgu h because it’s very expensive to develop, which would put them at a disadvantage compared to the established manufacturers, and would mean they will need several seasons at least before they’re competitive (see Honda).

Most engine manufacturers don’t want to deal with the R&D costs of something that’s irrelevant to their main product line.

@@ASJC27 The Porsche 919 had a MGU-H so they won't have any problems building one. The issue is it's a huge money sink for no value or relevance to road cars.

@@Alan-ww8vi that doesn’t mean their (now old) system from a different series is immediately compatible with f1 in anything but the basic concept. It was reported that when Honda joined their biggest deficit was in the mgu h, and it took them a long time to catch up. I doubt Porsche could level the field in under three seasons, especially with a budget cap and engine development restrictions.

Make the MGU-H of all current manufacturers a spec part, so any new team (and any current) could buy any of those for the same price. Would anyone allow to keep their existing design, but would not requiring inventing an own MGU-H for new entries. As Indy car still had customized aero kits, there was a spec aero kit, but they also had a rule, that the customized kits could be bought by other teams at a fixed price.

Before watching this video, my opinion was the same that it should be a spec part but now I understand better that it is firmly dependent on the engine/turbo. Making it a spec part would massively favour one of the teams and then all the engines would homilagate to the same design.

It can’t be standardized LOL…because it different between the team engine spec

@@justmy-profilename Believe in JESUS today, confess and repent of your sins. No one goes to heaven for doing good but by believing in JESUS who died for our sins. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16)🥳❤️😁❤️✨️❤️

Lower the budgets an homologate enough and we'll end up with NASCAR.

Aww cmon we’ll get some sick turbo sounds “stututu’s” in F1 again!

sustainable fuel is the only realistic future for the real world...

But as shown in the video it has no application in real world car. And we don't really need to try and reduce the amount of fuel F1 cars use just for using less fuel when racing. As the amount of fuel that F1 cars use over a season is extremely little relative to the total amount of CO2 produced due to F1 activities (such as transport) the total of CO2 produced due to fuel being burned during races is 0.3 % of all CO2 produced in F1. It's the same as a plane uses in a single 6 hour flight.

Mass flow on road cars is way to low to justify use of an MGU-H, plus they very rarely get to a point where the turbo is actually creating too much boost, you are almost never on full throttle (compared to a racing car) ie if you wanted to use this on a road car you would actually make the power unit less efficient. If I remember correctly Porsche did actually use something similar in LMP1 (919) i think, though without the ability to spin up the turbo, it was just a turbine and a generator i think. Scania was as far as i can remember the only manufacturer to have the intent to use a similar design on the road, it would've been used for lorries though.

@@OptimusCrime9900 Exactly, this find usage only on track... On roads you never use full power, only over taking but then, cars doesn't have such powerful turbos to have excess power... When 99% of all cars on the road aren't made for speed and power this is useless for normal people...

@@OptimusCrime9900 actually I see application for trucks, haulers and boats. Yes, for passenger cars it is maybe useless, but most of pollution and energy waist comes not from passenger cars anyway.

@@OptimusCrime9900 Engineers design the size of a turbocharger with respect to the whole power train and the expected driving profile. If they put just a turbo in a short range commuter car, this will be a small turbo that's easy to spin up but is less efficient than a larger one with more power (waste gate opens long before peak power). Same commuter application, first add a MGU-K, as regenerative braking is important with frequently varying speeds, and without it a lot of the MGU-H potential would be wasted, too. With a good MGU-K, one can downsize the ICE (in itself an efficiency boost) without losing peak power for acceleration (if the battery is charged). With an additional MGU-H a relatively larger turbo would be used, which is easier to spool up, and can often be run near to full ICE-throttle (different from max. combined power). For an application of long distance cruising, a powerful MGU-K is less important (if it's not frequently mountain up and down), but a larger ICE and turbocharger would be chosen. The reason it's not done, it's more expensive if only building costs for cars is accounted for. If taxation would just add a fraction of the cost, that adapting to men-made climate change brings, big car manufacturers wouldn't build anything but efficient hybrid cars and fully electric. A short distance commuter car would be efficient with a very small engine (at most 2 cylinders!), and turbo+MGU-H that are relatively large (but not large in about terms), and a relatively large high voltage battery (at very least 5 kWh, 10 - 15 kWh if commuting longer distances) to increase the use of plug-in charging. For longer distances without EV-fast-charging options, first of all, a relatively even larger turbo and MGU-H would be chosen, as the MGU-K couldn't be used much to recharge the battery. If it's any other country than Germany with unlimited motorway topspeed, a significantly larger ICE would neither be necessary nor efficient for the application (for acceleration there's still the MGU-K). But Audi and Porsche design cars for roads with unlimited topspeed, for people that either live in Germany and/or do not respect speed-limits. And a few ones, that actually just race them on track (small niche market). If only those guys who watch motor racing and then think they have to try it themselves in public, would do the same when watching non-motor sports, wow would there be many more sporty people...

@@inevespace Inside the US, the largest fraction in energy-use for transportation are light trucks (30 %, including privately used pick-ups and CUV / super-size SUV), with more traditional passenger cars roughly the same share (23 %), as other trucks (24 %). Light trucks are more similar to commuter road cars as to heavy long distance trucks (where the best replacement would anyway be increased spending for long distance freight rail). You have a good point with boats, cargo ships mostly burn crude oil, are inefficient and have absolutely dirty (even toxic) exhaust. But hey, the seas are on another planet anyway, aren't they? Why else would mankind pollute and exploit them as if there would be no consequences...? Quoted shares are from eia.gov, and domestic US figures (international cargo out of sight out of concern).

Like so many great ideas, this is banned in F1.

As a rule of thumb, if it has "variable" in the name it's explicitly banned in F1: variable geometry turbos, variable valve lift and timing, variable intake geometry, electronic brake force distribution, abs, traction control... All banned

Would that be done by making the mgu-k bigger? Saw a video week or so ago of someone talking about this before it was confirmed and he speculated that the regs would allow for a bigger mgu-k I believe.

Good point, I wonder if the mguk would charge the battery enough to do that over an entire race tho

@@nicholassansone670 The mgu-k is getting more powerful, which could mean more regen from the rear, though not enough to make up the difference. One issue is that the regen has to be balanced with the brakes, as it essentially acts as a secondary rear brake. The rear brakes are already much smaller than the fronts, and we could see them getting even smaller, unless the regen isn't increasing. All this is to say, I think the benefit of smoothing out the throttle response is worth the hit to battery charge, especially when considering it'll help the drivers not slip the rears when getting wheelspin, as that causes overheating, causing even more slip, etc.

@@JuMooly I just wish they were bringing back the V10s or even V8s again. Making these cars more relevant to road cars is killing the sport

@@nicholassansone670 Unfortunately it's the manufacturers themselves that want more road relevant tech, Renault were threatening to pull out entirely back in the v8 days because they could not justify the expenditure, unless they got more electrification and efficiency. Honda recently "pulled out" as they wanted to shift more resources into their road car manufacturing side, as F1 was not in alignment with their development path. Let's wait and see, part of the reason cars are a bit muffled is because of the mgu-h, so I imagine the sound will be quite different when the new regs come around.

Since they introduced the budget cap that side of the sport sadly becoming less of a priority

You think they'll just stop innovating now? Come on that's just ridiculous.

Eh, it happens with every new thing. Hell even Aston martin this year got the axe. Somebody will come up with something else

I think the difference is the MGU-H is capturing free* energy from the heat and pressure in the exhaust (as it can't be given to the compressor due to boost limits) whereas running the MGU-K in regen would add a direct drag to the engine output. There was a similar technology being developed in late WW2 aero engines called "turbo-compounding", and it significantly increased the max output of piston engines, but was mechanically pretty complex and couldn't compete with jet engines and turboprops that were being introduced *the exhaust backpressure might slightly drop engine power but every you will lose

but that results in high fuel usage, & with current regulation, that trick is out of the window!

@@theouts1der True. In the end though, the engineers, set up, fuel load, power unit efficiency, etc will determine if the driver can use this technique in order to gain a driving advantage or not.

@@bleuflash i am excited for 2026, will get to see some new driving style and competition, & the innovative shit they will come up with...finger crossed mate! & i hope some loud noises will be back since mgu-h is not there! (i heard)

Driving like Senna?

@정준영 yeah sort of except these cars are a lot more precise as far as inputs by the driver so it would definitely create a unique driving style. Maybe something like Hamilton mixed with Senna.

@@mikko3That’s your minority opinion.

Well I thought he did to bring the engine in power band .

No the turbo lag will still be present... early foot on the throttle wouldn't get the turbo to work until it acquires sufficient rpm

@@T0NYMANUEL but being earlier on throttle means the turbo reaches max rpm sooner (if it takes 3 seconds to speed up the turbo, by being on throttle 2 seconds earlier you only need 1 second to reach max rpm in the acceleration zone)

@@adamn7125 nah mate. No matter how early u apply the throttle the lag will still be present in lower rpm range. Otherwise we would need antilag mechanisms. Especially since hes applying and lifting again it certainly wouldn't work. Senna was able to take advantage of his style because the naturally aspirated engines didn't have any lag. In order for it to work he would have to apply the throttle and hold. Sennas style of punching the throttle would just lead to more delay

Its not a necessity. Its all about PR and the current socioeconomic environment.

The exhaust of a turbo is high pressurized air, so a lot of energy can be harvested from it. There's no "need" to use the MGU-H, but there's also no need for the turbocharger and the ICE (F-E) or the MGU-K. The current engine regs are just a very efficient solution, the 2026 ones without it not so much...

the bigger issue will be efficiency. They take away the MGUH and give the teams much less fuel. They cant magically get much more efficiency out of these engines. So they will most of the time not be able to run the electric motors even close to full power. More like 20% power on average with the energy that they have for a race.

@@timonxDlol yup and my gut tells me it will be used with drs to pass. Im really skeptical about the new pu regs. I just dont see any of it as a step in the right direction

@@GonzoDonzo ofc it will be used like that. But I just don´t see how the cars can´t become much slower. The petrol engine goes down to 550-600hp, the electric engine almost 500hp, but there is less electric energy available for it. So most of the time the car will run with the much worse petrol engine. Just doesn´t make sense to me.

Exactly, its not that big of a deal.

One can t evolve without the other, i don t get people who watch motorsport for the sound, evolve please

While I agree, the logistical side needs to change. F1 does feed the tech for road cars so they may as well push them into creating more eco engines

That news is coming soon...

@Ching Chong but hybrid technology is used in road cars

bigger mgu-k = more energy can be harvested at rear axle = further smaller rear brakes. if they somehow hit the 9MJ limit before last corner, would they just plow straight out of track? 😅 or is there some kind of device like a resistor/capacitor to store excess energy? 🤔

So they should keep building golfs with faked emission protocols...do what you are good at...

@@supmikpaddleboarding5871 as he said in the video they stick to what they know best and thats the MGU-K from WEC. VW dont want to put effort and money into something new for the company where everybody else in F1 is years ahead in R&D.

@@thesunnynationg but then you have to catch up as it works in any other sport.its not that in skiining or surfing or Mountainbiking they change the rules just so that new competitors can come in! It's simple,you are good enough or you don't!but since liberty media took over f1 is becoming ridiculous!!!

@@thesunnynationg no,will not be too expensive to vw Group

would be costly to develop strong enough vgts to handle the boost i guess

Just look at what Merc did with there C43. They claim it has F1 technology, but other than a tiny motor that reduces turbo lag, which shouldn't exist in the first place had they used the twin turbo V6, it does nothing. Still think it's applicable to the road car? This isolation means all the development it takes to make the MGU-H is simply wasted. It's a waste of energy and it's a waste of human resources.

Would save money and improve safety. Health and safety, non-offencivenes and saving money is the whole point of F1 today.

@@petrolheadJJ Yes the get woke go broke philosophy.

Possible, however he had a really dangerous driving style that would immediately cause a loss of points due to FIA rules.

"Correct me if I'm wrong", okay yes I will! That sound is the compressor surging, when the throttle is closed the air from the turbo "have no where to go" and the pressure rises, the compressor "stalls"(To much pressure for that specific flow rate and Turbo RPM) and the air starts to go backwards through the intake of the compressor, when the pressure after the compressor goes down to a certain level air is starting to go the right way again the pressure goes up and the cycle continuous (but gets weaker when the turbo is slowing down), leading to a "chu-chu-chu"- sound. The "bshhhhhh" sound you mentioned is the sound of the blow-off valve venting compressed air when the throttle is closed, preventing the compressor from surging. Preventing off-throttle compressor surge might or might not(These subjects is highly debated, and it is hard to find concrete evidence I think), prevent damage on the turbo, make the slow down of the turbo slower. One thing that is sure is that the sound character is changed. The "blow-off valve" on regular road vehicles recirculates(Often called "compressor bypass valve") the air back to the intake of the compressor instead of venting directly into the air, the "bshhhhhh" sound is therefore almost nonexistent. A wastegate is controlling the boost pressure by letting exhaust go around the turbine directly out the exhaust(Limiting the turbo RPM), and that just makes the engine sound louder and having a slightly different character. The wastegate might "flutter"(Open and close fast to adjust boost, instead of partially and smoothly open the wastegate (which is standard) ) on some cars(Not any standard cars I think) though and make a fast cyclical change in engine sound.

@@TarenGarond thank you, your answer is much appreciated

I doubt Porsche will need a starter pack since they've been running a MGU-H in the 919 since 2014. They just see it as a money sink for a technical dead end.