2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[Giando]

Is there any reason that on some cars, particularly the Ferrari, the rear crash structure sticks out so much?
Did something change in the regulations that allows this now?

Uhm... didn't notice that, really.
Might it be a visual consequence of the absence of the beam wing?

But specifically on the Ferrari SF-26, it could be due to the new "Flick Tail Mode" winglet: you know they moved the differential backwards in order to be able to mount that FTM winglet so the rear crash structure might be sticking out a few inches more than in 2025 i guess.

[mzso]

Is there any reason that on some cars, particularly the Ferrari, the rear crash structure sticks out so much?
Did something change in the regulations that allows this now?

Uhm... didn't notice that, really.
Might it be a visual consequence of the absence of the beam wing?

But specifically on the Ferrari SF-26, it could be due to the new "Flick Tail Mode" winglet: you know they moved the differential backwards in order to be able to mount that FTM winglet so the rear crash structure might be sticking out a few inches more than in 2025 i guess.

Perhaps. I may have overestimated the height of the crash structure, and thought it was mounted higher than the differential.

[CRazyLemon]

I've ben trying tp understand the ADUO properly. I understand the two thresholds, over 2% but under 4% s 1 upgrade in 2026 and 1 in 2027. Over 4% 2 upgrades in 2026 and 2 in 2027.

Does this mean no 2027 homologation process leading into the start of the season unless it is an ADUO upgrade?

Assuming Mercedesne never end up 2% or more behind, does it mean this is their unit until next regs? Theoretically they could end up permanently behind by 1.8%?

I assume the ADUO assessments cary on in 2027 I'd expect Mercedes to still be working on an upgrade package until they inevitably are behind by 2% that could provide an 18 month development cycle and effectively a potential for a mega upgrade, how do they (FIA) see convergence happening when really it looks like a leapfrogging scenario unfolding?

[nico5]

I've ben trying tp understand the ADUO properly. I understand the two thresholds, over 2% but under 4% s 1 upgrade in 2026 and 1 in 2027. Over 4% 2 upgrades in 2026 and 2 in 2027.

Does this mean no 2027 homologation process leading into the start of the season unless it is an ADUO upgrade?

Assuming Mercedesne never end up 2% or more behind, does it mean this is their unit until next regs? Theoretically they could end up permanently behind by 1.8%?

I assume the ADUO assessments cary on in 2027 I'd expect Mercedes to still be working on an upgrade package until they inevitably are behind by 2% that could provide an 18 month development cycle and effectively a potential for a mega upgrade, how do they (FIA) see convergence happening when really it looks like a leapfrogging scenario unfolding?

If you look up the FIA technical regs on the FIA website, the is a table (in the appendix section, I believe) with ticks for "normal", allowed homologated changes year-by-year, and ADUO changes. Essentially from 2027 onwards, teams are allowed to homologate most ICE-related new components in odd years (2027 and 2029) and electric components in even years (2028 and 2030). So Merc can still homologate a new ICE in 2027.

[hollus]

nicolas carpentiers

Using the Mercedes as an example, since they might have gone the most extreme, but all teams are doing something like that now. Also, albeit with less "brackets" in other tracks.

So I get it that this is a huge hole in the rules, and that brackets meant for structurally supporting other things are now producing downforce instead of supporting anything.
I get it that the FIA just looks the other way, probably good publicity. And we have seen similar mockery of the rules with mirrow mounts (that were nowhere near a mirror) before.

But there is one thing I don't get: In this case they are not allowing a structural elements out of the normal box, and they are not allowing aero elements out of the "box" in straight line mode only.
Here they are allowing aerodinamic load producing elements, permanently, outside of the maximum height of aero elements, even outside of the maximum car height, perhaps (probably the highest points fit in the DRS actuator box?).
This "out of the box" permanent aero element seems like a second piss taken at the rules. Apparently tolerated. I just find it interesting.

I guess at this point it is easier to look the other way and fix it for 2027, or in the summer break.