2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[Vanja #66]

What are the moveable aero parts they're talking about ?

So far, flaps on front and rear wings are mentioned. Could be beam wings in the end as well.

I would be surprised if beam wing is included. Currently the beam wing is a structural element. It carries the load of the rear wing.

The second flap usually doesn't

[Cs98]

so it's hard to see it as anything but pressure towards FIA to extend the rule set that's beneficial for them and delay the rule set that will undoubtedly cause them loads of trouble on PU side.

Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.

On the "trouble" part. These engines are not particularly complicated (at least compared to what we have now), they're just weak, and lacking in regeneration.

Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.

Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.

[Cs98]

Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.

What cynicism? Horner literally went all out with his first statement and urged for a rethink of the rules, as you said. What's wrong with understanding there's (always) an agenda behind that Wolff criticised 2017 and 2022 rules a lot, for the same reason

Can you be honest with yourself for one second? This is what you wrote "FIA to extend the rule set that's beneficial for them and delay the rule set that will undoubtedly cause them loads of trouble on PU side". No one is doing that, no one is asking for that. These current engines are gone in 2026. The only question is, will the 2026 engines be a 50/50 split, 55/45, 60/40. These things you can tweak with fuel flow without overhauling the entire regs.

What's wrong with understanding there's (always) an agenda behind that

Undoubtedly. But the agenda isn't always hidden. The commercial hazard of really slow cars that fuel burn to regenerate energy is more than enough incentive for a non-car manufacturer to raise concerns. Not to mention the notion that it's for performance gain makes little to no sense when you actually analyze what he's asking for. A few percent in terms of power split is not going to make or break the RBPT engine. It doesn't change their task much at all. It's just a question of, do you want really slow cars, or a bit less slow cars?

[saviour stivala]

Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.

On the "trouble" part. These engines are not particularly complicated (at least compared to what we have now), they're just weak, and lacking in regeneration.

Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.

Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.

Can you please provide a link to that specific talk of him.

[Cs98]

Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.

Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.

Can you please provide a link to that specific talk of him.

“And it wouldn't take much. It's not like we're saying we have to rip everything up and start again. It's whether you do it on a fuel flow or the cell mass, you just need to change that ratio slightly to ensure that we get great racing.”
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cust ... /10495328/

[saviour stivala]

Cs98. Thanks for the link.

[mzso]

They have talked previously about making the cars smaller.

I would be surprised if they make them any smaller than an F2 car, though a move to F2 dimensions (1.9m width and 5.2m length) and F2 tyres (i.e., the old 2016 sizes but with 725mm overall diameter) would be sensible and not make too much difference IMO.

Can't say without data. But for a long while it hovered around 4.3-4.4

In the 1980's with driver's feet in front of the front axle? This seems unrealistic when this is no longer allowed and when an F2 car is now 5.2m long and already looks much smaller than an F1 car.

Also in the 90s, and 2000s for a while.

[Just_a_fan]

They have talked previously about making the cars smaller.

I would be surprised if they make them any smaller than an F2 car, though a move to F2 dimensions (1.9m width and 5.2m length) and F2 tyres (i.e., the old 2016 sizes but with 725mm overall diameter) would be sensible and not make too much difference IMO.

Can't say without data. But for a long while it hovered around 4.3-4.4

In the 1980's with driver's feet in front of the front axle? This seems unrealistic when this is no longer allowed and when an F2 car is now 5.2m long and already looks much smaller than an F1 car.

Also in the 90s, and 2000s for a while.

The rule came in for 1988.

https://www.f1technical.net/articles/26

[Stu]

The Ferrari F1 89 had the following key dimensions:

Length: 4,400 mm ; Width: 2,130 mm ; Height: 950 mm ; Wheelbase: 2,830 mm ; Front track: 1800 mm

What’s not to like about that?

[Farnborough]

The Ferrari F1 89 had the following key dimensions:

Length: 4,400 mm ; Width: 2,130 mm ; Height: 950 mm ; Wheelbase: 2,830 mm ; Front track: 1800 mm

What’s not to like about that?

Also possibly one of the most beautiful racing cars ever

I really think that Barnard design phase, that also gave us hydraulic gear change, flexible/solid suspension mounts etc was very innovative, stunning to look at and so nearly reached a WDC.

Currently reading Mr Barnards book I've had bought for me.

[JordanMugen]

Length: 4,400 mm ; Width: 2,130 mm ; Height: 950 mm ; Wheelbase: 2,830 mm ; Front track: 1800 mm

What’s not to like about that?

I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?

Perhaps partly due to the low minimum weight as opposed to strictly aerodynamic considerations?

[Rodak]

Length: 4,400 mm ; Width: 2,130 mm ; Height: 950 mm ; Wheelbase: 2,830 mm ; Front track: 1800 mm

What’s not to like about that?

I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?

Perhaps partly due to the low minimum weight as opposed to strictly aerodynamic considerations?

Good point. Please bare with me, as this is just throwing things up. What if the minimum weight were significantly reduced? Would constructors look at the length/weight dimension vs down-force and see that there was more time to be made with a shorter but lighter car? How about lowering the engine minimum weight and c.g. requirements? The engines are way heavier than they could be and a reduced weight and c.g. would help cornering. And how about removing the front/rear weight requirement? I've never understood the point of this rule; let the teams move weight around as suits them. Also, while I'm at it, how about single or double plane shorter front wings? How about two tire choices on a race weekend, have to run both? Or, a single tire choice, you can make pit stops or not (hardness varies by track)? That would save a lot of money and carbon stuff.

[wuzak]

How about lowering the engine minimum weight and c.g. requirements? The engines are way heavier than they could be and a reduced weight and c.g. would help cornering.

They are currently in a power unit freeze, so the PUs cannot physically be altered.

Weight and CoG requirements were introduced to stop manufacturers spending bulk dollars to save the last gram.

The PUs, by themselves, are not too much different in weight to late 1980s engines.

And how about removing the front/rear weight requirement? I've never understood the point of this rule; let the teams move weight around as suits them.

This is a requirement from the tyre manufacturer. It makes it easier for them to design the tyres.

[Stu]

Currently reading Mr Barnards book I've had bought for me.
[/quote]

That is a great book!
Also got the AN book, just wish that the Gordon Murray book was within my ‘justifiable’ budget!!

[feni_remmen]

Length: 4,400 mm ; Width: 2,130 mm ; Height: 950 mm ; Wheelbase: 2,830 mm ; Front track: 1800 mm

What’s not to like about that?

I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?

Perhaps partly due to the low minimum weight as opposed to strictly aerodynamic considerations?

Good point. Please bare with me, as this is just throwing things up. What if the minimum weight were significantly reduced? Would constructors look at the length/weight dimension vs down-force and see that there was more time to be made with a shorter but lighter car? How about lowering the engine minimum weight and c.g. requirements? The engines are way heavier than they could be and a reduced weight and c.g. would help cornering. And how about removing the front/rear weight requirement? I've never understood the point of this rule; let the teams move weight around as suits them. Also, while I'm at it, how about single or double plane shorter front wings? How about two tire choices on a race weekend, have to run both? Or, a single tire choice, you can make pit stops or not (hardness varies by track)? That would save a lot of money and carbon stuff.

I’ve long thought this. If the minimum weight was allowed to be 600kg including driver, the cars MIGHT be lighter because they MIGHT choose to remove a metre from the middle of the car. It will however remain a contest measured by who made the right choices at the start of the design process. Get the jump at the start and continue to keep the lead.

Shortening the car will mean pushing the engine weight to the rear of the car and will have consequences, not least that the driver will move forward.

Unfortunately the costs would rise, but now the cost cap is in place and vaguely working, the first place I’d go is to reduce the car weight to 600kg+. It might make me actually watch races rather than just read about them. The last 10 years have allowed the teams room to not have to make big decisions and important compromises, in the hope that they’ll all be pretty close on solutions.

To be honest, if I take off my rose coloured glasses, the total access to real data and the reliability of the cars is the problem.
My dead horse says;

• no data access from Friday morning to Sunday night

• no testing cars by drivers who’ve scored points in the last 6 months

• no movable aero

• freedom to combine tyre sets irrespective of compounds

Realistically,

• no data access from Friday morning to Sunday night means the best simulations will win, which favours the rich. Friday and Saturday night sims will need to be more sophisticated to try and replicate the data they don’t yet have access to…

• no testing cars by drivers who’ve scored points in the last 6 months means the teams might favour new talent over rich talent

• no movable aero is just a preference because it’s the same for everyone

• freedom to combine tyre sets irrespective of compounds is just because I want more variety, but the insurance risk might be unmanageable

Sorry, got somewhat away from the 2026 cars. Surely we can get to see light nimble f1 cars, rather than the bull dozers of the last 15 years. So while I’m here; give me front wings that fit in a 100mm high vertical box, and not wider than 1500mm and engine covers that don’t look like station wagons.