## 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
mzso
mzso
65
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

JordanMugen wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:54 pm
mzso wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:42 am
They should define a maximum length
There is! 3400mm plus the specified overhangs.

You suppose that should be 3000mm or less?

Interestingly F2 car length is 5220mm with wheelbase 3135mm.
That's not technically a definition of maximum length. But what value can be calculated? I guess it's still atrociously long.

I would say 4,5m (or less) total length. And let them do whatever they want with wheelbase.

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Vanja #66 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 1:01 pm
wuzak wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 12:24 pm
48% thermal efficiency gives an ICE output of 400kW/536hp.

The MGUK output is reduced with speed above 290kph.
Total power
at 290kph = 750kW/1,006hp
at 300 kph = 700kW/939hp
at 320kph = 600kW/805hp
at 340kph = 500kW/671hp
at 345kph = 400kW/536hp.

In override mode, the full MGUK power of 350kW is maintained to 337.5kph, so total PU output of 750kW/1,006hp, falling a total of 400kW/536hp at 355kph.
So this means in a regular lap you have no e-deployment above 345 kmh and rely solely on ICE? Or is even the ICE limited to 400kW output and you can (must?) send the rest to MGU and batteries?
Yes, regular deployment.

The ICE is limited by the fuel flow, maximum 3,000MJ/h.

48% efficiency = 400kW
50% efficiency = 417kW
52% efficiency = 433kW
46% efficiency = 383kW

So the ICE output depends on the efficiency that the manufacturers can get.

400kW is oftend cited by the FIA, so must be what they roughly expect.

FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

wuzak wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 4:43 pm
Vanja #66 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 1:01 pm
wuzak wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 12:24 pm
48% thermal efficiency gives an ICE output of 400kW/536hp.

The MGUK output is reduced with speed above 290kph.
Total power
at 290kph = 750kW/1,006hp
at 300 kph = 700kW/939hp
at 320kph = 600kW/805hp
at 340kph = 500kW/671hp
at 345kph = 400kW/536hp.

In override mode, the full MGUK power of 350kW is maintained to 337.5kph, so total PU output of 750kW/1,006hp, falling a total of 400kW/536hp at 355kph.
So this means in a regular lap you have no e-deployment above 345 kmh and rely solely on ICE? Or is even the ICE limited to 400kW output and you can (must?) send the rest to MGU and batteries?

Yes, regular deployment.

The ICE is limited by the fuel flow, maximum 3,000MJ/h.

48% efficiency = 400kW
50% efficiency = 417kW
52% efficiency = 433kW
46% efficiency = 383kW

So the ICE output depends on the efficiency that the manufacturers can get.

400kW is oftend cited by the FIA, so must be what they roughly expect.

Were is this much touted 50:50 split?

Jambier
5
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:02 am
Location: France

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…

organic
1044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…
Isn't the rpm different to the rpm maximum because the engines produce more power at these rpm ranges at this fuel flow so there's no reason to go higher?

Whereas teams will always find huge benefits in cutting weight to the new limit, even moreso under the aero development-limited era that we're in

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-5
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

The first iteration of the 26 had matching wing. And not some Nascar COT wing thrown on. The wing looks like a step backwards. No continuety.
Last edited by TeamKoolGreen on Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JordanMugen
83
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Dunlay wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 9:24 am
I still don't understand why they went with 18 inch wheels.
Similar rim size and overall diameter to LMP1/LMH/GTP and LMP2. Not that Pirelli make LMP1 tyres AFAIK.

FW17 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 1:58 am
I don't see these ugly 18 inch wheels bringing anything positive to F1
I don't think they look ugly, LMH cars like the Toyota GR Super Sport Concept look cool with their 18" wheels without their bodywork on.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-5
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…
I guess we will have drivers stripping the paint off their helmets to save weight

bananapeel23
8
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:43 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 4:17 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:54 pm
mzso wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:42 am
They should define a maximum length
There is! 3400mm plus the specified overhangs.

You suppose that should be 3000mm or less?

Interestingly F2 car length is 5220mm with wheelbase 3135mm.
That's not technically a definition of maximum length. But what value can be calculated? I guess it's still atrociously long.

I would say 4,5m (or less) total length. And let them do whatever they want with wheelbase.
You can't squeeze a hybrid powertrain into those dimensions while retaining modern safety standards. F1 cars are doomed to remain big. 2016 dimensions are likely as small as we can go, but those car sizes aren't viable with the disgustingly underpowered 2026 powertrains.

I seriously doubt that the 2026 engines will last very long in their current form. Either they seriously increase the energy flow for 2027 or they switch regs entirely for 2028. The 2026 cars will be a complete joke.

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

bananapeel23 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:41 pm
mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 4:17 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:54 pm

There is! 3400mm plus the specified overhangs.

You suppose that should be 3000mm or less?

Interestingly F2 car length is 5220mm with wheelbase 3135mm.
That's not technically a definition of maximum length. But what value can be calculated? I guess it's still atrociously long.

I would say 4,5m (or less) total length. And let them do whatever they want with wheelbase.
You can't squeeze a hybrid powertrain into those dimensions while retaining modern safety standards. F1 cars are doomed to remain big. 2016 dimensions are likely as small as we can go, but those car sizes aren't viable with the disgustingly underpowered 2026 powertrains.
Nonsense. It's entirely possible. Cars don't need to completely taper away a the back. And noses and rear crash structures can be thickened if necessary.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
630
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

organic wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:16 pm
Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
... It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more .....
Isn't the rpm different to the rpm maximum because the engines produce more power at these rpm ranges at this fuel flow so there's no reason to go higher?......
at the stated 2026 fuel rate 15000 rpm is matched to natural aspiration (in Otto cycle engines)
nothing says the max fuel rate must be developed at 10500 rpm

and btw some 1968 F1 cars had active aerodynamics (until after the Spanish GP fatalities)

well I'm bored

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

bananapeel23 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:41 pm
You can't squeeze a hybrid powertrain into those dimensions while retaining modern safety standards. F1 cars are doomed to remain big. 2016 dimensions are likely as small as we can go, but those car sizes aren't viable with the disgustingly underpowered 2026 powertrains.
Also, more advanced composites can be used for weight saving, if made possible by regulation and budget allowances. Such as changing the carbon fiber to something a lot stronger.
The power units are artificially heavy, as well are the batteries. I remember metal matrix composites are explicitly banned, and pretty much only steel is allowed in the ICE.
The battery also has a large minimum weight and pointless road safety restrictions.

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

bananapeel23 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:41 pm
I seriously doubt that the 2026 engines will last very long in their current form. Either they seriously increase the energy flow for 2027 or they switch regs entirely for 2028. The 2026 cars will be a complete joke.
Last time the engine regs were up for change, they barely changed anything. I doubt they'll quickly change the new ones either. Maybe they'll slightly increase the flow rate.
Last edited by mzso on Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OnEcRiTiCaL
OnEcRiTiCaL
0
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:55 am

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

organic wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:16 pm
Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…
Isn't the rpm different to the rpm maximum because the engines produce more power at these rpm ranges at this fuel flow so there's no reason to go higher?

Whereas teams will always find huge benefits in cutting weight to the new limit, even moreso under the aero development-limited era that we're in
Rpm limited because of cost limitation. Design a higher rpm engine and still make with it few races is would cost to much to make it reliable.

bananapeel23
8
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:43 pm

### Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

mzso wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 11:02 am
bananapeel23 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:41 pm
You can't squeeze a hybrid powertrain into those dimensions while retaining modern safety standards. F1 cars are doomed to remain big. 2016 dimensions are likely as small as we can go, but those car sizes aren't viable with the disgustingly underpowered 2026 powertrains.
Also, more advanced composites can be used for weight saving, if made possible by regulation and budget allowances. Such as changing the carbon fiber to something a lot stronger.
The power units are artificially heavy, as well are the batteries. I remember metal matrix composites are explicitly banned, and pretty much only steel is allowed in the ICE.
The battery also has a large minimum weight and pointless road safety restrictions.
Well yes, you can shed a bunch of weight, but to do that you would need to use the unreasonably expensive exotic materials of the 2000s. They are so disgustingly expensive that they just can't be used within the cost cap.

Now, I'm not at all a fan of the cost cap, but if F1 has decided to use the cost cap, then exotic materials are out of the question.