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.
r85
r85
0
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:20 pm
Location: Munich, DE

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Is there a chance that we'll see aggressive rake angles return with the flat floors or is that only possible with the complex suspension from the previous regs?

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Today is the day for signoff of the new regulations, is there any talk about it?

BlueCheetah66
BlueCheetah66
33
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 6:35 am
bhall II wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:59 am
I'm mainly just ranting. :D

It's been quite some time since I've followed F1 closely. I just happened upon those FIA renderings of the '26 regulations, and it irritated me a bit to see just how much of an about-face they represent after everything else basically killed my fandom.

"Ooops" lol
Unfortunately, those front wings are about the only thing that's common with cars from 20 years ago. Tight chassis regulations will lead to a field of identical-looking cars already in 2027, the only way to distinguish them will be an occasional different-looking airbox :(
Although the boxes might be kind of restrictive, I think the wording of the regulation is a bit more open than in the current cars. There's a lot less restriction of sections in Y and X plane in both the floor and the endplate/footplate parts

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:07 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Any early thoughts from our aero gurus about the key challenges for this aero ruleset?

For example, how to treat the vortex coming off the top of the floor edge inwash fin/bargeboard - try to move it inwards or outwards relative to the floor edge, try to strengthen it or weaken it, try to draw it under the floor or exclude it at all costs? Lots of possibilities I'm not qualified to guess at.

I'm sure some of you have plans to post cfd when you get time, but I'm interested in any first impressions in the interim.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1466
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

MIKEY_! wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2024 7:34 am
For example, how to treat the vortex coming off the top of the floor edge inwash fin/bargeboard - try to move it inwards or outwards relative to the floor edge, try to strengthen it or weaken it, try to draw it under the floor or exclude it at all costs? Lots of possibilities I'm not qualified to guess at.
This will be one of the big questions of early 2026, different teams will have different approaches. Impossible to say anything now, all teams will run multiple solutions on January 1st 2025 :mrgreen:

In theory it should have an outward top side rotation, meaning it could potentially draw turbulence inside the diffuser as it expands and gets closer to rear tyre if it strong enough. This is the opposite rotation of the floor edge vortex that is formed by floor fences on cars today.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
629
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

what's happened to the 'active aero' ?

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

So what are the regs? Whatever the final draft was?

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

mzso wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2024 4:23 pm
So what are the regs? Whatever the final draft was?
Released on the FIA website, I think. I know that the teams have them.

In summary…
Like being forced to wear a straight-jacket in a locked suitcase.
Pure PU formula!!!
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1466
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

BlueCheetah66 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:44 pm
Although the boxes might be kind of restrictive, I think the wording of the regulation is a bit more open than in the current cars. There's a lot less restriction of sections in Y and X plane in both the floor and the endplate/footplate parts
As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdf

3.1.4 Component Bodywork
Unless otherwise stated, all individual Bodywork Components described in Articles 3.5 to 3.11, and in Article 3.14, prior to any Trim and Combination operations, must:
a. be single volumes that are simply connected.
A simply connected volume is a volume where any closed curve lying on the surface can be continuously contracted to a single point without leaving the surface.
b. in any X, Y and Z plane, only contain a single section.
This single-section issue with 3.1.4b. This is the real killer...
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Hutchie.91
Hutchie.91
6
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:25 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Even in the current regs, the boxes weren't the issue. It was the specific syntax that really restricted us; for instance:

prescribing how many sections could there be through any X, Y and/or Z plane, whether or not they are open or closed and maximum angles a tangency line to an intersection can be relative to an axis (look at the rules for the virtual surfaces for the fences and the edge wing/flank cut-out).

In some areas the complete surface of a component has to be visible from either above or below, meaning we have to jump through some awkward hoops just to pull off a handicapped attempt at doing anything funky in the keel/canoe and keel-vane area.

Defining maximum/minimum radius of curvature (nothing new, R75 rule has been around since '09), but they now go further by splitting it between concave and convex, where some areas have leeway with convex curvature being less than R25, but any concave portion of the same surface MUST be R25 or more).

Again, the curvature rule gets even more crazy now where curves produced by intersections may need to be at least R50 concave or R200 depending on whether or not said curves are visible looking at the car from the front or the centre-line. (Bearing in mind, you also have to create all the construction that proves all of these lines of the regs on top of the actual geometry itself. It's like constructing mathematical proofs in Catia/NX). SPOD LE's are a good example of this.

And unfortunately, it's this aspect of the regs in terms of using very concise syntax instead of general statements and reg boxes that makes the '26 regs even more of a restrictive pain.
Last edited by Hutchie.91 on Sat Jul 06, 2024 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:32 am

As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdf
Did we even see one news article on this?

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95
Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5
What does this mean?

User avatar
F1NAC
166
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:35 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2024 3:56 am
10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95
Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5
What does this mean?
Width dimensions of wheel with tolerance of +- 0.5 mm?

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

F1NAC wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:24 am
FW17 wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2024 3:56 am
10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95
Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5
What does this mean?
Width dimensions of wheel with tolerance of +- 0.5 mm?

The 2026 tyre is expected to be 280 mm at front and 375 at the rear, why would the rims be so much wider?

Current regulations mention this as Tyre mounting width = 335.3mm +/-0.5mm (front) Tyre mounting width = 429.3mm +/-0.5mm (rear)

User avatar
ME4ME
79
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Hutchie.91 wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:42 pm
Even in the current regs, the boxes weren't the issue. It was the specific syntax that really restricted us; for instance:

prescribing how many sections could there be through any X, Y and/or Z plane, whether or not they are open or closed and maximum angles a tangency line to an intersection can be relative to an axis (look at the rules for the virtual surfaces for the fences and the edge wing/flank cut-out).

In some areas the complete surface of a component has to be visible from either above or below, meaning we have to jump through some awkward hoops just to pull off a handicapped attempt at doing anything funky in the keel/canoe and keel-vane area.

Defining maximum/minimum radius of curvature (nothing new, R75 rule has been around since '09), but they now go further by splitting it between concave and convex, where some areas have leeway with convex curvature being less than R25, but any concave portion of the same surface MUST be R25 or more).

Again, the curvature rule gets even more crazy now where curves produced by intersections may need to be at least R50 concave or R200 depending on whether or not said curves are visible looking at the car from the front or the centre-line. (Bearing in mind, you also have to create all the construction that proves all of these lines of the regs on top of the actual geometry itself. It's like constructing mathematical proofs in Catia/NX). SPOD LE's are a good example of this.

And unfortunately, it's this aspect of the regs in terms of using very concise syntax instead of general statements and reg boxes that makes the '26 regs even more of a restrictive pain.
Brilliant engineers solving meaningless problems created by equally brilliant engineers.
Any attempt by F1 to claim world-relevance is just a joke.

Good post though.