2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[browney]

Maybe controversially, I don't think restrictive rules reduce the engineering skill. Just means marginal gains and looking for other places for solutions

It's like I think sometimes budget cars are more impressive engineering than expensive cars. the Mazda 2 is a brilliant price of engineering, big cost and size constraints drove clever solutions to fit in the constrains.


(Speaking for experience doing design in some.very right specification spaces and have to work real hard to innovate inside that small window compared to if I had complete freedom)

[Hoffman900]

Maybe controversially, I don't think restrictive rules reduce the engineering skill. Just means marginal gains and looking for other places for solutions

It's like I think sometimes budget cars are more impressive engineering than expensive cars. the Mazda 2 is a brilliant price of engineering, big cost and size constraints drove clever solutions to fit in the constrains.


(Speaking for experience doing design in some.very right specification spaces and have to work real hard to innovate inside that small window compared to if I had complete freedom)

NASCAR is probably the best example of the shiniest turd you ever saw.

Restrictive rules, but budgets of $20-$30mil / year (2006 dollars)… all that money has to go somewhere.

The problem is stuff isn’t exciting for most. A very slightly different header that makes more under car downforce or a small change in camshaft design that adds 2hp can’t be seen by fans or written about.

F1 fans and media want the big changes that they can see and over analyze.

Edit: hilarious downvote. Lack of big visual changes would remove a lot of upvotes here for doing nothing but sharing (other people’s) photos

[browney]

I think what's exciting for most is close racing and championships. Don't get me wrong, it should still be a constructors championship, making and engineering your own cars but if they need tighter boxes to avoid rubbish seasons and stupid wake profiles that stop cars following, I can live with that.

Especially when there are simulators to develop, tyres to understand, engine strategies to play with, suspension to tune and weight to reduce.

[wuzak]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

I'm thinking of corners that require more downforce than can be achieved in the low drag mode, but do not need the maximum downforce available.

That way the drag is reduced to some degree, and the energy required for a lap/race is reduced.

Or is it too complicated?

[JordanMugen]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

Or is it too complicated?

Yes, it should be infinitely variable. It's not too complicated. I believe the FIA are worried about the software battle to map the aero to each circuit metre-by-metre, but surely the more complexity, the merrier?

If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

[Tommy Cookers]

.. If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say! =D>

so will there be a 'driver aid' automatic DF increase when the driver loses the car at speed ?
(automatic recovery is used in fighter jet stuff)

[JordanMugen]

.. If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

so will there be a 'driver aid' automatic DF increase when the driver loses the car at speed ?
(automatic recovery is used in fighter jet stuff)

Sure, why not? The wing level is computer controlled and can be whatever the team wants at any time, as long as the wings are within the legality boxes.

Your idea sounds like it would work similarly to the NASCAR "roof flap"?

Maybe (as you imply) the wing level could be automated based on steering angle, car attitude, road speed etc (assuming the actuators can respond fast enough) and wouldn't need to be manually programmed over the lap as I first implied?

[mzso]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

Or is it too complicated?

Yes, it should be infinitely variable. It's not too complicated. I believe the FIA are worried about the software battle to map the aero to each circuit metre-by-metre, but surely the more complexity, the merrier?

If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

They definitely shouldn't do that. It would be just yet another automatization on the car. And dangerous, when the track position is falsely registered.
They should do it with manual control! A trigger button on the wheel or maybe a third pedal, whatever is more convenient. Drivers could use that creatively in all sorts of ways as long as it's fast enough.

[Hoffman900]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

Or is it too complicated?

Yes, it should be infinitely variable. It's not too complicated. I believe the FIA are worried about the software battle to map the aero to each circuit metre-by-metre, but surely the more complexity, the merrier?

If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

They definitely shouldn't do that. It would be just yet another automatization on the car. And dangerous, when the track position is falsely registered.
They should do it with manual control! A trigger button on the wheel or maybe a third pedal, whatever is more convenient. Drivers could use that creatively in all sorts of ways as long as it's fast enough.

You guys are forgetting some important aero balance lessons that were first learned with active aero going back to the 1960s and the Chaparral 2C and applied to the 2E (which humorously was controlled by a third pedal (they ran autos partly for this reason))

https://www.motortrend.com/features/cha ... odynamics/

Their solution to varying aero load was to apply the aero load to the unsprung uprights, thus you have a chassis that doesn’t bottom out with higher loads and isn’t too stiff when drag is taken away.

[mzso]

Yes, it should be infinitely variable. It's not too complicated. I believe the FIA are worried about the software battle to map the aero to each circuit metre-by-metre, but surely the more complexity, the merrier?

If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

They definitely shouldn't do that. It would be just yet another automatization on the car. And dangerous, when the track position is falsely registered.
They should do it with manual control! A trigger button on the wheel or maybe a third pedal, whatever is more convenient. Drivers could use that creatively in all sorts of ways as long as it's fast enough.

You guys are forgetting some important aero balance lessons that were first learned with active aero going back to the 1960s and the Chaparral 2C and applied to the 2E (which humorously was controlled by a third pedal (they ran autos partly for this reason))

https://www.motortrend.com/features/cha ... odynamics/

Their solution to varying aero load was to apply the aero load to the unsprung uprights, thus you have a chassis that doesn’t bottom out with higher loads and isn’t too stiff when drag is taken away.

Do you have a point? If yes, then just say it... Don't just allude, and slap links into your post.
I for one see no issue with manual control. And in my opinion cars should have sound designs in the first place, a shouldn't be able to bottom out. Or shouldn't have a significant effect when it does.

[mzso]

Variable downforce that can change in an instant has a ton of unintended chassis consequences. Most of what is being proposed here will be 10x as big of a crap show as porpoising.

Such as?

[Hoffman900]

Variable downforce that can change in an instant has a ton of unintended chassis consequences. Most of what is being proposed here will be 10x as big of a crap show as porpoising.

Such as?

READ. THE. LINK. It lays it the problem entirely.

Active downforce is a disaster when it’s loaded through the springs.

[mzso]

Variable downforce that can change in an instant has a ton of unintended chassis consequences. Most of what is being proposed here will be 10x as big of a crap show as porpoising.

Such as?

READ. THE. LINK. It lays it the problem entirely.

Active downforce is a disaster when it’s loaded through the springs.

Okay, so you have no point. If you're too lazy to write down you concern, I'm definitely going to be too lazy to read a lengthy article.

[dren]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

I'm thinking of corners that require more downforce than can be achieved in the low drag mode, but do not need the maximum downforce available.

That way the drag is reduced to some degree, and the energy required for a lap/race is reduced.

Or is it too complicated?

Teams had active suspension decades ago, I don't see why variable DF would be an issue now. Look how tight combustion controls are on these PUs. I think the variable DF would have to be on the simpler items that have more predictability and testing would need to be expanded for safety reasons.

[Hoffman900]

Such as?

READ. THE. LINK. It lays it the problem entirely.

Active downforce is a disaster when it’s loaded through the springs.

Okay, so you have no point. If you're too lazy to write down you concern, I'm definitely going to be too lazy to read a lengthy article.

No I’m not. Read the link. I’m not here to spoon feed you information, I’m not your momma bird.

Click it and read it. It requires zero effort. I’ve provided a link with historical reference to active aero and technical issues that arise. You have contributed nothing of value to this, and 65 upvotes (one of which is an upvote for complaining how you don't want to read a link) over 2000+ posts is revealing.