2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[mzso]

I wonder why the great stepback. The floor essentially regressed to pre-2022 flatness. The whole point for having ground-effect floors was their insensitivity to turbulence. So that's gone now.
So did they just give up on close following alltogether?
Since they wanted low drag anyway, it would have made sense to increase shaped floors and drastically downsize wings, and gain in both aspects.
Instead we have constantd drs, a recipe for disaster. And close racing apparently thrown away.

It's quite a simplified way of thinking to say "flat floor =/= ground effect" or "contoured floor is low drag". Also massively oversimplifying things to say that shaped floor and small wings is better for following easily.

Well they said, they went with underfloor because it's more resistant to dirty air. Reversing this can only have the opposite effect of increasing sensitivity. If it's untrue, take it up with Ross Brawn.

Low drag seems even more set in stone. Ground effect cars arose precisely for the reason that they generated a lot of downforce without creating massive drag like wings do.

[vorticism]

A few more areas of interest:

--Sidepods: The sidepod volume overlaps the leading edge of the floor volume. It might be tempting to use the sidepod component body as an extension of the floor, although with concessions to the shaping limits of the sidepod (section & radius limits). It would be unorthodox to locate the lower edge of the sidepod so close to the leading edge of the floor, a treatment not seen since before 2009, so it may be a bad idea. The main advantage I see here would be in powering the FLEDs with a vertically oriented airstream.


--Cooling ducts & legality box boundaries: there may be scope for using the legality box boundaries and the wording of the cooling duct rules to supply clever inlets that do not rely upon the sanctioned sidepod apertures. For example, the cooling ducts are largely unregulated; their main limitation seems to be that they must not be visible "from outside the car" from any view perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, so a duct which faces inward between a gap in the engine cover and the "mid chassis" (safety cell/monocoque) could be hidden by the floor and the engine cover.


--Tunnels: there seems to be scope to create a tunnel through the outboard extremities of the engine cover, between the floor and the engine cover, with concessions to the engine cover shaping rules which demand soft surfaces everywhere (min and max radii), meaning the inlets and outlets of such a tunnel would be somewhat compromised. The engine cover component bodywork* can have up to two sections in a z plane and only one section in x planes, but crucially there’s no limit to the number of aerodynamic surface sections it can have upon that initial component bodywork x plane section. Thus the single x section rule for this component bodywork could be satisfied while having two aero surface sections upon that same single section.


--Sidepods: they might be totally omittable. The side impact structures can fit entirely within the engine cover volume. One of the two mirror stays can only attach to a sidepod surface, the other must attach to the safety cell/cockpit body. So if you can get away with one mirror mount and boundary interface cooling inlets, you should be able to omit the sidepod surfaces entirely. Worth noting, the sidepod volume is relatively small.

You could say all of these are legal, but not necessarily advantageous.

*The various areas of the car are now dealt with as “components” which are evaluated individually with cross-section limits, and the surfaces of these components which do not join to other components are called “aerodynamic surfaces” because they would be the only part of that component exposed to the airstream.

Approximation of the relevant reference volumes:

High res: https://x.com/athalkunni/status/1949527890510659684

[Ashwinv16]

I wonder why the great stepback. The floor essentially regressed to pre-2022 flatness. The whole point for having ground-effect floors was their insensitivity to turbulence. So that's gone now.
So did they just give up on close following alltogether?
Since they wanted low drag anyway, it would have made sense to increase shaped floors and drastically downsize wings, and gain in both aspects.
Instead we have constantd drs, a recipe for disaster. And close racing apparently thrown away.

It's quite a simplified way of thinking to say "flat floor =/= ground effect" or "contoured floor is low drag". Also massively oversimplifying things to say that shaped floor and small wings is better for following easily.

Well they said, they went with underfloor because it's more resistant to dirty air. Reversing this can only have the opposite effect of increasing sensitivity. If it's untrue, take it up with Ross Brawn.

Low drag seems even more set in stone. Ground effect cars arose precisely for the reason that they generated a lot of downforce without creating massive drag like wings do.

True But Two technical directives and improved design effectively ruined it as the increased ride Height means the floor effectively only works after 120-150kph. Which means it's over body and sidepods working together with the front and rear wing for medium and low speed corners. Last year it was only low speed corners but with development medium speed got hit as well.

The cars are actually pretty good in high speed corners and they can follow easily. That's why by throwing the floor flat, it resets this. And front wing is now impossible to be made with a outwash design (not cause or regulation cause if teams try to exploit a loop hole FIA will close it, they have been very serious about this) and the floor now gets fed through the bargeboard and the front wing, so plenty of air to the floor no matter what the issues and cars will likely run higher ride height and run the kerbs better.

[mzso]

True But Two technical directives and improved design effectively ruined it as the increased ride Height means the floor effectively only works after 120-150kph. Which means it's over body and sidepods working together with the front and rear wing for medium and low speed corners. Last year it was only low speed corners but with development medium speed got hit as well.

Okay, but why not just fix it with less wings and more floor?

The cars are actually pretty good in high speed corners and they can follow easily. That's why by throwing the floor flat, it resets this. And front wing is now impossible to be made with a outwash design (not cause or regulation cause if teams try to exploit a loop hole FIA will close it, they have been very serious about this) and the floor now gets fed through the bargeboard and the front wing, so plenty of air to the floor no matter what the issues and cars will likely run higher ride height and run the kerbs better.

Okay. So this flat floor is just going backwards. Is there any reason to think that the in-wash wing and those wacky bargeboards will compensate for all of this, or god-forbid improve the following problem?

Sure higher ride height is better, but they didn't need to go back to flat floors for that.

[FW17]

It's quite a simplified way of thinking to say "flat floor =/= ground effect" or "contoured floor is low drag". Also massively oversimplifying things to say that shaped floor and small wings is better for following easily.

Well they said, they went with underfloor because it's more resistant to dirty air. Reversing this can only have the opposite effect of increasing sensitivity. If it's untrue, take it up with Ross Brawn.

Low drag seems even more set in stone. Ground effect cars arose precisely for the reason that they generated a lot of downforce without creating massive drag like wings do.

True But Two technical directives and improved design effectively ruined it as the increased ride Height means the floor effectively only works after 120-150kph. Which means it's over body and sidepods working together with the front and rear wing for medium and low speed corners. Last year it was only low speed corners but with development medium speed got hit as well.

The cars are actually pretty good in high speed corners and they can follow easily. That's why by throwing the floor flat, it resets this. And front wing is now impossible to be made with a outwash design (not cause or regulation cause if teams try to exploit a loop hole FIA will close it, they have been very serious about this) and the floor now gets fed through the bargeboard and the front wing, so plenty of air to the floor no matter what the issues and cars will likely run higher ride height and run the kerbs better.

Things not working in low speed is down to the simplified suspension elements and low profile stiff 18 inch tyres than anything aero.

[Holm86]

True But Two technical directives and improved design effectively ruined it as the increased ride Height means the floor effectively only works after 120-150kph. Which means it's over body and sidepods working together with the front and rear wing for medium and low speed corners. Last year it was only low speed corners but with development medium speed got hit as well.

Okay, but why not just fix it with less wings and more floor?

Because underfloor aero is good in theory, not so much in practice. At least with current suspension regulations.
Also, the current underfloor aero is one of the biggest reasons they won't drive in the rain, as these tunnel floors sucks up way too much water, increasing the spray.

[mzso]

Because underfloor aero is good in theory, not so much in practice. At least with current suspension regulations.

I think it's just poorly regulated. We don't need actual venturi tunnels. The shaped car body could provide the downforce on its own. Specify a high sidewall clearance to the ground, remove the flat skidplates to demotivate getting closer to the ground. And it could work fine.
And, yes, more advanced suspensions would also be a fix on their own, or plaind dumb sideskirts (with some associated dangers).

Also, the current underfloor aero is one of the biggest reasons they won't drive in the rain, as these tunnel floors sucks up way too much water, increasing the spray.

I completely disagree with this. They raced in poorer visibility than in Spa, even with flat floors. It's just the wimpification feedback loop that we see.

[vorticism]

Updated with images: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1298371

A few more areas of interest:
...