Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 27 Jun 2024, 15:31
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?
Page 33 of 63
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 30 Jun 2024, 10:15
Today is the day for signoff of the new regulations, is there any talk about it?
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 30 Jun 2024, 21:44
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 partsVanja #66 wrote: ↑27 Jun 2024, 07:35Unfortunately, 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 airboxbhall II wrote: ↑27 Jun 2024, 01:59I'm mainly just ranting.
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
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 01 Jul 2024, 08:34
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.
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.
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 01 Jul 2024, 10:23
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 2025MIKEY_! wrote: ↑01 Jul 2024, 08:34For 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.
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.
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 01 Jul 2024, 10:34
what's happened to the 'active aero' ?
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 01 Jul 2024, 17:23
So what are the regs? Whatever the final draft was?
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 02 Jul 2024, 07:29
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 02 Jul 2024, 07:32
As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdfBlueCheetah66 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2024, 21:44Although 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
This single-section issue with 3.1.4b. This is the real killer...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.
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 05 Jul 2024, 21:42
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.
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.
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 06 Jul 2024, 04:49
Did we even see one news article on this?Vanja #66 wrote: ↑02 Jul 2024, 07:32
As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdf
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 06 Jul 2024, 04:56
10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95
What does this mean?Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 11 Jul 2024, 11:24
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 11 Jul 2024, 12:31
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)
Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations
Posted: 12 Jul 2024, 17:04
Brilliant engineers solving meaningless problems created by equally brilliant engineers.Hutchie.91 wrote: ↑05 Jul 2024, 21:42Even 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.
Any attempt by F1 to claim world-relevance is just a joke.
Good post though.