F1technical.net

we could see many teams switch back to pull-rod in the rear, as shown in the image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXPZdvkKfbA


Nice Comparisons of Old vs New.

De Wet wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 11:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXPZdvkKfbA

Nice Comparisons of Old vs New.

except Mr Millward seems to think the cars will still have tunnels ?

Depends on what he means by tunnels. The root/neck of the diffuser will extend ~200mm forward of the front of the rear tyres, either side of the plank & stern/boattail. That would be a tunnel by the standard of F1's historically small diffusers.

SB15 wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2025, 23:37

https://f1ingenerale.com/wp-content/upl ... image.webp

https://f1ingenerale.com/wp-content/upl ... image.webp

we could see many teams switch back to pull-rod in the rear, as shown in the image.

First sighting of horizontal bargeboard (FIA: "Floor Board") slats I've seen in the wild since I started suggesting them 7 weeks ago. https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1293691 The FIA's renderings and the 3rd party depictions I've seen show vertical slats, although who knows what we'll see, could be diagonal or several other possibilities. Slight inaccuracy in the image--he has too many elements there. Maximum possible would be 3.

The yellow parts are his take on the diffuser winglets, which I've only seen barely in the shadowed region of FIA renderings. A reason no one's attempted to depict these is that it's unclear where exactly they go and how large the box is. The "Winglet" box is only available as a CAD file. Kind of odd--most of the legality boxes can be deduced from the pdf, but a few are only available as part of other various CAD files that the FIA makes available exclusively to registered F1 teams. Another inaccuracy here though--the diffuser winglet can only be one element, not three as depicted.

The cannon cooling exit I'm unsure about. I'm half expecting a return to the 2017-2021 arrangement if not total maximization of the new louver allowances. Still no takers on that beyond: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 2#p1296782

As for the rear suspension... Ready for the return of rake? After 4 years of no suspension travel the '26 cars will feel like luxury cars.

SB15 wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2025, 23:37

https://f1ingenerale.com/wp-content/upl ... image.webp

https://f1ingenerale.com/wp-content/upl ... image.webp

we could see many teams switch back to pull-rod in the rear, as shown in the image.

Is that louvered bargeboard legal? I didn't see any that were separated horizontally before at all. Much less with that many openings.

vorticism wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 14:16

As for the rear suspension... Ready for the return of rake? After 4 years of no suspension travel the '26 cars will feel like luxury cars.

Is rake overrated? Mercedes was quite fast without it.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 20:40

vorticism wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 14:16

As for the rear suspension... Ready for the return of rake? After 4 years of no suspension travel the '26 cars will feel like luxury cars.

Is rake overrated? Mercedes was quite fast without it.

Could be if the larger diffuser (relative to '09-'21) nullifies its benefits, although most if not all of the cars used varying degrees of rake prior to '22 including the Mercs. It's free floor DF so I'm expecting it. The diffusers will be bigger but not that much bigger. If their effectiveness is maxed out a next step to consider is raking the car.

vorticism wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 21:34

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 20:40

vorticism wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 14:16

As for the rear suspension... Ready for the return of rake? After 4 years of no suspension travel the '26 cars will feel like luxury cars.

Is rake overrated? Mercedes was quite fast without it.

Could be if the larger diffuser (relative to '09-'21) nullifies its benefits, although most if not all of the cars used varying degrees of rake prior to '22 including the Mercs. It's free floor DF so I'm expecting it. The diffusers will be bigger but not that much bigger. If their effectiveness is maxed out a next step to consider is raking the car.

https://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Merc ... 5-1600.jpg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2EMHPCC/valtt ... EMHPCC.jpg
https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mg-f-1.jpg

The pictures here look like Zandvoort 2021. Mercedes only started raking their car in the middle of 2021 after the floor area got cut.

That's the W10, so 2019.

I'm curious as to why you think that cars are raked? And why you think raising the rear ride height would result in "free downforce" and how you can explain the low rake Merc winning 8 WCCs in a row if it wasn't a downforce monster!?

What it is about the past, current and future regs which encourages or precludes the use of rake in the concept design?!

Well, they were two completely different solutions:
Red Bull maximized underfloor suction with a compact, short-wheelbase, high-rake car. Efficient, but instable.
Mercedes maximized overall downforce and stability with a long, low platform paired with superior power unit performance.

Mercedes dominance came from:
Incredible engine efficiency
Aero stability → tires always in window, confidence (Bottas and Perez falling apart the more the cars got raised)
So they didn’t need the extra peak downforce from rake, that the RedBull may have had. They could more easily add "dirty" downforce where needed.

I think this is a big difference in 2026: No one will be able to add "dirty downforce" by just having a bigger wing. Aero efficiency will be king. So my bet is, that the cars will not be super nice to drive and will have a peaky, raked floor.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 12:03

De Wet wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 11:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXPZdvkKfbA

Nice Comparisons of Old vs New.

except Mr Millward seems to think the cars will still have tunnels ?

At several points in that video it seems he's not on top of the latest revisions, the floor being the most obvious.

basti313 wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2025, 09:40

Well, they were two completely different solutions:
Red Bull maximized underfloor suction with a compact, short-wheelbase, high-rake car. Efficient, but instable.
Mercedes maximized overall downforce and stability with a long, low platform paired with superior power unit performance.

Mercedes dominance came from:
Incredible engine efficiency
Aero stability → tires always in window, confidence (Bottas and Perez falling apart the more the cars got raised)
So they didn’t need the extra peak downforce from rake, that the RedBull may have had. They could more easily add "dirty" downforce where needed.

I think this is a big difference in 2026: No one will be able to add "dirty downforce" by just having a bigger wing. Aero efficiency will be king. So my bet is, that the cars will not be super nice to drive and will have a peaky, raked floor.

So why if more rake = more downforce are teams not running high rake in the 22-25 regs?

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2025, 11:29

basti313 wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2025, 09:40

Well, they were two completely different solutions:
Red Bull maximized underfloor suction with a compact, short-wheelbase, high-rake car. Efficient, but instable.
Mercedes maximized overall downforce and stability with a long, low platform paired with superior power unit performance.

Mercedes dominance came from:
Incredible engine efficiency
Aero stability → tires always in window, confidence (Bottas and Perez falling apart the more the cars got raised)
So they didn’t need the extra peak downforce from rake, that the RedBull may have had. They could more easily add "dirty" downforce where needed.

I think this is a big difference in 2026: No one will be able to add "dirty downforce" by just having a bigger wing. Aero efficiency will be king. So my bet is, that the cars will not be super nice to drive and will have a peaky, raked floor.

So why if more rake = more downforce are teams not running high rake in the 22-25 regs?

Did you miss ground effect? Rake or ground clearance of any kind kills the venturi tunnel geometry.

basti313 wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2025, 11:35

Did you miss ground effect? Rake or ground clearance of any kind kills the venturi tunnel geometry.

Right... and a diffuser isn't ground effect? How does it "kill" a tunnel underbody but not a flat underbody? What are the mechanism differences? You still create low pressure under the car, you still need to seal the floor edge ingress, you still need to prevent tyre wake coming into the floor. So what mechanisms are at play that you so confidently say "rake = more downforce" for a flat floor car?