F1technical.net

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 01:21

icantride wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2026, 16:20

ME4ME wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2026, 15:30

Straight rear wing support pillars on both the Red Bull and Racing Bulls renders. No swan-neck to carry the first element from above. Maybe there's some weight saving going on.

Swan neck wing supports are 'banned' in these regs, the wing support reg box doesn't extend above the top of the main plane meaning underside supports are all that's possible

Are you sure about this?

https://i.postimg.cc/HLf0Qbq8/image.png

Fair, I suppose they'd be possible if they didn't run the main plane to the front of the reg box. Since the allowable space is so much smaller than before I would expect teams to maximise the surface area and with the pylon box overlapping so much with the wing box I think it's unlikely we'll see swan neck supports. The Cadillac doesn't have them and it looks like the Audi doesn't either

I think the only goal for the front wing drs is reducing drag as much as possible since it is only used on "non downforce track sections". The flow back to the car doesn´t matter.

icantride wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 07:51

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 01:21

icantride wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2026, 16:20

Swan neck wing supports are 'banned' in these regs, the wing support reg box doesn't extend above the top of the main plane meaning underside supports are all that's possible

Are you sure about this?

https://i.postimg.cc/HLf0Qbq8/image.png

Fair, I suppose they'd be possible if they didn't run the main plane to the front of the reg box. Since the allowable space is so much smaller than before I would expect teams to maximise the surface area and with the pylon box overlapping so much with the wing box I think it's unlikely we'll see swan neck supports. The Cadillac doesn't have them and it looks like the Audi doesn't either

11.4 C disallows the pylon from obscuring the main plane from above regardless if it doesn't run to the front of the reg box, so are you thinking the pylon would connect at the leading edge of the main plane?
It would free up the underside of the wing but to what benefit if so much surface area is sacrificed to achieve this.
It wouldn't really be a swan-neck either way. I guess we'll see little variance in this region of the car this year.

icantride wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 07:51

Fair, I suppose they'd be possible if they didn't run the main plane to the front of the reg box. Since the allowable space is so much smaller than before I would expect teams to maximise the surface area and with the pylon box overlapping so much with the wing box I think it's unlikely we'll see swan neck supports. The Cadillac doesn't have them and it looks like the Audi doesn't either

ME4ME wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 11:51

icantride wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 07:51

[...]

11.4 C disallows the pylon from obscuring the main plane from above regardless if it doesn't run to the front of the reg box, so are you thinking the pylon would connect at the leading edge of the main plane?
It would free up the underside of the wing but to what benefit if so much surface area is sacrificed to achieve this.
It wouldn't really be a swan-neck either way. I guess we'll see little variance in this region of the car this year.

I think this would be legal.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 17:09

I think this would be legal.
https://i.postimg.cc/XY6dkf1k/image.png

Care to explain? Because I'm stuck at the swan-neck obscuring part of the wing viewed from above.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 01:22

The flaps will have to pivot at the rear because that's the only way to have the fail-safe in the high downforce position (i.e if the actuator fails, then the downforce will close the drs. If pivot is at the front, then actuator failure means that the downforce would open the drs.

Per the regulations, C3.10.10, the pivot axis for the FW flap is defined by two points no more than 25mm from the "forwardmost point" of the profile in their respective Y coordinates. In other words, the pivot is at the front.

https://www.racefans.net/2026/01/02/we- ... ine-rules/

‘We ended up with a camel’: Symonds blames FIA for compromised 2026 F1 engine rules

Formula 1’s new power unit rules for 2026 are too much of a compromise, says the series’ former technical director Pat Symonds.

The man who conceived the new chassis regulations for 2022 had some input into the change in power units for next year before he left Formula One Management to join Cadillac’s nascent F1 programme. He admitted he chose to leave FOM partly because the FIA began to exert more control over the technical rules.

“It was a little bit of the frustration that Formula One Management were getting less and less involved in the regulations, very much the FIA and things like the ’26 power unit was not what I wanted it to be,” he told Autocar.

TeamKoolGreen wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2026, 06:35

https://www.racefans.net/2026/01/02/we- ... ine-rules/

‘We ended up with a camel’: Symonds blames FIA for compromised 2026 F1 engine rules

Formula 1’s new power unit rules for 2026 are too much of a compromise, says the series’ former technical director Pat Symonds.

The man who conceived the new chassis regulations for 2022 had some input into the change in power units for next year before he left Formula One Management to join Cadillac’s nascent F1 programme. He admitted he chose to leave FOM partly because the FIA began to exert more control over the technical rules.

“It was a little bit of the frustration that Formula One Management were getting less and less involved in the regulations, very much the FIA and things like the ’26 power unit was not what I wanted it to be,” he told Autocar.

The regulations are the FIA's responsibility, not FOM's.

Also, the 2026 power units were formulated with input from the existing and prospective PU manufacturers.

That the PU regulatiosn are what they are is largely down to them.

johnnycesup wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2026, 05:40

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2026, 01:22

The flaps will have to pivot at the rear because that's the only way to have the fail-safe in the high downforce position (i.e if the actuator fails, then the downforce will close the drs. If pivot is at the front, then actuator failure means that the downforce would open the drs.

Per the regulations, C3.10.10, the pivot axis for the FW flap is defined by two points no more than 25mm from the "forwardmost point" of the profile in their respective Y coordinates. In other words, the pivot is at the front.

How will this be achieved?

The design is such that failure of the system will result in it returning to its Corner Mode
position.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2026, 16:03

mzso wrote: ↑

13 Jan 2026, 11:36

This latest BSport video is also not encouraging. And it doesn't even have the outwashy "inwash" bargeboards he proposed.

There is no reason to draw a conclusion from an out of context CFD image. The cars have less downforce (30% less than 2025). This is the biggest predictor for how well cars follow, not CFD streamlines. Less downforce equals better following.

This seems to be the missing factor from lots of these analysis videos. While the cars do not have venturi tunnels anymore for the ground effect, the 2026 cars have 50% of their down for from the floor, and 25% from each wing. Where as the 2022-2025 cars were roughly 33% each for the wings and floor.

Oops, wrong thread!

Wonder if we will see this back, the OG S-duct

TeamKoolGreen wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2026, 20:28

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2026, 15:13

Why was the front wheel brow removed?

https://i.postimg.cc/2y64hq0Q/image.png

To reduce drag and weight. Dirty air was not a priority anymore. It is the same reason for all of the changes, including the flat floor.

And it is explained in a link on the very first post in this thread, where someone posted this :

Dirty air is clearly still a priority. If it weren't, they would allow much higher complexity in performance critical regions like the front wing, diffuser, floor edge and especially bargeboards. Additionally, they wouldn't have tried to force inwashing bargeboards.

It might not be as high of a priority as in 2022, but not because they don't care. The reason it's lower priority is beacuse the cars are smaller, while producing less downforce overall. Less downforce means less airflow disruption, even if their downforce production is slightly less efficient. So essentially they could get away with slightly less efficient cars.

They also couldn't try to prevent dirty air as much as in 2022, since these engines are too weak. Focus had to fall elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that dirty air wasn't a priority. It just wasn't the primary priority.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2026, 11:29

How will this be achieved?

The design is such that failure of the system will result in it returning to its Corner Mode
position.

Well, that's up for the teams to figure out! But I suspect there will be some sort of spring or other energy storage device that, when the activation system is offline, will return the wing to the high downforce position.

https://x.com/jancikapral/status/201336 ... 73972?s=20

Impressive