2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
wuzak
wuzak
445
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2024 10:05 am
F1 should have kept the battery pack out of the Power Unit. Customer teams should have been allowed to make there own custom packs with other than OEM partners. Just like teams could use different fuels and lubricants but with same engine, battery packs also could have been a cheaper option for teams to collaborate with other suppliers than buying from OEM partner.

Merc > Merc ICE > Petronas fuel > Merc A123 battery pack
Williams > Merc ICE > Total fuel > LG battery pack
Mclaren > Merc ICE > BASF fuel > Panasonic battery pack
I think you'll find they all use the same fuel.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1350
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:31 am
Formula E battery pack weighs 284 kgs for 47 kw which includes a structural casing, internal BMS etc. This is 0.165kwh/kg

2.5kwh ~ 9mj ~ could be about 15 kg

There must be some reason why the pack weight allowance in F1 is so high. some of the reasons I can think off is ....
>the inverter (CE) could be part of the same pack, but not sure how they can be changed separately
>cooling requirement much higher as all the cells are power optimized meant for quick charge and discharge while the Formula E battery pack has separate modules for 47kwh of energy optimized cells and a small pack of power optimized cells for the regen braking
As wuzak replied, there are now slightly more items defined within ES Main Enclosure (ESME) so it's definitely not just cells. However, the rules will still allow for only 4MJ difference in max and min SOC. So to use the full 9MJ available to harvest and use over a lap, you'll have at least 2 charge/discharge cycles over a lap. Basically, you need the batteries to run under very high electrical load and thermal stress over the entire race. The only way I can see this happening is if you have a lot of cells, but run them between 40-70% SOC all the time, so well within the 30-80% span for fast charging.

FW17 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2024 10:05 am
F1 should have kept the battery pack out of the Power Unit. Customer teams should have been allowed to make there own custom packs with other than OEM partners. Just like teams could use different fuels and lubricants but with same engine, battery packs also could have been a cheaper option for teams to collaborate with other suppliers than buying from OEM partner.

Merc > Merc ICE > Petronas fuel > Merc A123 battery pack
Williams > Merc ICE > Total fuel > LG battery pack
Mclaren > Merc ICE > BASF fuel > Panasonic battery pack
I'd love to see this one day and I think it will happen. Right now, I think all teams are happy to buy the PU as a whole, it's not like you have loads of experts in high performance motorsport battery pack development and optimal utilisation. I only see McLaren as capable of doing it right now, but lets not forget that there will be very few customer teams in 2026:

Works teams - Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari, Aston Martin Honda, Alpine, Audi and Andretti (hopefully)
Customers - McLaren, Williams, RB (more like sister works team though) and Haas

So who knows, maybe this becomes a topic at one point.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#Aerogimli
#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Henk_v
Henk_v
80
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2022 12:41 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

I rhink it is unfair to calculate with EV power densities. An F1 car is able to discharge the entire pack in 20 seconds and is in allmost continuous duty cycle for over an hour. You'll find that is about a 2 orders of magnitude higher battery strain than an EV battery.

A Tesla in "ludicrous" mode needs about 15 minutes to condition its batteries and you get 1 go. And even then, that is about 10 times less strain than an F1 battery endures.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-2
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s- ... /10596682/

According to sources, when the rear wing was in its most low-drag configuration and the engine was at full power, the car was almost undriveable – with multiple examples of drivers spinning on straights under acceleration or being unable to take the smallest of curves without the rear stepping out.

This was triggered by a shift in aero balance that was estimated to be three times as much as is currently experienced when DRS is open.

One insider even suggested that the only way to prevent the cars spinning was to drive so conservatively that the lap times ended up being slower than current Formula 2 machinery.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

Well, at least we no longer have to deal with people complaining the cars are too easy to drive.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-2
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

We are going to have overly complicated and dangerous Frankenstein cars because some corporate fat cats sitting around board rooms think 50/50 electric/ice sounds good. This is insane.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.

Cs98
Cs98
26
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

:lol: =D> It was obvious from the moment these engine regulations were announced, the cars are underpowered and the only way to try and make up for it is through ridiculous compromises on the aero. 2026 will be slow, dead slow. If only there was a team that brought these concerns up... Oh wait, there was.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-2
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
'Em no. The basis of the problem is 50% electric

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
333
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
The reason for the addition of "Active aero" is because of the PUs whose performance potential has been gutted by the regulation change (no MGU-H and 50% electric). It's quite a simple matter of energy conservation. The ICE has been neutered (500hp) and the "50% electric" comes entirely from the ICE.
Last edited by AR3-GP on Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:48 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
'Em no. The basis of the problem is 50% electric
Not at all. You could run a 50% electric car very well without active aero. You may not like what it does, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-2
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

Tommo F1 has a video already


AR3-GP
AR3-GP
333
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:51 pm
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:48 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
'Em no. The basis of the problem is 50% electric
Not at all. You could run a 50% electric car very well without active aero. You may not like what it does, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
That's the sole reason for F1 adding active aero. They do not like what it does without active aero.

50% electric can be done quite trivially. It can be done tomorrow. Cap the ICE output to 120kw by fuel flow and it could be done in time for China next week. You will not like what it does for racing :lol:
Last edited by AR3-GP on Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:51 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
The reason for the addition of "Active aero" is because of the PUs whose performance potential has been gutted by the regulation change (no MGU-H and 50% electric). It's quite a simple matter of energy conservation. The ICE has been neutered (500hp) and the "50% electric" comes entirely from the ICE.
That could well be, but that still does not mean that the engine is causing the issue. It's a choice to go for active aero, and to first explore this specific active option. Other choices can be made.

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
333
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: Alarming findings in simulator running of a 2026 car.

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:54 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:51 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:39 pm
Ehm, in the basis the problem is the active aero, not the engine. Don't project your personal vendetta against hybrid on an aero issue.
The reason for the addition of "Active aero" is because of the PUs whose performance potential has been gutted by the regulation change (no MGU-H and 50% electric). It's quite a simple matter of energy conservation. The ICE has been neutered (500hp) and the "50% electric" comes entirely from the ICE.
That could well be, but that still does not mean that the engine is causing the issue. It's a choice to go for active aero, and to first explore this specific active option. Other choices can be made.
I understand your point. It's a chicken and the egg argument. F1 cars are very draggy because to have downforce is to have drag. One could point to the reliance on aerodynamics as the reason for the problem. This is also true.

However, I think people have a vision of F1 being a sport with high cornering speeds and aerodynamics are a fundamental part of that. While you could imagine a sport with no aerodynamics, that's not what F1 has been for some decades so people naturally tend to see the PU regs not being good enough as opposed to F1 cars having too much aero.
Last edited by AR3-GP on Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.