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.
Cs98
Cs98
28
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 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.
Of course it is causing the issue. The car is chronically underpowered and all of these extreme active aero "solutions" are only trying to mask that core issue.

Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

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

Post

Mercedes Double DRS worked well…

Mod note: this has the appearance of a sub-thread and will be moved to the 2026 car/rules discussion.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

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

Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:02 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:54 pm
AR3-GP wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:51 pm


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.
Of course it is causing the issue. The car is chronically underpowered and all of these extreme active aero "solutions" are only trying to mask that core issue.

Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.
The car is not spinning on the straight because it is underpowered. It is spinning because of poor aero choices. Those choices were made as apparently slower cars are apparently not acceptable, but that does not mean that spinning on the straight is an unavoidable consequence of the engine formula.

Anyway, if you really want to delve into the issue of 'we do not accept slower cars and should go to great lengths to avoid that', the real issue (not the cause) is 'what is the objective of F1'. Is it road relevant tech development, or is it to be the fastest formula and have a high entertainment value? Because already for years these things are mutually exclusive.

Cs98
Cs98
28
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 am

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

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:16 pm
Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:02 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:54 pm


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.
Of course it is causing the issue. The car is chronically underpowered and all of these extreme active aero "solutions" are only trying to mask that core issue.

Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.
The car is not spinning on the straight because it is underpowered. It is spinning because of poor aero choices. Those choices were made as apparently slower cars are apparently not acceptable, but that does not mean that spinning on the straight is an unavoidable consequence of the engine formula.

Anyway, if you really want to delve into the issue of 'we do not accept slower cars and should go to great lengths to avoid that', the real issue (not the cause) is 'what is the objective of F1'. Is it road relevant tech development, or is it to be the fastest formula and have a high entertainment value? Because already for years these things are mutually exclusive.
And those poor aero choices are necessary because the car is underpowered. No one is saying that the spinning is unavoidable, we are saying it will come at a great cost to the speed and by extension entertainment. And you may not feel the need for speed in F1, but F1 clearly cares a lot judging by how badly they are trying to compensate for it. And they are right, F1 isn't the most popular motorsport in the world because it's "kind of fast". 2014 was a lesson in that regard, and 2026 looks to be worse.

Btw, what is the road relevance of using your ICE as a genny?

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:26 pm
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.
So all the current drivers are so garbage that they couldn't drive 60s and 70s cars (which had little to no downforce) at all?
Interesting...

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:32 pm
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.
100% electric would be ideal. But this is not because of hybridization, but the questionable active aero idea. And downvoting front wheel recharging.

(though the "dangerous" part is a tad doubtful.)

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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 doesn't make it the fault of the 50/50 power ratio. Lack of fuel, lack of front recovery, lack of opportunity for power harvesting, are all actual factors to need to compensate with active aero.

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:02 pm
Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.
I seem to remember that changeable front wing was used in F1 some years ago.
DChemTech wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:16 pm
Anyway, if you really want to delve into the issue of 'we do not accept slower cars and should go to great lengths to avoid that', the real issue (not the cause) is 'what is the objective of F1'. Is it road relevant tech development, or is it to be the fastest formula and have a high entertainment value? Because already for years these things are mutually exclusive.
Fastest formula and high entertainment value is also mutually exclusive.

wuzak
wuzak
447
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

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

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:12 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 doesn't make it the fault of the 50/50 power ratio. Lack of fuel, lack of front recovery, lack of opportunity for power harvesting, are all actual factors to need to compensate with active aero.
The 2026 PU rules are more suitable for stop start type events.

But F1 is not that.

Lack of power harvesting is because of the 50/50 power split.

If less power from the ERS and more power from the ICE there would be more opportunity for power harvesting.

Cs98
Cs98
28
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 am

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

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:23 pm
Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:02 pm
Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.
I seem to remember that changeable front wing was used in F1 some years ago.
Active aero will almost certainly be powered by some sort of hydraulics to the front wing. If your wing gets damage now you just swap it out in 5 seconds. If it's got hydraulics linked through it, good luck.

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 pm
mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:23 pm
Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:02 pm
Besides, active aero on the front wing sounds like a nightmare. Any sort of damage (on the one part that always gets damaged) is race over, and I don't see the wing being changeable mid race if it's got active aero.
I seem to remember that changeable front wing was used in F1 some years ago.
Active aero will almost certainly be powered by some sort of hydraulics to the front wing. If your wing gets damage now you just swap it out in 5 seconds. If it's got hydraulics linked through it, good luck.
They had movable front wing flaps in 2010. I don't remember it ever being a problem.

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

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

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:08 pm
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:32 pm
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.
100% electric would be ideal. But this is not because of hybridization, but the questionable active aero idea. And downvoting front wheel recharging.

(though the "dangerous" part is a tad doubtful.)
100% electric would cause a split in F1 that would rival the damage done to Indycar by its split. So no. 100% electric would be the furthest thing from ideal. But this 50% idea could also get some teams wondering about new series that just used normal engines.

The front wheel gen idea is yet another doubling down on everything nobody liked about 2014. More sprung and rotating weight. More complications with pretty much everything. Everyone would be longing for the days of normal front suspension.

User avatar
FW17
168
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

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

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:53 pm
Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 pm
mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:23 pm


I seem to remember that changeable front wing was used in F1 some years ago.
Active aero will almost certainly be powered by some sort of hydraulics to the front wing. If your wing gets damage now you just swap it out in 5 seconds. If it's got hydraulics linked through it, good luck.
They had movable front wing flaps in 2010. I don't remember it ever being a problem.
Did anyone deploy that system?

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:11 am
mzso wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:53 pm
Cs98 wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:32 pm

Active aero will almost certainly be powered by some sort of hydraulics to the front wing. If your wing gets damage now you just swap it out in 5 seconds. If it's got hydraulics linked through it, good luck.
They had movable front wing flaps in 2010. I don't remember it ever being a problem.
Did anyone deploy that system?
I guess. I don't remember much, only that it existed, and I don't remember FW changes being an issue.
Don't find much about it either, only this:
After the FIA World Motor Sport Council announced a new package of aerodynamic rules for 2011, the powers-that-be are hoping for more overtaking after driver-adjustable front wing of 2010 is gone ( a concept that never really delivered what was expected of it), replaced by a driver-adjustable - but FIA regulated - rear wing and bringing back KERS. The moveable front flap was brought in to try and assist with overtaking too, but in practice it didn’t really make a difference. Instead it was used as a device to optimize car balance as the tires degraded and the fuel load reduced. That’s why the teams voted to remove adjustable front wings and try a new initiative with the rear wings with the intention of generating better overtaking opportunities.

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:48 am
100% electric would cause a split in F1 that would rival the damage done to Indycar by its split. So no. 100% electric would be the furthest thing from ideal. But this 50% idea could also get some teams wondering about new series that just used normal engines.
Let's not make biases into fantasy....