2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Andi76
Andi76
416
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:19 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…
Weight is the least thing to worry about. The teams will all be relatively close to the weight limit. The Ferrari F2003 saved almost 30 kg in weight compared to the F2002, and was 102 kg underweight, which hardly anyone thought possible at the beginning. The trick and the hard part is that everything remains reliable. And in my opinion, that's also one of the goals - there will be far more breakdowns, parts will break more easily on contact - in short, the time of the driving tanks, of which hardly anyone breaks down, will be over and there will be more technical failures again because the teams will have to go to the absolute limit.

User avatar
Chuckjr
37
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:34 am
Location: USA

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Considering that engine manufacturers like Audi have decided to join F1 because of the 2026 engine regulations, I don’t see how the FIA can get out of the bind they have placed themselves. I’d love to believe they could abandon the hybrid by 2028 or 29, but I don’t see how that’s possible atp. It could be a mess they can’t clean up for many years, unfortunately. And it is ironic that again, right when the teams are leveling up in competitiveness, the FIA imposes dramatic changes across the board that will likely birth another dominant team situation. It’s incredibly frustrating as a fan to keep enduring the FIA’s self-imposed blunders.
Watching F1 since 1986.

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-5
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:49 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Chuckjr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 4:20 pm
Considering that engine manufacturers like Audi have decided to join F1 because of the 2026 engine regulations, I don’t see how the FIA can get out of the bind they have placed themselves. I’d love to believe they could abandon the hybrid by 2028 or 29, but I don’t see how that’s possible atp. It could be a mess they can’t clean up for many years, unfortunately. And it is ironic that again, right when the teams are leveling up in competitiveness, the FIA imposes dramatic changes across the board that will likely birth another dominant team situation. It’s incredibly frustrating as a fan to keep enduring the FIA’s self-imposed blunders.
They could turn up the ICE 20% and just keep it on the down low. Nobody is going to test it. Nobody will know any different.

It is also ironic that the MGU-H seems to be the most efficient part on the car. Only 4kg and it allows them to run a smaller battery. If they kept the MGU-H, they could also turn up the ICE to match the 50/50.

And Porsche just started using an MGU-H on one of their newest hybrids. Yet the VW group mandated it's removal.

It is all such a mess of contradictions. A complete joke that everyone will be sick of by 2030.

F1 should tell the mfg'ers, we are going non hybrid and bio fuel in 2030 and if you don't like it , leave. The positives will outweigh the negatives.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
628
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

isn't the actual problem the present situation of 'Active Aero' ?

User avatar
bananapeel23
8
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:43 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 5:49 pm
Chuckjr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 4:20 pm
Considering that engine manufacturers like Audi have decided to join F1 because of the 2026 engine regulations, I don’t see how the FIA can get out of the bind they have placed themselves. I’d love to believe they could abandon the hybrid by 2028 or 29, but I don’t see how that’s possible atp. It could be a mess they can’t clean up for many years, unfortunately. And it is ironic that again, right when the teams are leveling up in competitiveness, the FIA imposes dramatic changes across the board that will likely birth another dominant team situation. It’s incredibly frustrating as a fan to keep enduring the FIA’s self-imposed blunders.
They could turn up the ICE 20% and just keep it on the down low. Nobody is going to test it. Nobody will know any different.

It is also ironic that the MGU-H seems to be the most efficient part on the car. Only 4kg and it allows them to run a smaller battery. If they kept the MGU-H, they could also turn up the ICE to match the 50/50.

And Porsche just started using an MGU-H on one of their newest hybrids. Yet the VW group mandated it's removal.

It is all such a mess of contradictions. A complete joke that everyone will be sick of by 2030.

F1 should tell the mfg'ers, we are going non hybrid and bio fuel in 2030 and if you don't like it , leave. The positives will outweigh the negatives.
Not to mention that VAG, mostly Porsche was pushing HARD for the removal of the MGU-H because it "lacks road relevance". Then Porsche decides to not join F1 after they had convinced them to ditch it. Then they go and make the Porsche 911 GTS hybrid with a F****** MGU-H. The first mass-produced car with it. You can't make this **** up.

The MGU-H is a brilliant piece of engineering. It has no negatives apart from being difficult to develop, which is why new manufacturers wanted to get rid of it in the first place. If it's such a mess to develop, just make it a spec component and put it in the damn cars. It generates over half of the electricity the current cars have. It would add several seconds of full electrical power per lap if it was included in 2026 and go a long way towards making the engines less ridiculously underpowered.

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

bananapeel23 wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:10 pm
Well yes, you can shed a bunch of weight, but to do that you would need to use the unreasonably expensive exotic materials of the 2000s. They are so disgustingly expensive that they just can't be used within the cost cap.

Now, I'm not at all a fan of the cost cap, but if F1 has decided to use the cost cap, then exotic materials are out of the question.
I never bought that. In the 80s, 90s nothing was cost regulated, yet everything was much cheaper, even in much of the 2000s. I don't think material and manufacturing cost is particularly significant.
Also it doesn't need to be entirely unregulated, but mandating the plainest most common material (and even then a minimum weight) is rather embarrassing antithetical for F1.

(And I also don't think they would use diamond crusted platinum for engines for it to be particularly expensive.)

wuzak
wuzak
464
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:27 pm
Jambier wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:12 pm
The weight reduction is also a joke.

It reminds me of early 2014 and max RPM set to 15000 per regulation.
But engines actually reached 11000 not more

It will be same joke with the weight in 2026.

I don’t like the active aero but the really pain is the engine regulation.
E fuel is good idea but the massive hybrid is ridiculous, I even this this as outdated

10 years ago why not but now…
I guess we will have drivers stripping the paint off their helmets to save weight
There is a minimum driver weight of 80kg, including race gear.

If the driver is below that weight they have to add ballast.

User avatar
JordanMugen
83
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Chuckjr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 4:20 pm
Considering that engine manufacturers like Audi have decided to join F1 because of the 2026 engine regulations, I don’t see how the FIA can get out of the bind they have placed themselves. ... And it is ironic that again, right when the teams are leveling up in competitiveness,
How come the FIA restricted and then banned 1.5L supercharged engines between 1985 and 1988, when the performance of these supercharged engines and the teams using them would presumably have converged? :?:

Did engine suppliers stop investing in turbo-supercharged engines -- thus (apparently) reducing convergence approaching and during 1988, because they knew these engines would be banned for 1989?

It's curious that (at that time) the ban on turbocharged engines enticed Renault to rejoin Formula One, when their reason for joining Formula One in the first place was to develop and promote turbosupercharger technology. :wtf:

Should the lack of performance convergence through 1987 and 1988 show that convergence under stable regulations shouldn't be taken for granted? Therefore delaying 2026 changes on the basis of assumed convergence through 2024-2025 would be erroneous?

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 5:49 pm
F1 should tell the mfg'ers, we are going non hybrid and bio fuel in 2030 and if you don't like it , leave.
By "F1" do you mean Formula One Management or the FIA? With FIA having leased the 100 years commercials rights to Formula One Management and Bernie Ecclestone, the two now have different objectives...

User avatar
JordanMugen
83
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 6:14 pm
isn't the actual problem the present situation of 'Active Aero' ?
Would the cars perform OK (within 5s/lap of 2024-2025 lap times), if they just had normal fixed aero (even no DRS) with a reasonable Venturi floor with the new power units?

If so, the active aero seems most unncessary!

If the cars with (less powerful?) 2026 power units could produce decent laptimes just by retaining decent sized Venturi tunnels and fixed aero, why have the regulations presented this convoluted mess of X-modes and Z-modes! :wtf:

Is the "fast on straights" somehow necessary for regen? Is your view that this is not necessary and the cars don't need to be low drag (on straights) and fast on straights?

At some point they decided on this "-55% drag" goal but if it's a "problem" and not necessary (cars would be plenty fast, within 5s/lap of 2025, anyway?) why on Earth do that? :wtf:

[Or would the 2026 cars be say +15s/lap (slower than F2) rather than the predicted +8s/lap, if not for the active aero? :?: For some reason, James Vowles seems to imply with his comments that F1 being slower than F2 would be a problem, I don't know if that is right or wrong. Others say "who cares as long as the racing is good".]

[Is the, for example, +15s/lap without active aero to do with the -30% downforce they decided upon for some reason (I guess for the goal of better following ability)? How did they come to decide the Venturi tunnels should be smaller in 2026? :?: ]

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
628
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

1st or 2nd gear - (automatic and fault) front wing & rear wing flap positions A (highest Cdf:Cd ratio)
3rd or 4th gear - (automatic non-fault) front & rear wing flap positions B (Cdf:Cd ratio less than A)
5th or 6th gear - (automatic non-fault) front & rear wing flap positions C (Cdf:Cd ratio less than B)
7th or 8th gear - (automatic non-fault) front & rear wing flap positions D (lowest Cdf:Cd ratio)
flap positions would be car-specific and venue-specific

what's not to like ?
transparent ...
foolproof .....
boy's toys
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Jun 11, 2024 12:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Martin Keene
Martin Keene
7
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 8:02 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

I had high hopes for this rule set that they would take what had been developed for 2022 and build upon it.

Instead we seem to have gone back to a <2009 car, with a comical active aero package to deal with the new engine rules.

Given that the on highway world is moving to BEV, hopely these engines rules will be short lived before accepting that F1 has zero road relevance anymore, and hasn't for a very long time, and go back to something that is better for the show, because that's all it is now.

You could even keep the current 1.6 V6 core engine and go twin turbo.

User avatar
Chuckjr
37
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:34 am
Location: USA

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:19 am
Chuckjr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2024 4:20 pm
Considering that engine manufacturers like Audi have decided to join F1 because of the 2026 engine regulations, I don’t see how the FIA can get out of the bind they have placed themselves. ... And it is ironic that again, right when the teams are leveling up in competitiveness,
How come the FIA restricted and then banned 1.5L supercharged engines between 1985 and 1988, when the performance of these supercharged engines and the teams using them would presumably have converged? :?:

Did engine suppliers stop investing in turbo-supercharged engines -- thus (apparently) reducing convergence approaching and during 1988, because they knew these engines would be banned for 1989?

It's curious that (at that time) the ban on turbocharged engines enticed Renault to rejoin Formula One, when their reason for joining Formula One in the first place was to develop and promote turbosupercharger technology. :wtf:

Should the lack of performance convergence through 1987 and 1988 show that convergence under stable regulations shouldn't be taken for granted? Therefore delaying 2026 changes on the basis of assumed convergence through 2024-2025 would be erroneous?
Are you arguing F1 actually doesn’t want convergence as it loosens their control of influencing a specific winner? I wouldn’t put it passed them! It is clear now they are starting/delaying safety car and red flags in races to steer a specific driver into an advantage/disadvantage based on their location relative to pit entry. It’s so obvious atp, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. ](*,)

They unfortunately banned turbos because those engines were 1600+ horse. I subscribe to the idea F1 cars should be so powerful that they spin the rears going into 8th gear. Indeed, they did punt Renault’s aspirations by banning turbos, but that didn’t deter Renault’s stay in F1 very much. Could the FIA not do the same again, then? I’m sure Audi could adapt, and if they couldn’t, should F1 really cater the situation of Audi or any manufacturer for that matter? It seems for a long time now F1 has been trying to be something that it’s not, and it should return to its unapologetic independence that brought it so much glory in the past which then became the foundation for its success and growth.

V6 twin turbos would be AWESOME, and I’d applaud them with synthetic fuels as a viable alternative to all this electric agenda nonsense. Many claim F1 has not been road relevant for ages, so why should they keep trying to be something they are not? Independence should be embraced and celebrated for the betterment of the sport, the fans, and F1’s unique offerings, not ostracized and avoided to the detriment of competitiveness.

Imo, the vast majority are not going to choose between a Ferrari or Audi or Merc or Macca because that team did or did not win the F1 championship. So why continue to cater road relevance when F1 could be so much more doing what’s best for racing rather than a manufacture(s)?
Watching F1 since 1986.

User avatar
JordanMugen
83
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Chuckjr wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2024 6:23 pm
They unfortunately banned turbos because those engines were 1600+ horse.
They were nowhere near 1600hp at the 1987 and 1988 maximum boost levels!

It was only in earlier years that there was no boost limit. Weren't the the turbos around 650hp in 1988?

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2024 2:16 pm
1st or 2nd gear - (automatic and fault) flap positions A (highest Cdf:Cd ratio)
3rd or 4th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions B etc
5th or 6th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions C etc
7th or 8th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions D (lowest Cdf:Cd ratio)
flap positions (front & rear wings) would be car and venue-specific

what's not to like ?
transparent ...
foolproof .....
boy's toys
You'd have "no" downforce in high speed corners?! :?:

Far from fixing Andrea Stella's concerns of the cars being too slow in corners and too fast on straights, won't your proposal make those characteristics even worse?!

LHamilton
LHamilton
0
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

These 2026 rules better be decent, or F1 might see themselves really declining.

We have a few drivers that are on the precipice of retireing. And if they deem that the rules are bad in 2026, they just might it call it quits in 2027, or even before the 2026 regs even started, depending on how serious they feel it is.

You have Hamilton and Alonso plus Verstappen. Hamilton and Alonso are obviously at that age where they might retire any season. Verstappen has made it clear that he doesnt have to be in F1 and perhaps wants to try other stuff. This might be the "perfect" excuse for it. On top of that, if these drivers are yet on the grid, youd have Hulkenberg, Perez & Ricciardo who also are in their mid/late 30s and could do the same as the drivers above. Although these might not garner the same attention as others, for various reasons these people would still leave a hole to fill.

If all of these 6 people were to retire at once or close to eachother, with the 3 WDC guys being the major part of it, it could lead to a big blow for it. You might end up in a scenario where you would have 0 WDC in 2026/2027. Ooof...

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

LHamilton wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:58 am
These 2026 rules better be decent, or F1 might see themselves really declining.

We have a few drivers that are on the precipice of retireing. And if they deem that the rules are bad in 2026, they just might it call it quits in 2027, or even before the 2026 regs even started, depending on how serious they feel it is.

You have Hamilton and Alonso plus Verstappen. Hamilton and Alonso are obviously at that age where they might retire any season. Verstappen has made it clear that he doesnt have to be in F1 and perhaps wants to try other stuff. This might be the "perfect" excuse for it. On top of that, if these drivers are yet on the grid, youd have Hulkenberg, Perez & Ricciardo who also are in their mid/late 30s and could do the same as the drivers above. Although these might not garner the same attention as others, for various reasons these people would still leave a hole to fill.

If all of these 6 people were to retire at once or close to eachother, with the 3 WDC guys being the major part of it, it could lead to a big blow for it. You might end up in a scenario where you would have 0 WDC in 2026/2027. Ooof...
If the lack of racing entertainment for so many years didn't hurt f1, not sure what could...