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.
User avatar
Vanja #66
1466
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:14 pm
There were not much of a barge boards in 2016, yet we say Red Bull RB-12 worked quiet well with a high rake.
BBs, floor corners, sidepod vertical fences, all of those had a big impact. Yet their rakes were nowhere near the final 2021 level. We'll see what the final version of the rules will mandate of the inwash floor fence, maybe it will give some room for clever interpretation that can facilitate rake reintroduction

Image

Image
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:50 am
So it's confirmed... This will make it very easy for all teams to reach the peak performance of the chassis and will once again turn Formula 1 into Formula PU.
The chassis performance is converging now, isn't it? As long as it converges again in 2026-2027 with 1s over the field in Q1, that will be fine. :)

PUs may have greater differences under 2026+ regulations than now though. :lol: :shock:

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:05 am
Moctecus wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2024 11:28 pm
This is what the FIA themselves said in the press release (source):
- The cars will feature a partially flat floor and a lower-powered diffuser, which will reduce the ground effect and the reliance of the cars on ultra-stiff and low set-ups [emphasis mine].
So many people supposed ground effects (or rather Venturi tunnels) would be the solution to great racing, "bring back Venturi tunnels!", but it turns out to be a failure. :?

That's a shame, but at least they tried.

It's ironic as it is not like teams weren't running cars with rock solid suspension in 1982 once skirts were banned, so surely the stiff suspensions were anticipated?

Were people spoiled by the very soft compliant high-rake cars in 2021 (with the 13" tyres helping too), and startled by the difference?

IIRC even in 2021, F2 cars with 18" tyres were much stiffer than F1 cars -- the F2 cars would lift inside wheels, where the F1 cars would glide over bumps. At first I thought making F1 cars more like F2 cars was neat, i.e., they need more driving and don't just glide over bumps and kerbs, but it seems people don't like that?
You think they failed. But can you tell me the last time a following car burnt off its tires just by following ? It just isn't even a discussion point with these cars. In 2021 , it was the story of all races. In a close battle , the following car had one chance to pass. And if it didn't , that would be it and they'd just gap out after the tires went. This was with full DRS.

If something doesn't work as intended , that doesn't mean it should be abandoned. The design should just evolve.

And btw , rake looks stupid

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Good to know that all drivers will be racing in comfort after 2026. No team will run a stiff sprung car for a speed advantage. That would never happen.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:28 pm
FW17 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:14 pm
There were not much of a barge boards in 2016, yet we say Red Bull RB-12 worked quiet well with a high rake.
BBs, floor corners, sidepod vertical fences, all of those had a big impact. Yet their rakes were nowhere near the final 2021 level. We'll see what the final version of the rules will mandate of the inwash floor fence, maybe it will give some room for clever interpretation that can facilitate rake reintroduction

https://albrodpulf1.wordpress.com/wp-co ... -intro.jpg

https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... 1231986783
Pls use a RB12 pic on track as with other 2 cars not a studio launch pic

User avatar
Vanja #66
1466
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:47 pm
The chassis performance is converging now, isn't it? As long as it converges again in 2026-2027 with 1s over the field in Q1, that will be fine. :)

PUs may have greater differences under 2026+ regulations than now though. :lol: :shock:
Yeah, I'm not against chassis and performance convergence, just saying as I see it :) Rules are very restrictive, FIA learned how to predict and tighten down on loopholes while making 2022 rules with Brawn. There simply isn't any scope for creative aero development, while suspension rules will remain as restrictive as they are now. Abolishing any scope for venturi tunnels takes away the final tiny possibility for teams to design a bit more creative floors and find some (hard to observe and copy) good performance differentiation.

They will be left with optimising wings for active aero (which is as obvious as it gets) and finding desired flow conditioning with sidepods, which will end up converging in 3rd year at the latest (just like now and back in 2019). Front and rear endplates and front floor fences might be early performance differentiators, but those can get copied successfully by the end of 2026...
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 11:13 am
Additionally, new PUs will actually peak 100 HP higher than today (around 1100 HP) according to Tombazis

https://www.racefans.net/2024/06/12/for ... s-in-2026/
1,100hp = 820kW

MGUK power = 350kW

Which means ICE power = 470kW

Which is much more than the originally expected 400kW, and makes it even less 50/50 between ICE and MGUK.

Maximum fuel flow is 3,000MJ/h = 833kW

Which means that the ICE efficiency would be ~56%.

Which would be quite astounding.

If that was truly the case, they could reduce the MGUK output power to 250kW, which would give maximum power of 965hp. But it would make the energy last longer.

It would make the low drag mode less necessary.

Cs98
Cs98
33
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:15 pm
Vanja #66 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 11:13 am
Additionally, new PUs will actually peak 100 HP higher than today (around 1100 HP) according to Tombazis

https://www.racefans.net/2024/06/12/for ... s-in-2026/
1,100hp = 820kW

MGUK power = 350kW

Which means ICE power = 470kW

Which is much more than the originally expected 400kW, and makes it even less 50/50 between ICE and MGUK.

Maximum fuel flow is 3,000MJ/h = 833kW

Which means that the ICE efficiency would be ~56%.

Which would be quite astounding.

If that was truly the case, they could reduce the MGUK output power to 250kW, which would give maximum power of 965hp. But it would make the energy last longer.

It would make the low drag mode less necessary.
Considering it's a traditional V6 turbo, without the fancy MGU-H, 56% efficiency is not possible. That would be better than what they have currently.

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

So we are going to have front wing elements on servo motors to move them? Will they be spec parts ?

Wing elements mounted to a torsion bar setup would be simpler. And probably more reliable and safer

User avatar
Vanja #66
1466
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:15 pm
1,100hp = 820kW

MGUK power = 350kW

Which means ICE power = 470kW

Which is much more than the originally expected 400kW, and makes it even less 50/50 between ICE and MGUK.

Maximum fuel flow is 3,000MJ/h = 833kW

Which means that the ICE efficiency would be ~56%.

Which would be quite astounding.

If that was truly the case, they could reduce the MGUK output power to 250kW, which would give maximum power of 965hp. But it would make the energy last longer.

It would make the low drag mode less necessary.
Thanks for the power math :D

They won't change anything on electric power, manufacturers are far too ahead on design to make such big changes. Besides, they will need to focus on increasing downforce and this will require bigger wings as well to increase drag too.

I'm not sure why people are so much against low drag mode, active aero has been on road cars for nearly 20 years and is way overdue in F1. There should be more of it, not less, but this is a start at least
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

According to french tv about 2026's regulation:
- Cost of e-fuel will around 120€ per liter versus 20€ currently for F1 fuel
- according to drivers who did simulator test, in order to have more electrical power they will have to downshift in the Middle of the straight, the ICE becoming a big dynamo.

I don't want to discredit bio fuel because it will be our way around hybrid. But just think of how much more energy is being consumed to make bio fuel if the cost is 120% more. Most of this sustainability stuff is worse for the environment than doing nothing.

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Sounds like the FIA are open to the idea of turning the ICE up already.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10621064/


One of the best ways that some competitors suggest the cars could be made quicker would be by lifting the power that can be produced by the ICE element – which would be achieved through not restricting fuel flow as much.

While previously such an idea has been dismissed, Tombazis suggested that it was not out of the question to go down that route if the power unit manufacturers were in favour.

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
343
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:29 pm
Sounds like the FIA are open to the idea of turning the ICE up already.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10621064/


One of the best ways that some competitors suggest the cars could be made quicker would be by lifting the power that can be produced by the ICE element – which would be achieved through not restricting fuel flow as much.

While previously such an idea has been dismissed, Tombazis suggested that it was not out of the question to go down that route if the power unit manufacturers were in favour.
The PU manufacturers will not be in favor. It is too late to change the power level.

bhall II
bhall II
477
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:19 am
bhall II wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 3:13 am
After fifteen-plus years and untold millions spent on attempts to ease overtaking, the FIA arrives with a concept that looks an awful lot like the one it abandoned in 2009 in its first attempt to ease overtaking.
An outcry for smaller and lighter cars has been made since forever, as long a they're making changes why not go back visually to a period when cars looked really good? If those pre-2009 cars had DRS, I bet racing would be better than today, even if they had fairly big barge boards and there were a lot of vortices generated all over the car.

2009 rules were a big step in the wrong direction, 2014 low nose rule was a big load of nothing and 2017 rules were literally made to make cars faster since they can't really race anyway... This period will probably be remembered as the Decade of Unraceable cars :lol:
I tend to think that fans, by and large, prefer the aesthetic of cars from the era in which they started following the sport. Since we're all different, and there's no clear consensus about what looks really good, I'd be surprised if appearance has played a role here at all. But that's not quite what I was getting at.

In a previous life, I was a very outspoken critic of attempts to introduce major aerodynamic changes that would ostensibly increase overtaking, because I simply don't think it's possible. Anything short of complete standardization is just kicking the can down the road, and nothing I've seen in the intervening years has changed my mind.

(To be clear, I don't support the standardization of anything)

Seeing F1 now come full circle pisses me off all over again. I lament what could have been had the Grand Poobahs in charge taken a more holistic approach when assessing the overtaking problem. Instead, we got the Overtaking Working Group, which probably should have been called the Myopic Focus On Wake Turbulence Working Group, because little else was considered.

Fun fact: the winglets, VGs, flow conditionors, etc., that were discarded for 2009 weren't really eliminated for aerodynamic reasons...

The [2009] rules will exclude all the barge boards, the radiator air extraction chimneys, flip-ups, nose horns and all the rest of it. The plan is for the cars to be smooth between the axles.
"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," [Paddy] Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas."

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:13 pm
wuzak wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:15 pm
1,100hp = 820kW

MGUK power = 350kW

Which means ICE power = 470kW

Which is much more than the originally expected 400kW, and makes it even less 50/50 between ICE and MGUK.

Maximum fuel flow is 3,000MJ/h = 833kW

Which means that the ICE efficiency would be ~56%.

Which would be quite astounding.

If that was truly the case, they could reduce the MGUK output power to 250kW, which would give maximum power of 965hp. But it would make the energy last longer.

It would make the low drag mode less necessary.
Thanks for the power math :D

They won't change anything on electric power, manufacturers are far too ahead on design to make such big changes. Besides, they will need to focus on increasing downforce and this will require bigger wings as well to increase drag too.

I'm not sure why people are so much against low drag mode, active aero has been on road cars for nearly 20 years and is way overdue in F1. There should be more of it, not less, but this is a start at least
The power output of the MGUK already is reduced at speed.

Reducing the maximum output in normal mode would not require any hardware changes.