2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, it should be infinitely variable. It's not too complicated. I believe the FIA are worried about the software battle to map the aero to each circuit metre-by-metre, but surely the more complexity, the merrier?

If you are going to do active-aero, go all in with computer controlled fully variable aero, I say!

They definitely shouldn't do that. It would be just yet another automatization on the car. And dangerous, when the track position is falsely registered.
They should do it with manual control! A trigger button on the wheel or maybe a third pedal, whatever is more convenient. Drivers could use that creatively in all sorts of ways as long as it's fast enough.

You guys are forgetting some important aero balance lessons that were first learned with active aero going back to the 1960s and the Chaparral 2C and applied to the 2E (which humorously was controlled by a third pedal (they ran autos partly for this reason))

https://www.motortrend.com/features/cha ... odynamics/

Their solution to varying aero load was to apply the aero load to the unsprung uprights, thus you have a chassis that doesn’t bottom out with higher loads and isn’t too stiff when drag is taken away.

Of course, the original F1 rear wings were all mounted directly the unsprung mass on the Lotus 49B. But this approach was banned because of various crashes and wings were then mounted to the sprung mass (chassis). Chapman then famously figuring out how to do it with the "twin chassis" Lotus 88 (excluded because the other teams hadn't thought of it, of course, just like the BT46).

[mzso]

READ. THE. LINK. It lays it the problem entirely.

Active downforce is a disaster when it’s loaded through the springs.

Okay, so you have no point. If you're too lazy to write down you concern, I'm definitely going to be too lazy to read a lengthy article.

No I’m not. Read the link. I’m not here to spoon feed you information, I’m not your momma bird.

Click it and read it. It requires zero effort. I’ve provided a link with historical reference to active aero and technical issues that arise. You have contributed nothing of value to this, and 65 upvotes (one of which is an upvote for complaining how you don't want to read a link) over 2000+ posts is revealing.

So in conclusion there's no particular issue with using active aerodynamics, as far as anyone can tell.

[mzso]

Would there be any benefit in allowing the active aero to be variable, rather than 2 position?

I'm thinking of corners that require more downforce than can be achieved in the low drag mode, but do not need the maximum downforce available.

That way the drag is reduced to some degree, and the energy required for a lap/race is reduced.

Or is it too complicated?

Teams had active suspension decades ago, I don't see why variable DF would be an issue now. Look how tight combustion controls are on these PUs. I think the variable DF would have to be on the simpler items that have more predictability and testing would need to be expanded for safety reasons.

Yeah, I don't think there's a shortage of computing power to calculate, how much downforce the car can take at any given moment.

Though the best would be active suspensions. Why bother with crude suspensions when this was already developed and pretty much perfected by the early nineties?

[mzso]

Of course, the original F1 rear wings were all mounted directly the unsprung mass on the Lotus 49B. But this approach was banned because of various crashes and wings were then mounted to the sprung mass (chassis). Chapman then famously figuring out how to do it with the "twin chassis" Lotus 88 (excluded because the other teams hadn't thought of it, of course, just like the BT46).

By is there a good reason not to do it now? Was there ever?
The issue was that they mounted the wings with too feeble structures, which collapsed a number of times. I expect teams could far more easily calculate and predict how much strength is needed. Also better materials are available.