2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[wuzak]

I did some calculations of the energy recovey during the race.

The maximum energy recovery per lap is 8.5MJ in the latest regulations, with the option of increasing it to 9MJ for longer tracks and decreasing it to 8MJ on shorter tracks.

I have assumed that races with over 65 laps have only 8MJ per lap, and those with under 50 have 9MJ per lap, all the rest have 8.5MJ/lap.

For comparison to the fuel energy, I have assumed 90kg race fuel, as mentioned by others above, and did it for both the maximum fuel density (41MJ/kg) and minimum fuel density (38MJ/kg).

The race energy recovery for the tracks of the 2025 season was 13.6% for fuel with the maximum fuel density, and 14.7% for fuel with the minimum fuel density.

Monaco had the most possible energy recovered with 624MJ (16.9%/18.2%) and Spa the least at 396MJ (10.7%/11.6%).

The fastest race tracks on the calendar tend to be the ones with the least amount of energy recovered over the race distance.

I am not sure which tracks are the most power sensitive - ie the ones where extra power makes the biggest difference.

That woudl be an interesting comparison to the amount of energy that can be recovered/deployed from the MGUK.

[Cs98]

If they 2026 PU rules are better than the 2014-2025 PU rules "in every way" then there would be no issue in delaying the 2026 chassis rules a year or two, and running the 2026 PU in the current generation chassis?

It would be possible, but it's the right thing to introduce the full package and set it as the baseline for future improvements of technical regulations. And honestly, it's a decent baseline. This discussion started with active aero and that bit is quite an important aspect of 2026 chassis rules.

My point is that the 2026 PU does not bring and advantages to its weight or size.

Cooling from the ICE will go down, but cooling for the battery, electronics and MGU will go up - no sure if one would outweigh the other.

The 2026 regulations could easily have been written around the current PUs.

But the 2026 PU needs the 2026 chassis rules to have any chance of working and giving expected F1 performance levels.

A complaint about the MGUH was that it was too complicated.

To complicated to match with the turbo, or the energy management was too complicated?

No, the technology itself is very complex and sensitive from manufacturing POV. You have 120k RPM turbo subjected to extensive thermal loads. Fine, high RPM turbos have been built for decades. EMs, not so much. Energy management is a non-issue as fas as I understand, but coupling a high-speed EM in a very hot environment is a big challenge. Tolerances are crazy, thermal management is crazy, vibration management is crazy. Parts are very expensive to manufacture and require very special and expensive machines to do so. Road car technology went in another direction since 2014 and such units never became road-relevant even if many attempts to do so have been made. It's simply too expensive to manufacture purely from mechanical POV and ultimately yields very small improvements for road cars, even high-performance specimens.

The reason why there is no MGUH in the 2026 PU rules is that Audi/Porsche did not want to develop such a system, as the existing manufacturers have much more experience with the technology.

Also, the 2026 PU rules are closer to the LMP1 regulations from 10 years ago, with which Audi and Porsche competed at Le Mans.

There are not many, if any, road cars with 50/50 hybrid power split.

And road cars tend not to run at full throttle 60-80% of the time.

Wouldn't be so sure cooling for the ICE will be down that much. Remember they will have to run the ICE as a genny bascially all the time off-throttle, so there's no real downtime for the engine in the corners, where the air speed is at its lowest.

[wuzak]

It would be possible, but it's the right thing to introduce the full package and set it as the baseline for future improvements of technical regulations. And honestly, it's a decent baseline. This discussion started with active aero and that bit is quite an important aspect of 2026 chassis rules.

My point is that the 2026 PU does not bring and advantages to its weight or size.

Cooling from the ICE will go down, but cooling for the battery, electronics and MGU will go up - no sure if one would outweigh the other.

The 2026 regulations could easily have been written around the current PUs.

But the 2026 PU needs the 2026 chassis rules to have any chance of working and giving expected F1 performance levels.

No, the technology itself is very complex and sensitive from manufacturing POV. You have 120k RPM turbo subjected to extensive thermal loads. Fine, high RPM turbos have been built for decades. EMs, not so much. Energy management is a non-issue as fas as I understand, but coupling a high-speed EM in a very hot environment is a big challenge. Tolerances are crazy, thermal management is crazy, vibration management is crazy. Parts are very expensive to manufacture and require very special and expensive machines to do so. Road car technology went in another direction since 2014 and such units never became road-relevant even if many attempts to do so have been made. It's simply too expensive to manufacture purely from mechanical POV and ultimately yields very small improvements for road cars, even high-performance specimens.

The reason why there is no MGUH in the 2026 PU rules is that Audi/Porsche did not want to develop such a system, as the existing manufacturers have much more experience with the technology.

Also, the 2026 PU rules are closer to the LMP1 regulations from 10 years ago, with which Audi and Porsche competed at Le Mans.

There are not many, if any, road cars with 50/50 hybrid power split.

And road cars tend not to run at full throttle 60-80% of the time.

Wouldn't be so sure cooling for the ICE will be down that much. Remember they will have to run the ICE as a genny bascially all the time off-throttle, so there's no real downtime for the engine in the corners, where the air speed is at its lowest.

But the ice power is down by roughly 1/3. Even if the ICE is slightly less efficient, taht should mean a reduced cooling load.

Though the partial throttle fuel flow might change that (see 2026 PU thread).

[Cs98]

My point is that the 2026 PU does not bring and advantages to its weight or size.

Cooling from the ICE will go down, but cooling for the battery, electronics and MGU will go up - no sure if one would outweigh the other.

The 2026 regulations could easily have been written around the current PUs.

But the 2026 PU needs the 2026 chassis rules to have any chance of working and giving expected F1 performance levels.




The reason why there is no MGUH in the 2026 PU rules is that Audi/Porsche did not want to develop such a system, as the existing manufacturers have much more experience with the technology.

Also, the 2026 PU rules are closer to the LMP1 regulations from 10 years ago, with which Audi and Porsche competed at Le Mans.

There are not many, if any, road cars with 50/50 hybrid power split.

And road cars tend not to run at full throttle 60-80% of the time.

Wouldn't be so sure cooling for the ICE will be down that much. Remember they will have to run the ICE as a genny bascially all the time off-throttle, so there's no real downtime for the engine in the corners, where the air speed is at its lowest.

But the ice power is down by roughly 1/3. Even if the ICE is slightly less efficient, taht should mean a reduced cooling load.

Though the partial throttle fuel flow might change that (see 2026 PU thread).

I'm just saying that the reduced cooling from it being less powerful will be partially offset by the fact the engine will be running for more of the lap, due to the fact it's going to be fuel burning off-throttle to a much higher extent. In fact there may not be any part of the lap where the engine is not revving high.

[Henk_v]

A big risk is that somebody finds a really "dumb" way of racing that is effective. Thete is no guarantee that the rules will be applied as intended.

For instance; when there is a close battle, might the front car use a twisty part of the track to go in maximum recovery wih the car following not able to overtake and not able to recover as much due to the loss in downforce from following and hence not able to attack for the rest of the track?

How do you prevent silly situations? The guys thinking up this stuff are facing about 5000 engineers that will try to break their rules. We all know this happened with simple stuff when cars were just racing.

[Vanja #66]

The reason why there is no MGUH in the 2026 PU rules is that Audi/Porsche did not want to develop such a system, as the existing manufacturers have much more experience with the technology.

Also, the 2026 PU rules are closer to the LMP1 regulations from 10 years ago, with which Audi and Porsche competed at Le Mans.

There are not many, if any, road cars with 50/50 hybrid power split.

And road cars tend not to run at full throttle 60-80% of the time.

MGUH is an overly complex and overly expensive system that does not yield the benefits of its costs outside F1. As we can see, not a single current manufacturer made any attempt to keep it, lots of money saved and will be better used elsewhere - especially helpful with budget cap.

Honda decided to stay because of high-power MGU, battery and all relevant system development, as well as working with 100% sustainable fuel. Audi abandoned FE to try Dakar and WEC and then abandoned both projects to focus solely on F1. For a company on a path of total switch to BEVs this is the only motorsport presence that makes sense - you design every component of e-power system, including the battery which wasn't possible in FE when they left.

The key to road relevance is high-power MGU and developing all accompanying e-power systems, although 50-50 (well, 53-47 actually) power split is very relevant to PHEVs right now. Just check BMW and Audi PHEV ranges, lots of models are between 40-60 and 50-50 split with some very respectable fully-electric ranges.

I'd rather see much more freedom allowed over PU weight limits, but this is not considered cost- and competition-friendly. If ICE was down to 100kg minimum and other systems allowed to be 30-50% lighter, 50-50 hybrid PU would be an amazing piece of technology.

Also, what's the plan to reduce ICE power from 630+ KW today to 400KW with same volume and V6 architecture? Energy flow limits will make sure of that?

[wuzak]

The reason why there is no MGUH in the 2026 PU rules is that Audi/Porsche did not want to develop such a system, as the existing manufacturers have much more experience with the technology.

Also, the 2026 PU rules are closer to the LMP1 regulations from 10 years ago, with which Audi and Porsche competed at Le Mans.

There are not many, if any, road cars with 50/50 hybrid power split.

And road cars tend not to run at full throttle 60-80% of the time.

MGUH is an overly complex and overly expensive system that does not yield the benefits of its costs outside F1. As we can see, not a single current manufacturer made any attempt to keep it, lots of money saved and will be better used elsewhere - especially helpful with budget cap.

Honda decided to stay because of high-power MGU, battery and all relevant system development, as well as working with 100% sustainable fuel. Audi abandoned FE to try Dakar and WEC and then abandoned both projects to focus solely on F1. For a company on a path of total switch to BEVs this is the only motorsport presence that makes sense - you design every component of e-power system, including the battery which wasn't possible in FE when they left.

The key to road relevance is high-power MGU and developing all accompanying e-power systems, although 50-50 (well, 53-47 actually) power split is very relevant to PHEVs right now. Just check BMW and Audi PHEV ranges, lots of models are between 40-60 and 50-50 split with some very respectable fully-electric ranges.

I'd rather see much more freedom allowed over PU weight limits, but this is not considered cost- and competition-friendly. If ICE was down to 100kg minimum and other systems allowed to be 30-50% lighter, 50-50 hybrid PU would be an amazing piece of technology.

Also, what's the plan to reduce ICE power from 630+ KW today to 400KW with same volume and V6 architecture? Energy flow limits will make sure of that?

A lot of the ICE is standardised.

It is a little silly that the ICE is the same capacity as the old one. I is, perhaps, overly large for the power output.

The plan was to cut 1/3 of the ICE power and replace that with electric power.

So they could have lopped off two cylinders and have a 1066cc V4, but that would have been too similar to the current units when talking about individual cylinders. Maybe a disadvantage to new suppliers?

The biggest freedom seems to be the combustion chamber. It is where the most gains can be made.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... So they could have lopped off two cylinders and have a 1066cc V4 ....

afaik that would have needed more compressor power (than the path chosen)
(that will use much lower boost - so afaik less compressor work with the same massflow)
and the lower boost will help the response

and even leaner mixture (than current) might be used without compressor work becoming excessive
if the fuel will support this
so the heat dumped to coolant will be less and the heat for conversion to work will be increased

[Xyz22]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10597235/

This is looking like one of the biggest clownshow in F1 history

There is absolutely no way that even this simplified engines will become road relevant, as Newey underlines that the tech used for F1 battery is in a completely different league.

[wuzak]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10597235/

This is looking like one of the biggest clownshow in F1 history

There is absolutely no way that even this simplified engines will become road relevant, as Newey underlines that the tech used for F1 battery is in a completely different league.

“The other problem is the battery. What we need, or what the F1 regulations need out of the batteries in terms of power density and energy density, is quite different to what a normal road car needs. And that in itself means that the battery chemistry, and possibly battery construction is different. So, there's a risk that it won't be directly road-relevant.

Newey has revealed that effectively turning the ICEs into generators means there could even be the need for weird traits, like needing them to run at full revs through tight corners such as the hairpin in Monaco.

“It's certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he told Autosport.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.”

Asked for his views on the argument that the aero rules were now a sticking plaster for an engine that was not delivering all that had been hoped, Newey said: “I think that's fair comment, and probably one that even the FIA would acknowledge - that only the engine manufacturers wanted this kind of 50/50 combustion engine with electric.

“I guess it is what their marketing people said that we should be doing and I understand that: it's potentially interesting because F1 can be a fast-track developer of technology.

[Xyz22]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10597235/

This is looking like one of the biggest clownshow in F1 history

There is absolutely no way that even this simplified engines will become road relevant, as Newey underlines that the tech used for F1 battery is in a completely different league.

“The other problem is the battery. What we need, or what the F1 regulations need out of the batteries in terms of power density and energy density, is quite different to what a normal road car needs. And that in itself means that the battery chemistry, and possibly battery construction is different. So, there's a risk that it won't be directly road-relevant.

Newey has revealed that effectively turning the ICEs into generators means there could even be the need for weird traits, like needing them to run at full revs through tight corners such as the hairpin in Monaco.

“It's certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he told Autosport.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.”

Asked for his views on the argument that the aero rules were now a sticking plaster for an engine that was not delivering all that had been hoped, Newey said: “I think that's fair comment, and probably one that even the FIA would acknowledge - that only the engine manufacturers wanted this kind of 50/50 combustion engine with electric.

“I guess it is what their marketing people said that we should be doing and I understand that: it's potentially interesting because F1 can be a fast-track developer of technology.

This is a complete disaster and why the rules are coming in "hot". They have no clue how to compensate for these useless PUs with the chassis. Active aero is a very sensible topic as could create a huge amount of issues for drivers safety, costs, etc.

[AR3-GP]

So they could have lopped off two cylinders and have a 1066cc V4, but that would have been too similar to the current units when talking about individual cylinders. Maybe a disadvantage to new suppliers?

V4 would have sounded bad (Porsche 919 hybrid...) and a V4 is an inherently unbalanced engine. An in-line 5 cylinder would have been interesting for sound while being able to claim "downsizing".

[Vanja #66]

It is, of course, an absolute coincidence only Red Bull is publicly complaining so hard

[AR3-GP]

It is, of course, an absolute coincidence only Red Bull is publicly complaining so hard

Red Bull is the only non-car manufacturer. They are not using F1 to present a misleading narrative in order to sell cars. For the other manufacturers (Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda, Audi), their participation in F1 depends on F1 portraying certain narratives.

The 2026 regulations achieve neither maximum efficiency nor maximum performance. They sit in a lukewarm middle ground designed to suit misleading marketing narratives (we are a 50% electric sport).


A number of interesting and real alternatives:

1) Front wheel MGU and uncapped energy recovery (more efficiency)
2) A bigger battery to give the cars a proper EV only range with pit stop re-charging from renewable sources.

I don't know whether any of these would be good for racing or give us fast cars, but they would at least not be misleading. They would fit the efficient, environmentally conscious narratives that the manufacturers desire.

What we have now for 2026 is burning petrol with ~48% thermal efficiency to make electricity so that we may claim that our cars are "electric" . The reason they are using less fuel is not because efficiency increased appreciably, but instead because they just cut the fuel flow in the regs and said "good luck" to the people responsible for the chassis regs...

[wuzak]

A number of interesting and real alternatives:

1) Front wheel MGU and uncapped energy recovery (more efficiency)
2) A bigger battery to give the cars a proper EV only range with pit stop re-charging from renewable sources.

A "number" being 2?

1) Front wheel MGU would help with the braking balance, should be less of an issue than teh rear brake by wire with such powerful recovery.

Uncapped how?
In power recovery, or energy per lap, or both?
Underbraking only, or anywhere, anytime?

2) How much range?

Current battery rules allow for 4MJ per lap from 35kg ES, ~25kg of which is the actual batteries.

The actual storage capacity is probably 10Mj, or more. 10MJ would give ~28s at full power.

A Grand Prix is ~80-120 minutes.

The formula E battery has 51kWh (183.6MJ), weighs 284kg. Pit recharging is allowed (but not yet the planned 30s charging), and the races last 45 minutes.

What we have now for 2026 is burning petrol with ~48% thermal efficiency to make electricity so that we may claim that our cars are "electric" . The reason they are using less fuel is not because efficiency increased appreciably, but instead because they just cut the fuel flow in the regs and said "good luck" to the people responsible for the chassis regs...

Nobody is claiming that the 2026 car is "electric".

It is a hybrid system, where the maximum power is roughlky 50/50 split between the ICE and the electric motor.

They will use less fuel because the cars will have less drag and be slower.