2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[Vanja #66]

How are the 2026 PU rules better than 2014? Removing the MGU-H means the fuel is used less efficiently. If this was compensated by front wheel MGU-K, then I would say it's better.

The only "benefit" was that they attracted another manufacturer by reducing the complexity, but it was a complexity that was already solved by all manufacturers. MGU-H is easy.

They are allowed to harvest 4.5 times more energy over a lap and MGU has a lot more power available, while battery pack will only increase slightly in size and weight, how's that not better? Today, high performance electric motors can reach 10KW/kg power density and even go over that, that's far superior than any type of ICE, even Wankel and other rotary engines.

Agreed on front wheel MGUK, that's a given, but as far as I remember teams refused this at the start because it would be too big of a change with everything else changing...

[astracrazy]

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c_fV7qLzE

"Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking....."

You then proceed to show me an Indycar taking turns with banking.

So I take it you agree then or?

[Cs98]

Allowing more harvest is putting a number on a piece of paper, it doesn't mean it is practically achievable. To put it in simple terms, every second of full deployment requires one second of maximum harvest. All max re-generation will have to occur during off-throttle conditions, there's not much of that on an F1 lap counted in seconds, so teams will have to create more through constant lift and coast. Thus the average power across the lap will be down significantly.

[Tommy Cookers]

yes
the 2026 car has less time (than current cars) available per lap for full power regen ...
(below c.110 mph it hasn't enough DF for this)

active aero will relieve the problem ....
(reducing drag and DF it will increase time above c 110 mph ie time available for full power regen)

laptime will increase

[mzso]

Just imagine the lower drag package combined with a non-hybrid turbo ICE.

Up the fuel flow rate to get around 700hp, save around 100kg from not having all the ERS, save drag by not having to run the ERS coolers.

Cars could be even smaller.

How would that compare for efficiency?

Well, the PU efficiency would plummet. I don't think lower drag would compensate for it.

[Just_a_fan]

Agreed on front wheel MGUK, that's a given, but as far as I remember teams refused this at the start because it would be too big of a change with everything else changing...

And the FIA should have just put it in anyway. If a team wants to take a punt on a FW-MGUK then let them. If it works, they get the benefit until others catch up.

Part of the problem is the teams are too involved in writing the rules sometimes.

[Vanja #66]

I'd like to hear more about car efficiency from the braver downvoter, I expect a fascinating explanaton. I'm mentally prepared for a complete epiphany experience, please don't let us down!

[FW17]

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c_fV7qLzE

"Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking....."

You then proceed to show me an Indycar taking turns with banking.

So I take it you agree then or?

Sorry, without my glasses banking and braking look the same

[wuzak]

They are allowed to harvest 4.5 times more energy over a lap and MGU has a lot more power available, while battery pack will only increase slightly in size and weight, how's that not better? Today, high performance electric motors can reach 10KW/kg power density and even go over that, that's far superior than any type of ICE, even Wankel and other rotary engines.

They're allowed to harvest 4.25 times more energy over a lap than previously, but only 2.91 times the MGU power (speaking only about the MGUK here, ignorning the MGUH). It means that they will have to find even more energy outside of the braking phase.

The current MGUK cannot get the full allowed energy recovery over a lap from braking, and it is worse in 2026.

The MGUH recovered energy when the amount of turbine power was greater than the amount of compressor power required. Which is most of the time at full throttle.

That power could be transferred directly to the MGUK, increasing the efficiency of the unit (turbo-compounding) or stored in the battery for later use.

For the 2026 MGUK to generate, it must, in effect, be braking the car. It might be that the ICE has to make extra power to compensate and maintain speed, but because of its limited power there is less opportunity to do that. Also, the rules specify that the 2026 MGUK can generate almost as much power as the current MGUK when the driver is at full throttle. Won't that be fun, driving the last 1/3 of a straight with only 400hp!

Since no limits were placed on the MGUH in terms of power and energy recovery, we can't know exactly how much it is. But a guess is that the energy recovered from the MGUH is >>2MJ.

The battery pack will be basically the same - the same usable capacity (4MJ). While the minimum weight has increased, it includes more items than previously, so could actually be exactly the same mass as previously.

The 2026 MGUk will far exceed that 10kW/kg. It is to be 350kW from 16kg.

[wuzak]

I'd like to hear more about car efficiency from the braver downvoter, I expect a fascinating explanaton. I'm mentally prepared for a complete epiphany experience, please don't let us down!

If a car uses 10% less fuel, but takes 11% more time to travel the same disatnce, is it more efficient?

I suppose you could argue it used less fuel, but wouldn't that also be true if the current cars just drove slower?

What would be the difference in fuel usage for the current PU against the 2026 PU in the 2026 chassis?

[Vanja #66]

If a car uses 10% less fuel, but takes 11% more time to travel the same disatnce, is it more efficient?

I suppose you could argue it used less fuel, but wouldn't that also be true if the current cars just drove slower?

What would be the difference in fuel usage for the current PU against the 2026 PU in the 2026 chassis?

Wait, what? 10% less fuel and 11% slower laps? Are we seriously so far down in these discussions? It's literally 30% less fuel than now and laps will be 5-6% slower at most. In 2-3 years of development lap times will be about the same as 2013, when cars used 160kg of fuel per race and had 100kg less empty weight.

With less fuel and lower weight, 2026 cars will start the race 60-70kg lighter than 2025 cars, this will also have a big influence on total race times and those will be very interesting to compare with 2025 total race times.

[wuzak]

If a car uses 10% less fuel, but takes 11% more time to travel the same disatnce, is it more efficient?

I suppose you could argue it used less fuel, but wouldn't that also be true if the current cars just drove slower?

What would be the difference in fuel usage for the current PU against the 2026 PU in the 2026 chassis?

Wait, what? 10% less fuel and 11% slower laps? Are we seriously so far down in these discussions? It's literally 30% less fuel than now and laps will be 5-6% slower at most. In 2-3 years of development lap times will be about the same as 2013, when cars used 160kg of fuel per race and had 100kg less empty weight.

With less fuel and lower weight, 2026 cars will start the race 60-70kg lighter than 2025 cars, this will also have a big influence on total race times and those will be very interesting to compare with 2025 total race times.

There were claims that the cars would still use 100kg of fuel for the race, but I doubt that will be the case.

I also doubt that the race fuel will be 30% lower. They are going to have to burn extra fuel to generate the energy for the battery.

The 10% less fuel/11% more time was just an example.

Also, the weight of the car and the drag of the car could be achieved with the current PU.

The 2026 PU is no lighter than the current PU.

[Vanja #66]

There were claims that the cars would still use 100kg of fuel for the race, but I doubt that will be the case.

I also doubt that the race fuel will be 30% lower. They are going to have to burn extra fuel to generate the energy for the battery.

The 10% less fuel/11% more time was just an example.

Also, the weight of the car and the drag of the car could be achieved with the current PU.

The 2026 PU is no lighter than the current PU.

The latest info reiterates 70kg of fuel is the target limit, right now it's 110kg but as far as I know on most races cars are fuelled to around 100kg, which is why I said 30%. This is huge and is possible due to introduction of such high powered MGU and the increase in energy store capacity per lap.

Fuel burning on straights or whenever is optimal will be done when the ICE is running in the zone of highest efficiency. Compared to ICE, electric motors can accelerate with 2-3 times higher efficiency (and typically more torque) and this is where all this fuel will be saved.

The only thing missing from these rules are front wheel MGUs (or just GUs) and they will come at some point.

[wuzak]

The latest info reiterates 70kg of fuel is the target limit, right now it's 110kg but as far as I know on most races cars are fuelled to around 100kg, which is why I said 30%. This is huge and is possible due to introduction of such high powered MGU and the increase in energy store capacity per lap.

What is this latest info, and where is it coming from?

There were stories a while back that they would still need around 100kg during the race, but there is no firm word on that.

They may be waiting on the chassis rules to see what is possible.

This is huge and is possible due to introduction of such high powered MGU and the increase in energy store capacity per lap.

The energy storage capacity remains the same - 4MJ.

You probably mean the allowable energy recovery per lap, and, therefore, the deployment.

Note that they have already reduced the allowable energy recovery from 9MJ to 8.5MJ (5.6% reduction), and at shorter tracks this will likely be reduced to 8MJ (11.1% decrease).

They have also reduced the speed at which maximum MGUK power can be used in normal mode (290km/h, down from 300km/h) reduced MGUK power from 150kW above 340km/h to 0kW above 345km/h.

This all suggest to me that there is a lack of opportunity to recovery energy, and that they needed to reduce power output so as not to use it too quickly.

The whole 50/50 power split isn't really true if the MGUK has only half its maximum power at 325km/h.

Fuel burning on straights or whenever is optimal will be done when the ICE is running in the zone of highest efficiency. Compared to ICE, electric motors can accelerate with 2-3 times higher efficiency (and typically more torque) and this is where all this fuel will be saved.

The MGUK will certainly offset the ICE's turbo lag from slow corners.

I presume ICE efficiency will be well down when it is suffering from turbo lag.

Turbo lag has been mentioned as something that can make the cars exciting to watch, but it could be several seconds before the turbo comes on boost. The current units would be around 5-10s if not for the MGUH.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Compared to ICE, electric motors can accelerate with 2-3 times higher efficiency (and typically more torque) and this is where all this fuel will be saved.....

as written this is dangerous nonsense

road or track there is no electric motor that works with a zero-weight zero-bulk zero-cost 100% efficient electricity supply
there is no such supply
like the ICE the EM needs a supply of (electric) fuel

the (present) F1 ICE is hobbled by constrained fuelling and the EM rewarded with unconstrained fueling
though F1 (GPs) for the previous 100 years had unconstrained fueling