2026 active aero discussions

[AR3-GP]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-e ... /10422856/

Active aero for downforce increase while following. Sounds good, should be simple to recalculate and determine how and when to add it.

As log as they stick to downsizing the cars a bit, it will be very good.

This is flawed. Very flawed.

A team becomes limited when they are already operating the wing near the stall/separation point.

Turning the wing up more doesn't always increase downforce, and infact can increase drag abruptly, destroy the brake duct cooling, and/or destroy downstream flow structures.

Each car has a different characteristic wake. The requirement for additional downforce to "compensate" is different for each car. Some cars generating dirtier wakes than others.

What about the car's aero balance as the car moves from inside the wake, to outside the wake?

It all sounds a bit silly to me.

[kermatine]

There is no need for active aero. DRS is more than enough.

Who is going to be blamed when a failure happens causing the wing not to close, and a driver pays with their life?

I believe this has already happened before with DRS. i think it was Marcus Ericsson at Monza, 2018. His rear wing didn't close so when he braked at the end of the straight, he locked up hard and went flying.

[Vanja #66]

This is flawed. Very flawed.

A team becomes limited when they are already operating the wing near the stall/separation point.

Turning the wing up more doesn't always increase downforce, and infact can increase drag abruptly, destroy the brake duct cooling, and/or destroy downstream flow structures.

Each car has a different characteristic wake. The requirement for additional downforce to "compensate" is different for each car. Some cars generating dirtier wakes than others.

What about the car's aero balance as the car moves from inside the wake, to outside the wake?

It all sounds a bit silly to me.

If you draw the rules so the trailing end of the last flap is set at about 45 deg, you can easily add 10-15 deg more to it and it can add a decent amount of downforce. And that's just the last element, it can be made so that 2 or 3 elements move together.

I don't see too many problems with integration of such a rule set, even right now. At the moment with existing rules it can be applied with 2 flaps on front and beam wing and the flap on rear wing. All the troubles with balance, different wakes etc are a part of engineering challenge.

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least. To fully offset the downforce lost not much is needed and it won't change the balance of the cars on its own. With slight adjustments it can be made so the balance, brake cooling etc stays the same.

[AR3-GP]

This is flawed. Very flawed.

A team becomes limited when they are already operating the wing near the stall/separation point.

Turning the wing up more doesn't always increase downforce, and infact can increase drag abruptly, destroy the brake duct cooling, and/or destroy downstream flow structures.

Each car has a different characteristic wake. The requirement for additional downforce to "compensate" is different for each car. Some cars generating dirtier wakes than others.

What about the car's aero balance as the car moves from inside the wake, to outside the wake?

It all sounds a bit silly to me.

If you draw the rules so the trailing end of the last flap is set at about 45 deg, you can easily add 10-15 deg more to it and it can add a decent amount of downforce. And that's just the last element, it can be made so that 2 or 3 elements move together.

I don't see too many problems with integration of such a rule set, even right now. At the moment with existing rules it can be applied with 2 flaps on front and beam wing and the flap on rear wing. All the troubles with balance, different wakes etc are a part of engineering challenge.

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least. To fully offset the downforce lost not much is needed and it won't change the balance of the cars on its own. With slight adjustments it can be made so the balance, brake cooling etc stays the same.

Perhaps I'm being overly negative and/or overly complicating what may actually be a simple problem, but for whatever reason it is not confidence inspiring.

[mzso]

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least.

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

[organic]

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least.

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

Cars too big & heavy?

[Stu]

That is one reason, probably; another would be that there was a big regulation change that one team got spectacularly correct and a different team were slightly off BUT had the driver and strategy to fight for races.

[organic]

That is one reason, probably; another would be that there was a big regulation change that one team got spectacularly correct and a different team were slightly off BUT had the driver and strategy to fight for races.

Yeah. Fans were robbed in '22 really

Hopefully the top 3 teams are close enough that we have more on-track action. End of the season seemed to suggest the performance was getting closer but let's see

[Vanja #66]

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

Very different tyres, smaller cars, lighter cars, refuelling, worse reliability (for top teams)... That's why I'm looking forward to reduced car size in 2026. If we get to empty weight of 700kg would be a big step as well, but I'm not sure if cars will be able to go bellow 750kg - batteries are simply too heavy and ICE will hardly get lighter than right now...

[mzso]

That's why I'm looking forward to reduced car size in 2026.

I didn't see any talk about reduced car sizes.

[Vanja #66]

I didn't see any talk about reduced car sizes.

Brawn mentioned this as an important goal for 2026 once it was first mentioned, a few months ago

[AR3-GP]

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least.

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

On-track action in the late 90s is over sensationalized.

[mzso]

The thing is, these cars do in fact follow much better and lose less downforce than any car in the last 20 years at least.

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

On-track action in the late 90s is over sensationalized.

I don't think so. I have more fond memories form 97-99 than anything thereafter. The early 2000s were lost because Ferrari broke away from the rest of the field. And it never really recovered. After some variety (2005-2009) we got even worse periods of dominance. With apparently the on-track action getting worse all the time. Only DRS alleviated it somewhat, and now the new rules, of modest effect.

[AR3-GP]

What about more than 20?
Why can't we have decent on track action like in the late 90-s, even with tricks like DRS?

On-track action in the late 90s is over sensationalized.

I don't think so. I have more fond memories form 97-99 than anything thereafter.

This is a common sentiment expressed by every generation. With regards to production cars, music, and various sports.

[mzso]

I didn't see any talk about reduced car sizes.

Brawn mentioned this as an important goal for 2026 once it was first mentioned, a few months ago

Forgot about that. Though with Brawn gone, I'm not sure how focused they remain on such goals.