2026 active aero discussions

[mzso]

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.

Probably because stuff was better then. Pop music became utter around 2010. Football is getting worse all the time all penalties and dives deciding matches, WRC cars are barely distinguishable and bland nowadays, with no character. Also no night stages. ETC.

[AR3-GP]

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.

Probably because stuff was better then. Pop music became utter around 2010. Football is getting worse all the time all penalties and dives deciding matches, WRC cars are barely distinguishable and bland nowadays, with no character. Also no night stages. ETC.

While I can relate to some of these sentiments, we have to make peace with how subjective they ultimately are.

[MIKEY_!]

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.

Reducing car dimensions is still on the agenda according to Tombazis;

"We would want 2026 cars to be quite a lot shorter and probably maybe a bit narrower as well"

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1s-plan ... s-in-2026/

[AR3-GP]

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.

Reducing car dimensions is still on the agenda according to Tombazis;

"We would want 2026 cars to be quite a lot shorter and probably maybe a bit narrower as well"

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1s-plan ... s-in-2026/

I hope they plan to achieve this proportionally.....

Just shortening the nose and width without making the safety cell smaller will look a bit silly.

[wogx]

Safety cell shouldn't be shortened, there is a lot to change behind the driver

[Big Tea]

Safety cell shouldn't be shortened, there is a lot to change behind the driver

Shorten the engine, or put a transverse 3

[Vanja #66]

400-500mm shorter WB with 100-200mm shorter nose (without swept front wing naturally) would help a lot, though only if the width decreases to 1.9m max. 50mm narrower tyres will do the trick. Leaving the bodywork width would increase the risk of race damage, so hotheads would take more care while overtaking.

[jjn9128]

400-500mm shorter WB with 100-200mm shorter nose (without swept front wing naturally) would help a lot, though only if the width decreases to 1.9m max. 50mm narrower tyres will do the trick. Leaving the bodywork width would increase the risk of race damage, so hotheads would take more care while overtaking.

3.2 wheelbase with 1.9m wide seems a nice size compromise. You could add a 10mm min thickness with 5mm radius to floor edges like front wings to stop cutting damage.

[Vanja #66]

Indeed!

[MIKEY_!]

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

Reducing car dimensions is still on the agenda according to Tombazis;

"We would want 2026 cars to be quite a lot shorter and probably maybe a bit narrower as well"

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1s-plan ... s-in-2026/

I hope they plan to achieve this proportionally.....

Just shortening the nose and width without making the safety cell smaller will look a bit silly.

I agree that would look silly. It's been a while since I listened to the podcast, but IIRC "reducing or containing" the weight is the main goal, and reducing the wheelbase is one way they're looking at to achieve that. I don't recall them mentioning shrinking the safety cell.

[MIKEY_!]

400-500mm shorter WB with 100-200mm shorter nose (without swept front wing naturally) would help a lot, though only if the width decreases to 1.9m max. 50mm narrower tyres will do the trick. Leaving the bodywork width would increase the risk of race damage, so hotheads would take more care while overtaking.

I would love to see the nose made shorter (and get rid of the silly swept wings) at the same time as reducing the wheelbase. But I assumed it was all crash structure in front of the monocoque, and if you make it shorter that reduces the distance over which crash energy can be absorbed and dissipated, meaning you have to add more material (and weight) to absorb the same amount of energy. Is that not correct?

[Vanja #66]

400-500mm shorter WB with 100-200mm shorter nose (without swept front wing naturally) would help a lot, though only if the width decreases to 1.9m max. 50mm narrower tyres will do the trick. Leaving the bodywork width would increase the risk of race damage, so hotheads would take more care while overtaking.

I would love to see the nose made shorter (and get rid of the silly swept wings) at the same time as reducing the wheelbase. But I assumed it was all crash structure in front of the monocoque, and if you make it shorter that reduces the distance over which crash energy can be absorbed and dissipated, meaning you have to add more material (and weight) to absorb the same amount of energy. Is that not correct?

Well, noses were shorter before, right? It's not always the case as you describe it, there are other demands for nose cone design other than crash damping - front wing load first of all. With this massive sweep the load application point is quite a long way forward, so this demands more material than having the load point 400-500mm to the rear. There is a minimal amount of layers that needs to be applied, so a shorter nose becomes a lighter nose. Then extra layers can be added if needed to pass crash tests. I have no idea if overall it would result in a heaver nose cone.

[mzso]

Safety cell shouldn't be shortened, there is a lot to change behind the driver

Is there anything mandatory for the safety cell size? I only remember that it needs to have a decent sized opening so that drivers can get out quickly.

[mzso]

Safety cell shouldn't be shortened, there is a lot to change behind the driver

Shorten the engine, or put a transverse 3

Or mandatory boxer 2-s. Or maybe opposed piston. (but the latter surely has a weight penalty)

BTW. The shortest engine is the one that's not there. Meaning full electric. Electric motors can have a variety of shapes, positions, and orientations.

[mzso]

400-500mm shorter WB with 100-200mm shorter nose (without swept front wing naturally) would help a lot, though only if the width decreases to 1.9m max. 50mm narrower tyres will do the trick. Leaving the bodywork width would increase the risk of race damage, so hotheads would take more care while overtaking.

Why complicate things. Remove wheelbase regulation and limit the absolute lengths of the car to 4.5 meters.
Narrower tires and also smaller ones would save a decent amount of weight. (Just go back to the previous diameter and have actually low profile tires with the 18" rims...)

Not sure about your last point. Why would it increase the risk. At worst it would remain the same IMO. Maybe it would decrease it because driver inputs would lead to much quicker responses with shorter and lighter cars. It's easier to avoid something with a go-kart than a bus. But racing against each other would certainly improve, I think.