2026 active aero discussions

[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.

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 I think if you move the material of the longer nose to make the shorter thicker/denser, than the energy absorbing will be the same. The big difference would be the distance/time it takes for the nose to crumple, so the negative acceleration will be higher proportionally, more "G"-s.

But are the cells even longer?
They look practically identical to me, it's the nose and the backside that's much longer:

[wogx]

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.

From 2021 regs, 2022 don't have such clear drawings



EDIT:
I moved the McLaren so that the car's rear cockpit walls are in alignment



Those new cars should be much shorter!

[mzso]

But are the cells even longer?

More to the point:

By the looks of it that's very little increase since we had short cars, around 11% by the looks of it.

Edit:
Yeah. Not much issue with the safety cell lenght there.

[jjn9128]

The safety cell minimum length was 1800mm from like 1999/2000. It grew to 1830mm in 2022. The cockpit opening has been 850mm long since 1998 I think. Those dates might not be exactly correct but the point is the safety cell length has been consistent for over 20 years.

[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

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.

a twin rotor Wankel is very small in relation to a v6

[Vanja #66]

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.

I have nothing against limiting overall length, but F1 and FIA wont do that. You give too much room for various interpretations which might go back to vomplex airflows which hurt racing. And if you limit length, but define overhangs, then its the same thing as defining WB...

As for risk, for a long time there has been a 200mm gap between outside wheel surface and floor/bodywork. If we narrow the wheels by 50mm, but keep the bodywork - this 200mm become 150mm and there is less room for error in close racing. It shouldn't make a huge difference, but I can see it causing more damage to other cars and therefore more penalty points for hotheads...

[Vanja #66]

Whataya know...

There is talk of shortening of the wheelbase from 3.6 to 3.2 meters and a narrowing of the track from 2 to 1.9 metres, thus reducing the frontal section, a strategy also adopted by Formula E for similar reasons with the new generation of cars.

https://www-formulapassion-it.translate ... r_pto=wapp

FIA indeed be readin' F1tech

[AR3-GP]

However, theplan is not easy to implement, because the new power units will be devoid of an important source of energy recovery such as the MGU-H

So the reason we can't drop 40kg from the cars is because they got rid of the MGU-H

[mzso]

Whataya know...

There is talk of shortening of the wheelbase from 3.6 to 3.2 meters and a narrowing of the track from 2 to 1.9 metres, thus reducing the frontal section, a strategy also adopted by Formula E for similar reasons with the new generation of cars.

https://www-formulapassion-it.translate ... r_pto=wapp

FIA indeed be readin' F1tech

Doesn't seem like much seeing as the cars are a meter or more longer than they should be.

[Vanja #66]

Doesn't seem like much seeing as the car are a meter or more longer than they should be.

3.2m WB is back at early 2000 WBs

[BassVirolla]

This reduction in wheelbase length seems like easy to achieve, because of the elongated gearbox casings.

It will give another aero philosophy and COG because the bulk of the packaging will get much closer to the rear wing and diffuser. But mechanically / packaging I don't see it specially like a challenge to achieve.

[Big Tea]

This reduction in wheelbase length seems like easy to achieve, because of the elongated gearbox casings.

It will give another aero philosophy and COG because the bulk of the packaging will get much closer to the rear wing and diffuser. But mechanically / packaging I don't see it specially like a challenge to achieve.

And it will all be comparative anyway if it is a reg. Not like some cars get an advantage for being longer while others do not.

[mzso]

Doesn't seem like much seeing as the car are a meter or more longer than they should be.

3.2m WB is back at early 2000 WBs

But if the overhang rules don't change, it effectively means a 0.4m reduction.
And I seem to remember the Mercedes being closer to 6m than 5 at one point.

[Vanja #66]

Agreed completely

[wuzak]

However, theplan is not easy to implement, because the new power units will be devoid of an important source of energy recovery such as the MGU-H

So the reason we can't drop 40kg from the cars is because they got rid of the MGU-H

Minimum mass for current power units is 150kg, including MGUK, MGUH, turbo and some other items.

Minimum mass for internal combustion engine (including turbo) in 2026 is 130kg.

Minimum mass of MGUK in 2026 is 16kg.

Minimum mass of MGUK transmission unit (to connect to crankshaft) in 2026 is 4kg.


130kg + 16kg + 4kg means no mass savings whatsoever!

If they chopped off 2 cylinders and had a 1L V4 they would save maybe 30kg (V6 =118, 2/3 = 78.7).

V6 would also be shorter, helping with COG considerations when shortening the wheelbase.

You could probably save more by going to an L3.