2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[mzso]

Eh? Am I missing something? When when was the rear ever narrower than the front?

Track width, not tyre width

https://studymateriall.com/wp-content/u ... 3.753.jpeg

I guess the definition of it is a bit different then I thought. The distance between the outermost sides of the tire seems more intuitive. In comparison the center-line seems arbitrary. Using wider tires may make the "track width" narrower, when the actual width stays the same, or even increases.

[Vanja #66]

I guess the definition of it is a bit different then I thought. The distance between the outermost sides of the tire seems more intuitive. In comparison the center-line seems arbitrary. Using wider tires may make the "track width" narrower, when the actual width stays the same, or even increases.

From an engineering standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to calculate the wheel track based on either outside or inside length. To begin with, thread surface is never that wide and never in contact with the ground in that area. No need to go further into details from there

[FW17]

Does increasing the wheel track increase cornering grip?
Can a car 2.15 m wide with 24cm wide tyres (lighter) compare to a 1.8 m wide car running 30 cm tyres (high drag)

[Vanja #66]

Does increasing the wheel track increase cornering grip?
Can a car 2.15 m wide with 24cm wide tyres (lighter) compare to a 1.8 m wide car running 30 cm tyres (high drag)

As far as I know, if you consider theory and remove the influence of suspension wider tyre is always better for grip. In the case you mention, I think even with suspension the wider tyre will provide more grip in real life. This, of course, is true if we talk about F1 cars where CoG is very low and guaranteed to be low.

Maybe it would be close if you consider 2150mm wide car with 240mm tyres vs 1800mm wide car with 250mm tyres.

[mzso]

Are there no news of halo changes, or better yet replacement?
I think the original Red Bull solution is still the best concept so far:


No ugly column in the center of driver's vision. Glazing that protects from objects smaller than wheels. And it can be a lot more aerodynamic.

[billamend]

Are there no news of halo changes, or better yet replacement?
I think the original Red Bull solution is still the best concept so far:
https://img.redbull.com/images/c_fill,g ... %9F%81.jpg

No ugly column in the center of driver's vision. Glazing that protects from objects smaller than wheels. And it can be a lot more aerodynamic.

There is a reason it wasn’t the chosen solution. It had too many problems. Just pay attention to Indycar.

[mzso]

There is a reason it wasn’t the chosen solution. It had too many problems. Just pay attention to Indycar.

You mean, the fact that they've been using it happily since it was introduced?

[billamend]

There is a reason it wasn’t the chosen solution. It had too many problems. Just pay attention to Indycar.

You mean, the fact that they've been using it happily since it was introduced?

They have to force air into their helmets because otherwise drivers can’t breath (it’s a whole system). They have glare problems when the sun is down. You can’t see their helmets because the glass reflects light.

[BlueCheetah66]

I feel like its important to note that the reason Indycar is using the aero screen is because of the problem the Halo wouldve caused on ovals with banking, with the drivers having to look 'up' to see the track ahead of them and it being covered by the Halo. At this point, I dont really think they need to do anything to the Halo. It looks fine enough, and any playing around they do with the looks, will just make it look odd for a year and then you will forget about it.

[mzso]

I feel like its important to note that the reason Indycar is using the aero screen is because of the problem the Halo wouldve caused on ovals with banking, with the drivers having to look 'up' to see the track ahead of them and it being covered by the Halo. At this point, I dont really think they need to do anything to the Halo. It looks fine enough, and any playing around they do with the looks, will just make it look odd for a year and then you will forget about it.

Not sure what you mean. The indycar windscreen also had the center column, tha same as the halo. As well as the upper frame is analogous to the halo.

[jjn9128]

I feel like its important to note that the reason Indycar is using the aero screen is because of the problem the Halo wouldve caused on ovals with banking, with the drivers having to look 'up' to see the track ahead of them and it being covered by the Halo. At this point, I dont really think they need to do anything to the Halo. It looks fine enough, and any playing around they do with the looks, will just make it look odd for a year and then you will forget about it.

dude - the indy aeroscreen is literally a halo with a screen. The whole "can't see when looking up on ovals" was a reactionary comment to stop the halo being used and was quickly debunked by Scott Dixon when he actually tried it on the Dallara simulator.



NB as an aerodynamicist the aeroscreen is ugly as sin and the issues of oil, glare, not seeing the driver...etc make it not a optimal solution IMO. A full canopy would be better - but how to implement on a small single seater and allow quick driver egress.

[FW17]

Halo was designed by and paid for by FIA. Built on a patent of someone, whom they did not acknowledge.

Aeroscreen was done by Red Bull, it was done for one purpose of stopping a tyre hitting a driver. It was also supposedly designed to fit exiting cockpit bulkhead on its sides.

FIA pushed ahead with the Halo, which was designed for much higher loads of a car landing on it, required a heavier cockpit bulkhead to accommodate the center support.

By 2016 it was already late, may years had passed since Massa's accident and under pressure for a fix. With the Re d Bull solution, it would have taken some more years to test it completely, find solutions with the teams for ventilation and issues with cleaning the screen.

[mzso]

NB as an aerodynamicist the aeroscreen is ugly as sin and the issues of oil, glare, not seeing the driver...etc make it not a optimal solution IMO. A full canopy would be better - but how to implement on a small single seater and allow quick driver egress.

As an aerodynamicist, isn't preferable to the halo and the air hitting the helmet and the driver's seat, etc?
with the glazing it looks a fair bit more aerodynamic.

The glare/not seeing is probably a non issue on F1 level, they can afford the best anti-reflective coatings possible.
Like the biomimetic moth-eye influence nanostructures that are supposedly make the air/solid interface virtually non-existent, as much as light behavior goes.

Nano-technology is also used to create "omniphobic" surfaces as well. Though, I didn't read of combinations of the two.

I have ideas for a full canopy is well, such as using explosive charges to remove them in emergency situations. Similar to airbags.

[mzso]

Halo was designed by and paid for by FIA. Built on a patent of someone, whom they did not acknowledge.

Aeroscreen was done by Red Bull, it was done for one purpose of stopping a tyre hitting a driver. It was also supposedly designed to fit exiting cockpit bulkhead on its sides.

FIA pushed ahead with the Halo, which was designed for much higher loads of a car landing on it, required a heavier cockpit bulkhead to accommodate the center support.

By 2016 it was already late, may years had passed since Massa's accident and under pressure for a fix. With the Re d Bull solution, it would have taken some more years to test it completely, find solutions with the teams for ventilation and issues with cleaning the screen.

The halo was a Ferrari development.

[wuzak]

Halo was designed by and paid for by FIA. Built on a patent of someone, whom they did not acknowledge.

Aeroscreen was done by Red Bull, it was done for one purpose of stopping a tyre hitting a driver. It was also supposedly designed to fit exiting cockpit bulkhead on its sides.

FIA pushed ahead with the Halo, which was designed for much higher loads of a car landing on it, required a heavier cockpit bulkhead to accommodate the center support.

By 2016 it was already late, may years had passed since Massa's accident and under pressure for a fix. With the Re d Bull solution, it would have taken some more years to test it completely, find solutions with the teams for ventilation and issues with cleaning the screen.

The halo was a Ferrari development.

Wasn't it first proposed by Mercedes?