2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[organic]

Pierre Waché on the new cars/2026 regs

The speed is going down and the feeling is not so nice. The FIA works with the teams on how this energy will be deployed to make it less annoying for the driver and to have a better speed profile throughout the lap.

Plus, they also work on the car characteristics to have less drag and less downforce. By having less downforce, you recover more energy because you spend more time in the corners and in the braking zones, and then you spend less time on straights.

You cannot put patch on patch on patch to achieve something. You have to look at the problem with a bigger view and say, ‘How do I sort this out and how do I solve my problem? What car characteristic do I need to achieve something?’

If you need a patch to solve some things, you can still do that afterwards. But you don’t start with a patch first. Otherwise, it never works.

[Vanja #66]

While some form of DRS is being talked about for the front (not sure) and rear wings, is there anything for the floor?

Can the current tunnels have/work something like a double deck diffuser that could could be used for corners but closed for the straights?

https://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ffuser.jpg
https://i.redd.it/5y8c29jrku401.jpg

If they'd want a variable geometry floor, there would be more efficient ways to do it (like changing the whole diffuser ramp angle, etc). In my view, the problem is always with the practical application, if you cut surfaces to make the mobile you introduce areas where big losses will occur. These losses are hard to model and would lead to fairly unpredictable floor behaviour. Think early Ferrari SF-23 snaps of over and understeer, but worse. For every car.

Contrary to that, wing aero foils are inherently capable of operating at different angles, while slat gap changes are fairly stable in terms of aero and easy to model.

Pierre Waché on the new cars/2026 regs

***

At least they are consistent moping about the PU Electrical part in hybrid PUs is hard, especially with high performance demands, so I'm not surprised they'd like to see it reduced.

[FW17]

While some form of DRS is being talked about for the front (not sure) and rear wings, is there anything for the floor?

Can the current tunnels have/work something like a double deck diffuser that could could be used for corners but closed for the straights?

https://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ffuser.jpg
https://i.redd.it/5y8c29jrku401.jpg

If they'd want a variable geometry floor, there would be more efficient ways to do it (like changing the whole diffuser ramp angle, etc). In my view, the problem is always with the practical application, if you cut surfaces to make the mobile you introduce areas where big losses will occur. These losses are hard to model and would lead to fairly unpredictable floor behaviour. Think early Ferrari SF-23 snaps of over and understeer, but worse. For every car.

Contrary to that, wing aero foils are inherently capable of operating at different angles, while slat gap changes are fairly stable in terms of aero and easy to model.

Pierre Waché on the new cars/2026 regs

***

At least they are consistent moping about the PU Electrical part in hybrid PUs is hard, especially with high performance demands, so I'm not surprised they'd like to see it reduced.

Is there any estimate of a single deck diffuser vs double deck performance as against a stacked rear wing (I assume no other elements of the car are going to move)

[FW17]

While some form of DRS is being talked about for the front (not sure) and rear wings, is there anything for the floor?

Can the current tunnels have/work something like a double deck diffuser that could could be used for corners but closed for the straights?

https://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ffuser.jpg
https://i.redd.it/5y8c29jrku401.jpg

If they'd want a variable geometry floor, there would be more efficient ways to do it (like changing the whole diffuser ramp angle, etc). In my view, the problem is always with the practical application, if you cut surfaces to make the mobile you introduce areas where big losses will occur. These losses are hard to model and would lead to fairly unpredictable floor behaviour. Think early Ferrari SF-23 snaps of over and understeer, but worse. For every car.

Contrary to that, wing aero foils are inherently capable of operating at different angles, while slat gap changes are fairly stable in terms of aero and easy to model.

Pierre Waché on the new cars/2026 regs

***

At least they are consistent moping about the PU Electrical part in hybrid PUs is hard, especially with high performance demands, so I'm not surprised they'd like to see it reduced.

It more to do with not going to less than F2 levels of performance from the ICE

[Vanja #66]

Is there any estimate of a single deck diffuser vs double deck performance as against a stacked rear wing (I assume no other elements of the car are going to move)

If you have the same maximum total diffuser height, I believe regular diffuser beats the double deck. DDD was about using a loophole to increase that height, but obviously teams weren't able to use it optimally since it wasn't intended by the rules.

It more to do with not going to less than F2 levels of performance from the ICE

I might believe it if they mentioned it once, instead they are saying rules are bad since you need to lift off on straight so to have the fastest possible lap (harvesting etc). I don't think anyone will actually complain about this, F1 keeps changing all the time and cars already require lift and coast for harvesting.

[wuzak]

I might believe it if they mentioned it once, instead they are saying rules are bad since you need to lift off on straight so to have the fastest possible lap (harvesting etc). I don't think anyone will actually complain about this, F1 keeps changing all the time and cars already require lift and coast for harvesting.

My belief is that the 50/50 split for power is wrong, especially since the maximum recovery and deployment power is the same.

The type of hybrid they are going for works really well for vehicles that have a high percentage of braking. F1 cars don't.

The rules allow for 100kW of energy recovery while the driver is at full throttle, so not even lifting and coasting. This would account for one of Red Bull's earlier complaints, which was not that they need to lift off on the straight, but that they needed to change gears on the straight.

My personal opinion is that they would be better served by upping the ICE power by ~100hp (increase the energy flow rate by 25%), leaving recovery at 350kW but restricting deployment to 150kW.

And then you could reduce the fuel allowance for the race.

It would be nice if all these simulations were made public so we can see what we are getting.

[FW17]

If you have the same maximum total diffuser height, I believe regular diffuser beats the double deck. DDD was about using a loophole to increase that height, but obviously teams weren't able to use it optimally since it wasn't intended by the rules.

The idea is not on merits of regulations which led to 2009 DDD.

I just want to understand which would be more efficient. A diffuser with variable geometry like a DDD that can be closed off as a downforce reduction or a larger wing multi element with drag reduction.

It was mentioned above that single deck diffuser with flaps that vary the volume - I feel that this would be more difficult than a DDD that can be closed off as the entire floor is curved in all directions which could make the moving element more complicated

[FW17]

I might believe it if they mentioned it once, instead they are saying rules are bad since you need to lift off on straight so to have the fastest possible lap (harvesting etc). I don't think anyone will actually complain about this, F1 keeps changing all the time and cars already require lift and coast for harvesting.

My belief is that the 50/50 split for power is wrong, especially since the maximum recovery and deployment power is the same.

The type of hybrid they are going for works really well for vehicles that have a high percentage of braking. F1 cars don't.

The rules allow for 100kW of energy recovery while the driver is at full throttle, so not even lifting and coasting. This would account for one of Red Bull's earlier complaints, which was not that they need to lift off on the straight, but that they needed to change gears on the straight.

My personal opinion is that they would be better served by upping the ICE power by ~100hp (increase the energy flow rate by 25%), leaving recovery at 350kW but restricting deployment to 150kW.

And then you could reduce the fuel allowance for the race.

It would be nice if all these simulations were made public so we can see what we are getting.

What was the need to reduce the fuel flow from 4600mj/hr to 3000mj/hr Whom were they trying to impress?
They got the headline of 350 kw deployment

[Vanja #66]

The rules allow for 100kW of energy recovery while the driver is at full throttle, so not even lifting and coasting. This would account for one of Red Bull's earlier complaints, which was not that they need to lift off on the straight, but that they needed to change gears on the straight.

I get that, but in reality what happens is you either design a car with shorter gears and adjust it to, let's say, 50kW of harvesting all the time at full throttle or the driver simply doesn't even go to the final gear. So as an outside viewer you don't really see it. I guess they will need a single gear ratio spec for the full season, so it's possible no one will go for a shorter gearbox because of Monza, Las Vegas, Baku etc. where the best lap might be the one where you don't harvest on straights.

It's an engineering challenge first and foremost, if I was an engineer in PU department I'd be ecstatic with this new variable. So many opportunities are opened up because of this and the team that tries out the most combinations will probably have an early advantage. Strategy department and race engineers will also have a lot of new options to find the best setup for every track.

I just want to understand which would be more efficient. A diffuser with variable geometry like a DDD that can be closed off as a downforce reduction or a larger wing multi element with drag reduction.

Rear wing is the biggest drag generator of all the aerodynamic surfaces, so nothing can beat variable rear wing geometry for variable drag range. I think even today's massive floors may only generate more drag in Monza and Las Vegas.

Variable rear wing leaves you with a big change in aero balance if they want to allow it during cornering, so you'd need a variable front wing geometry to get the balance right when it matters. If they just want to have 3 drag levels on straights (high for usual cornering, medium for usual drive on straights and low for DRS/overtake) then the simplest thing is to have a slightly more complex DRS mechanism and introduce a middle position of sorts. I'm not sure if they made a final decision on the scope of active aero from the latest news, but they have been trying a lot of different things.

[De Wet]

Still too long...

[r85]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDVSaWPWAAE ... ame=medium


Still too long...

Is it possible that we reached the limit for F1 cars in 2020? With the shrinking cars and bigger batteries, it's hard to imagine them going faster than even the current cars.

[jjn9128]

You could make a faster car today, just not within the rules.

[wuzak]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDVSaWPWAAE ... ame=medium


Still too long...

Is it possible that we reached the limit for F1 cars in 2020? With the shrinking cars and bigger batteries, it's hard to imagine them going faster than even the current cars.

Still not sure about the "bigger batteries".

The rules allow for the same storage (4MJ between minimum and maximum state of charge while on track) and the current batteries have much more capacity than the nominal amount.

They won't go faster, initially, as they will have smaller tyres, will be narrower and shorter and will have quite a bit less available power. In exchange for a small weight reduction.

[FW17]

Why the insistence on putting the battery pack below the fuel tank? is it the safest place for it to be?

Why not put it below the drivers feet?

[chrstphrln]

Why the insistence on putting the battery pack below the fuel tank? is it the safest place for it to be?

Why not put it below the drivers feet?

Too much weight too far from the center of mass.