2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[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?

Too much weight too far from the center of mass.

It will fun to watch the balance shift forward as the race goes on

[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.

It will fun to watch the balance shift forward as the race goes on

Certainly! At the beginning the banger doesn't come around any corner and in the end you drift out of every one.

[Vanja #66]

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?
https://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341 ... 970b-600wi
https://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp- ... ra109d.jpg
https://www.artcurial.com/sites/default ... k=jNt2sB7I

Too much weight too far from the center of mass.

Let's not forget safety issue as well, imagine battery getting smashed and catching fire in a crash... They don't call it survival cell for nothing

[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?
https://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341 ... 970b-600wi
https://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp- ... ra109d.jpg
https://www.artcurial.com/sites/default ... k=jNt2sB7I

Too much weight too far from the center of mass.

Let's not forget safety issue as well, imagine battery getting smashed and catching fire in a crash... They don't call it survival cell for nothing

RA109 passed the FIA crash test with the battery under the monocoque

[Vanja #66]

RA109 passed the FIA crash test with the battery under the monocoque

15 years ago safety requirements were very different, weren't they? Even Formula Student/SAE requires the battery to be completely within the chassis and installed safely and securely.

[jjn9128]

Crash tests are a little different load-wise now than in 08/09. That said I think you could make it safe with Xylon paneling like the anti intrusion stuff.

The main reason against is it's bulky and we aeros want a nice high chassis to improve flow to the floor.

[FW17]

Crash tests are a little different load-wise now than in 08/09. That said I think you could make it safe with Xylon paneling like the anti intrusion stuff.

The main reason against is it's bulky and we aeros want a nice high chassis to improve flow to the floor.

If there is a desire to shorten the wheel base, this is one of them. The other would be to remove the turbocharger out of the gear casing, a twin charger for each bank or turbo placed on top of the gear box

[jjn9128]

If there is a desire to shorten the wheel base, this is one of them. The other would be to remove the turbocharger out of the gear casing, a twin charger for each bank or turbo placed on top of the gear box

Can't see it shortening the wheelbase at all - esp when you read the 26 reg about mgu-k placement. The turbo thing might help. IF the wheelbase limit was 400mm shorter then teams would have to make wider/taller fuel cells and a shorter gearbox case. It's achievable. There just has to be a will from the FIA to lay down the law, which given the state of F1 atm might not be wise politically.

[Vanja #66]

The main reason against is it's bulky and we aeros want a nice high chassis to improve flow to the floor.

Kind of ruined the ending I was leading to

As for the wheelbase, the way I understand the FIA and FOM is them wanting to stop and go slightly back on the weight limit first and foremost. Smaller cars are a must for that, which is why they are resucing the WB and tracks. I'm not sure they are too bothered with car dimensions right now.

Even if floors are generating more downforce than ever now, the wings are failry handicaped by design with these rules, and it doesn't look like it will get better with 26 rules, the cars will basically go back to 2016 levels of performance. W06 from 2015 had a 100mm longer WB than 2026 proposal and I don't remember people complaining about those cars already being boats.

[jjn9128]

Kind of ruined the ending I was leading to

As for the wheelbase, the way I understand the FIA and FOM is them wanting to stop and go slightly back on the weight limit first and foremost. Smaller cars are a must for that, which is why they are resucing the WB and tracks. I'm not sure they are too bothered with car dimensions right now.

Even if floors are generating more downforce than ever now, the wings are failry handicaped by design with these rules, and it doesn't look like it will get better with 26 rules, the cars will basically go back to 2016 levels of performance. W06 from 2015 had a 100mm longer WB than 2026 proposal and I don't remember people complaining about those cars already being boats.

I remember people comparing those cars to limos. The FIA are also only talking 30-50kg reduction, not reversing the 100kg of bloat since 2014. It still wont make the cars "lively". The AMuS render also seems to show much wider floor/bodywork between the wheels, so there's not really any volume of carbon lost.

[Vanja #66]

I remember people comparing those cars to limos. The FIA are also only talking 30-50kg reduction, not reversing the 100kg of bloat since 2014. It still wont make the cars "lively". The AMuS render also seems to show much wider floor/bodywork between the wheels, so there's not really any volume of carbon lost.

Unfortunately, I also don't expext these cars to be noticably more agile in slow corners and chicanes. The stiff suspension will still be there, and that won't help in low speed sections.Having 50 kilos less and slightly smaller WB doesn't feel like being able to get those cars back to pre-hybrid agility.

[FW17]

I remember people comparing those cars to limos. The FIA are also only talking 30-50kg reduction, not reversing the 100kg of bloat since 2014. It still wont make the cars "lively". The AMuS render also seems to show much wider floor/bodywork between the wheels, so there's not really any volume of carbon lost.

[feni_remmen]

I remember people comparing those cars to limos. The FIA are also only talking 30-50kg reduction, not reversing the 100kg of bloat since 2014. It still wont make the cars "lively". The AMuS render also seems to show much wider floor/bodywork between the wheels, so there's not really any volume of carbon lost.

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa3 ... rsq482.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj5 ... tczwzg.jpg

I think a subset of people have disliked the growing weight and length of cars for 20 years+. I remember complaining that the 2003 cars were too long...

The problem is surely a by-product of greater involvement from the teams in structuring the regulations. Once upon a time the teams were handed the regulations and dealt with it (See: 1983, 1989, 1998). Now the teams have a say in the rules (which is probably appropriate), but it leads to situations where regulations create issues that compound on top of other issues, making changes seem insurmountable. The minimum weight has crept up because each time they couldn't get down to that weight, the rules were changed to allow a little more. Unfortunately the teams used the extra weight to get away with a bit more length in the car... The compromise the engineering teams should be dealing with is the opposing issue of a stable aero platform Vs. a lightweight car. This challenge has been neutralised by the last few rules cycles.

IF the teams were told, 2026 the weight will be 550kg + 80 for the driver, the teams WOULD deal with it. And with the cost cap, they would all be having the same struggle, but perhaps addressing the issue in different ways. Now there's a cost cap, within reason, the rules can say anything.

The actual problem is that it would undo the last 20 years of trying to get all the teams in the same performance window, as now they have very few choices regarding how to get the car working. The only way to keep the current paradigm is to incrementally reduce the weight year by year. Sort of the reverse of the last 20 years.

Anyway.

[mzso]

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.

I agree with the sentiment. They should go for a good formula and not workarounds on workarounds.

"you recover more energy because you spend more time in the corners and in the braking zones" -This sounds a lot like what I was expecting (especially the part about the corners), but more accurately generating power rather then recovering. With the engines going on at high power to generate electricity. Sure to be unpopular.

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.

Hard? For RB? They consistently deliver one of the best cars at least. They were also in on developing the electric parts.

And designing electric motors is positively easy compared to managing tiny explosions for optimum performance.
And cheap. Copper is cheap on F1 level and so is winding it, as well as cutting magnets or magnetic cores to shape. They might even brute force many different ideas...

[mzso]

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.

Or make recovery unlimited and keep the deployment power. That would definitely create a drive for better efficiency.
And create a challenge of light, but (in bursts) high performance motor/generators

Where do you see the reduced fuel allowance coming from?