2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[mzso]

16 inch tyres gone!!!

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... /10587723/

"but with a slightly different tyre size and shape."

Hm so finally we get to see a triangle tire? Maybe ovals?

BTW. There's no talk of decreasing the profile.
The tire walls are still obnoxiously thick. Also rather heavy.

[Farnborough]

16 inch tyres gone!!!

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... /10587723/

"but with a slightly different tyre size and shape."

Hm so finally we get to see a triangle tire? Maybe ovals?

BTW. There's no talk of decreasing the profile.
The tire walls are still obnoxiously thick. Also rather heavy.

Not sure I understand.... reduction of diameter, as Pirelli indicate, gives a change in profile / aspect ratio, usually expressed as a % of tire width in common tire parlance.

The Pirelli offering seems to be still 18 rim with reduced tire maximum diameter and width, doesn't say if the rim width would change or use a narrowed tread area on existing to give different "shape" to tire.

Less flexibility in tire carcass from reduction in diameter, while using same rim diameter, wil ordinarily ramp up influence of suspension dynamics and geometry even further.

[mzso]

Not sure I understand.... reduction of diameter, as Pirelli indicate, gives a change in profile / aspect ratio, usually expressed as a % of tire width in common tire parlance.

Ah okay, I didn't see that. I guess I skimmed the article too fast.

[browney]

If active aero is used to reduce drag on straights, isn't that a bit of a worry for overtaking? Also seems to represent more complexity just to make up for bad engine regs?

[jjn9128]

If active aero is used to reduce drag on straights, isn't that a bit of a worry for overtaking? Also seems to represent more complexity just to make up for bad engine regs?

In terms of wake character it's probably good to reduce rw vorticity/ induced drag on a straight - it means the wake hangs around which is better for slipstreaming.

[mzso]

Also seems to represent more complexity just to make up for bad engine regs?

Yep. It already reeked of beeing a patchwork set of regulations three years before its introduction...

[JordanMugen]

F1 might not be the fastest racing series anymore when we get to 2026. I thought 2014 was bad, but this is going to be something else.

These things happen as part of the path to electrification.

The 2026 F1 cars will likely be F2-sized with F2-sized tyres too, and F2 cars weigh 795kg now, so I don't see how the F1 cars can be significantly lighter (even if the Mechachrome V6 and Hewland box are both unusually heavy compared to more sophisticated F1 items).

[JordanMugen]

The rear is too wide.

They were 15" section width (381mm) up to 1992. 405mm section since 2017 is very comparable and "correct" for Formula One.

Section width is only a guide, Goodyears and Pirellis are not necessarily the same shape.

380-405mm section rears with 2150mm track width looks "correct" IMO:


In any case, the 2026 tyres are likely to be F2-sized, 245mm front and 325mm rear section, since this significantly reduces drag but doesn't significantly reduce mechanical grip. Doesn't mean it does NOT look as mean and just "right" as those iconic 80's through '92 cars though!

It's the front tyres that are too wide as they were never scaled down but then they were scaled up equally with the rears in 2017.

Would narrower front tyres relative to rear, e.g., 245mm front 380mm rear like 1992, (and mandatory weight distribution moved rearwards) encourages teams to shorten the wheelbase of their race cars?

[mzso]

F1 might not be the fastest racing series anymore when we get to 2026. I thought 2014 was bad, but this is going to be something else.

These things happen as part of the path to electrification.

The 2026 F1 cars will likely be F2-sized with F2-sized tyres too, and F2 cars weigh 795kg now, so I don't see how the F1 cars can be significantly lighter (even if the Mechachrome V6 and Hewland box are both unusually heavy compared to more sophisticated F1 items).

F2 sized? That's still way too long at 5.2m...

[MIKEY_!]

Would narrower front tyres relative to rear, e.g., 245mm front 380mm rear like 1992, (and mandatory weight distribution moved rearwards) encourages teams to shorten the wheelbase of their race cars?

In theory, maybe. But more likely teams would move the cockpit, fuel tank and engine rearward and shorten the gearbox within the existing wheelbase. The incentive to maximise floor area with a long wheelbase is powerful. Narrower cars may encourage teams to maximise wheelbase too (that may be a controversial statement but it comes from newey's book).

[AMG.Tzan]

16 inch tyres gone!!!

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... /10587723/

"but with a slightly different tyre size and shape."

Hm so finally we get to see a triangle tire? Maybe ovals?

BTW. There's no talk of decreasing the profile.
The tire walls are still obnoxiously thick. Also rather heavy.

This is what the article is saying really! They will make the whole wheel smaller but keep the same 18 inch rims which means the profile of the tire is going to be smaller!

[JordanMugen]

F2 sized? That's still way too long at 5.2m...

I see. If it was possible/advantageous to make F2 cars shorter, wouldn't Dallara have already done so?

Likewise for whether it is actually possible or indeed actually advantageous to make F1 cars 4.7m long, 4.4m long etc?

[Stu]

F2 sized? That's still way too long at 5.2m...

I see. If it was possible/advantageous to make F2 cars shorter, wouldn't Dallara have already done so?

Likewise for whether it is actually possible or indeed actually advantageous to make F1 cars 4.7m long, 4.4m long etc?

It is advantageous only in that it forces further compromises on car design. Even back in the early 00’s with the narrow track cars they were considered to be “long wheelbase” (a trend incidentally started by Adrian Newey in 1998 in the first narrow track/grooved tyre regulations - result? Two championships on the bounce with Mika).

[mzso]

F2 sized? That's still way too long at 5.2m...

I see. If it was possible/advantageous to make F2 cars shorter, wouldn't Dallara have already done so?

Likewise for whether it is actually possible or indeed actually advantageous to make F1 cars 4.7m long, 4.4m long etc?

Possible? Why most certainly. They'd need to package stuff differently.
I thinkbit would bereally advantageous. The current cars are super sluggish for rotation.
As well as I think it inhibits racing, and contributes to colliding. It's easy clip the wall or another car. So a wide bearth is needed.

[JordanMugen]

I think it would be really advantageous. The current cars are super sluggish for rotation.

Wheelbase was free until 2021 in F1 and only set at a maximum in 2022. No constructor seems to be clamouring to make their car significantly shorter than the other constructers, if it is advantageous!

You mean advantageous in terms of the technical regulations and racing product from the FIA and FOM's point of view?

Wheelbase was free until 2021, that was the team's choice to do what they wanted as was best.

The other rules making the cars increasingly narrower and tyres narrower since 1993 and then putting grooves in the tyres, that was not free or of the teams choice to maximise performance (granted the stylised extended front and rear overhangs of the 2017 rules were dumb and not necessary IMO). I think it is a shame that the looks of two decades of Grand Prix cars were ruined by silly narrow tyre, grooved tyre and narrow track rules.

So much so that some fans think these narrow track rules look "right" which is just bizarre to me! As soon as you see those 1975, 1980, 1989, 1991 F1 cars going around in the historics, they just look right with the wide car width and the wide rear tyres.