2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[astracrazy]

I am kind of surprised by accersions in that article that the low drag does not work:

1. At high speed, car cannot turn - I am not sure what F1 low drag in 2026 would be, but F1 car (will not be lower drag and downforce than a superspeedway Indycar) cannot make a turn, Indy car would be laughing. They go into Turn 1 and 3 at Indy at 230+, speeds F1 will not be any where near

2. Car unstable on straights when accelerating that they become slower than F2 : Again this seems to be an exaggeration. 2026 was supposed to be an active aero car, not a DRS with 2 or 3 flaps. My understanding was that the wing will constantly be changing in AOA as per teams input program

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

It's not under acceleration, its under full power. The problem isn't coming out of corners its when going full speed and the rear wing changes its AOA. I highly doubt it's an exaggeration when the reduction of downforce on the rear is something like 3x more than the current DRS. The balance change would be huge. In fact I'm surprised this wasn't obvious to these people that this would happen.

I should imagine what they are referring to is when the driver makes a move similar to an overtake, or perhaps tries to take a corner like turn 2 at monza or 18,19 and 20 at azerbaijan or the majority of jeddah. There is so much aero balance forward the rear either steps out in these situations, or they go much slower but that makes them slower than F2.

[FW17]

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

[FW17]

8.5MJ/lap * 50 laps = 425MJ.
8.5MJ/lap * 60 laps = 510MJ.

8.5 MJ recovery from braking?

No, there is no way they will recover that energy in braking.

Less than half, most likely, will come from braking.

4MJ was estimate that 350KW wall get with 11 sec of braking

If they need to generate another 4.5 MJ from the engine, it would be 13 sec. I don't know how a car can do 13 sec of coast with all the power from engine being sucked by the MGU. Will there be a button for the driver to recharge as he will have to keep his foot down and throttle is at 100%.

For example taking Shanghai International Circuit, lap time was a 1:30 in 2019
Time spent on the straights (full throttle) was 45 sec
30% of that time needs to be spent coasting to generate 13.5 sec of recovery.
3 seconds on start finish
3 sec on run to turn 6
5 sec on the long back straight
1.5 sec each on short straights between 10-11 and 14-16

[mzso]

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c_fV7qLzE

???

The Indianapolis oval famously only has banked turns. Four of them to be exact.

[FW17]

Show me indycar making a 230+ turn without the need for banking.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c_fV7qLzE

???

The Indianapolis oval famously only has banked turns. Four of them to be exact.

That is not the point. F1 on straights does not have curves on straights that would require a lift as being claimed by the article.

The point is F1 car would always be running a lot more downforce than an indycar at indy. And indycar takes the curves at indy ( substantial ones than what is on any f1 circuit straight) yes with banking, but only 9 deg, without any issue.

This news article seems to put out by the spin masters on FOM as to discredit the FIA

[AR3-GP]

That is not the point. F1 on straights does not have curves on straights that would require a lift as being claimed by the article.

I think you are oversimplying things. It's not trivial to go straight in an F1 car from a physics points of view. There are bumps in the track which trigger the suspension. There is wind. There is aerodynamic turbulence generated by the wings and floor edges. There is a need to move out from a slipstream aggressively or to weave for tire warming. Many circuits don't even have straights that are truly straight (Albert Park, Imola, Monza, etc...)

Having a lot of downforce with the correct aero balance stabilizes the car. Removing it (especially where there is a large aero balance shift) means that steering corrections are more likely to destabilize the car. It also means that any disturbances are more likely to propagate into unstable motions of the car.

[dren]

I understand your confusion, but I'm not talking about green cars, I'm talking about energy efficiency which is one of the main performance drivers. Less drag is more efficient, harvesting more over a lap is more efficient (when later translated into acceleration) etc. The first Prius from Toyota in 1997 introduced hybrid technology simply because they wanted to reuse the energy lost while braking, not because it was "green" and "climate friendly" etc. Efficiency is green, but it's also fast.

FOM and manufacturers pushed for the 50% electric headline.
There was no reason for them to drop 4500 MJ to 3000 MJ

They cut the fuel flow from 100kg/h (~4500MJ/h) to 3000MJ/h.

It would seem sensible enough that they drop from 110kg race fuel allowance (was 100kg when they had lower drag cars 2014-2016) down to roughly 3000MJ for the race.

The race fuel limit is not yet defined, at least as far as I have seen. We don't even know if it will be based on mass (kg) or energy (MJ).

I'd guess it'll be based on a total MJ fuel allowance since they've gone that way with the flow rate limit. It aligns with all of the energy flow limit/output units. They really cocked up these regulations.

[dren]

Having a lot of downforce with the correct aero balance stabilizes the car. Removing it (especially where there is a large aero balance shift) means that steering corrections are more likely to destabilize the car. It also means that any disturbances are more likely to propagate into unstable motions of the car.

As powerful as some of the DRS are now, you'd think the cars would have issues.

[Vanja #66]

Just imagine the lower drag package combined with a non-hybrid turbo ICE.

Up the fuel flow rate to get around 700hp, save around 100kg from not having all the ERS, save drag by not having to run the ERS coolers.

Cars could be even smaller.

How would that compare for efficiency?

Well, the only issue there is that no manufacturer would be interested in building such an "outdated" PU. Maybe Mazda, but without turbo

Since hybrid tech is the only option, 2026 PU rules are far better in every way than 2014 rules.

[AR3-GP]

Well, the only issue there is that no manufacturer would be interested in building such an "outdated" PU. Maybe Mazda, but without turbo

Since hybrid tech is the only option, 2026 PU rules are far better in every way than 2014 rules.

How are the 2026 PU rules better than 2014? Removing the MGU-H means the fuel is used less efficiently. If this was compensated by front wheel MGU-K, then I would say it's better.

The only "benefit" was that they attracted another manufacturer by reducing the complexity, but it was a complexity that was already solved by all manufacturers. MGU-H is easy.

[wuzak]

Well, the only issue there is that no manufacturer would be interested in building such an "outdated" PU. Maybe Mazda, but without turbo

Since hybrid tech is the only option, 2026 PU rules are far better in every way than 2014 rules.

How are the 2026 PU rules better than 2014? Removing the MGU-H means the fuel is used less efficiently. If this was compensated by front wheel MGU-K, then I would say it's better.

The only "benefit" was that they attracted another manufacturer by reducing the complexity, but it was a complexity that was already solved by all manufacturers. MGU-H is easy.

If there was a MGUK on the front wheel as well as the back, with the same combined power (350kW) as the 2026 MGUK, and was used to deploy as well as recover, you'd be in, more or less, the same situation as the 2026 rules.

That is, limited ability to recover energy.

If, however, the total recovery power was increased, but the deployment power remains the same, you'd be in a better position.

Assuming all wheel recovery was at the same 350kW, and front braking gave 20% extra time where the ERS could be at full recovery power, you'd go from 3.5MJ to 4.2MJ recovered under braking, assuming 10s at full braking recovery under 2026 regs.

If, however, you used a system similar to current FE cars, where recovery is up to 600kW (250kW front/350kW rear), with 350kW deployment, you'd go to 6MJ from 10s braking.

[wuzak]

Just imagine the lower drag package combined with a non-hybrid turbo ICE.

Up the fuel flow rate to get around 700hp, save around 100kg from not having all the ERS, save drag by not having to run the ERS coolers.

Cars could be even smaller.

How would that compare for efficiency?

Well, the only issue there is that no manufacturer would be interested in building such an "outdated" PU. Maybe Mazda, but without turbo

Since hybrid tech is the only option, 2026 PU rules are far better in every way than 2014 rules.

The 2026 PUs have, roughly speaking, the same peak power as the current PUs.

However, the peak power cannot be used above 290km/h (previously 300km/h) unless using an override mode.

The power from the ERS is much less available.

And the 2026 PU is the same size and weight as the current PU, despite having much less available power.

[wuzak]

The old LMP1 rules had a few classes, based on energy recovery per lap.

The top ones were 8MJ and 6MJ.

That energy recovery was for a lap of Circuit La Sarthe, Le Mans.

For races at other tracks the energy recovery allowed was reduced in proportion to the track's length.

The biggest advantage LMP1 had over the 2026 rules was that they could carry a bigger battery (IIRC the size wasn't limited), and that they were allowed 2 MGUs for energy recovery.

Audi and Toyota had front and rear braking MGUs, Porsche had a front (IIRC) MGU and an MGUH connected to a turbine independent of the turbocharger.

[FW17]

That is not the point. F1 on straights does not have curves on straights that would require a lift as being claimed by the article.

I think you are oversimplying things. It's not trivial to go straight in an F1 car from a physics points of view. There are bumps in the track which trigger the suspension. There is wind. There is aerodynamic turbulence generated by the wings and floor edges. There is a need to move out from a slipstream aggressively or to weave for tire warming. Many circuits don't even have straights that are truly straight (Albert Park, Imola, Monza, etc...)

Having a lot of downforce with the correct aero balance stabilizes the car. Removing it (especially where there is a large aero balance shift) means that steering corrections are more likely to destabilize the car. It also means that any disturbances are more likely to propagate into unstable motions of the car.

The rear wing is about 16% of the total downforce, floor still produces 50% of the total downforce, most of it just in front of the rear wheels. The front wing is about 30% of the car's downforce.

Even with the balance shift, the diffuser should more than adequately hold the car stable on a straight and mild curves.


viewtopic.php?t=30329

[AR3-GP]

That is not the point. F1 on straights does not have curves on straights that would require a lift as being claimed by the article.

I think you are oversimplying things. It's not trivial to go straight in an F1 car from a physics points of view. There are bumps in the track which trigger the suspension. There is wind. There is aerodynamic turbulence generated by the wings and floor edges. There is a need to move out from a slipstream aggressively or to weave for tire warming. Many circuits don't even have straights that are truly straight (Albert Park, Imola, Monza, etc...)

Having a lot of downforce with the correct aero balance stabilizes the car. Removing it (especially where there is a large aero balance shift) means that steering corrections are more likely to destabilize the car. It also means that any disturbances are more likely to propagate into unstable motions of the car.

The rear wing is about 16% of the total downforce, floor still produces 50% of the total downforce, most of it just in front of the rear wheels. The front wing is about 30% of the car's downforce.

Even with the balance shift, the diffuser should more than adequately hold the car stable on a straight and mild curves.

https://pic1.zhimg.com/80/v2-02af44f0b3 ... 4_720w.jpg
viewtopic.php?t=30329

1) The new regulations have weakened the floor (you will see in time, but the FIA made sure that the wheel wake enters the floor).

2) The rear wing and the beam wing increase the strength of the floor. The low pressure at the back from the main wing and beam wing contributes to the local pressure gradient which is helping to suck air through the floor from front to back. When rear wing opens, this weakens.

3) When the rear wing opens, the ride height increases, further shifting the aero bal and depowering the floor.

4) Tieing into 3, I suspect that when they unload the front wing to compensate for aero bal, you will still get something which, while aero balanced, is ultimately still unpleasant to drive at high speeds because now it simply lacks downforce.


Also, if simulations are saying that car has become unstable, I don't think we can dispute this. They have more knowledge of the parameters than us.