2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[AR3-GP]

Allowing interactions between the exhaust and the diffuser would enable some cheap downforce which would allow them to make the wings smaller and have less drag.

[AR3-GP]

Allowing interactions between the exhaust and the diffuser would enable some cheap downforce which would allow them to make the wings smaller and have less drag.

To the downvoter,

fuel burning is silly

You can operate a blown diffuser without off throttle fuel burning. The version of the blown diffuser where engine maps are creating mass flow by burning fuel is only an extreme case of the blown diffuser, and not what I suggested.

The current regulations forbid any meaningful placement of exhaust outlets to aid aerodynamics. It's free and cheap to do now that the FIA is looking for ways to maintain performance while reducing fuel usage. You have to recycle more of the energy that is present.

[mzso]

What options does F1 have to try and correct the glaring faults of these 2026 engine regs ?

Bumping up the size and power of the ICE is the only option. This will also help the lack of noise problem. Which was identified as a real problem after 2014

I don't see how movable aero at the front and back can be built safe enough for tracks like Saudi or Vegas. Someone's aero will fail and someone could get killed.

I think it only needs more fuel.

However there is no such thing as "lack of noise" problem.

F1 literally changed things to make the cars louder after 2014. (and they are still quieter than F2 cars)

And I know removing the MGU-k will help. But its no guarantee that they will be louder than F3 cars let alone F2 cars.

They sound the same as in 2014. But there isn't a problem, only a whine-fest, of some sentimental minority.

[mzso]

1. 6 pistons, ring packs, con rods, wrist pins, 24 valves, 4 camshafts, 24 air springs, rockers and finger followers, intake, exhaust and crank and gearbox are all deleted. All to be replaced by a single MGU-h turbocharger.

And you pretend that a gas turbine and an energy harvester is jut a couple fans to slap on... Have you heard of mount stupid?

hat is like 100Kg of weight savings, 90Kg after you add the turbo. The differential would remain, and then add in a big MGU-K. We are still at close to 50Kg of savings. Then you remove the 100KG battery, and replace it with a 20kg super-cap buffer box. The point of this is that the MGUh2 would directly feed the MGUK in the driveline. The super caps would be just for quick recovery (engine braking) and reuse. It would not be for "storage" as it is today.

In fantasy and wishful thinking based engineering these are hard facts. On the other hand I don't see much basis for these statements.
By the way. The H also feeds the MGUK since 2014, but storage is also available.

2. The 2014 engines were a big jump over the 2013 engines due to actual research and development engineering. Im pretty sure the teams would have my concept competitive in a year or 2...

Same as above. If things only require for them to be willed into existence, everything is trivial.

[mzso]

…and to back up your earlier point…
Turbocharger-style gas turbines are external combustion devices, the fuel mixture & combustion take place externally of the compressor & turbine housings.
They are also a very nice fit for additional GU-H devices.

What he described is a gas turbine plus a turbine harvester.

Efficiency would be addressed by an operating within a very small window (perfect for a power generation unit).

Kg for Kg, it would probably be a very effective device.

Not sure what you base this conclusion on. You have the gas turbine, you have the turbine driven generator plus the drive unit which is at least as powerful, but definitely heavier.
Plus the fuel needs to be around double because of the low efficiency. Even if it's working near it's claimed 35% peak.

[Zynerji]

1. As long as we're hand-waving things a typical ICE is just a piston moving in a cylinder, very trivial.

You also need two sets of full power electric machines. One for generation, the other for drive. Storage, which you propose to be super-capacitors that have poor power to weight ratio. So that adds up to both a lot of weight and complexity already. No that usable gas turbines are as trivial as you imply.
Plus to make matters more complex and even more wasteful on fuel you would add after-burning.



2. This is in itself a good reason against the idea.

I mean if someone came up with a super efficient, ultra low weight and size gas turbine, or the mythical wave-disk engine. It would be amusing. But no such things exist.

1. 6 pistons, ring packs, con rods, wrist pins, 24 valves, 4 camshafts, 24 air springs, rockers and finger followers, intake, exhaust and crank and gearbox are all deleted. All to be replaced by a single MGU-h turbocharger. That is like 100Kg of weight savings, 90Kg after you add the turbo. The differential would remain, and then add in a big MGU-K. We are still at close to 50Kg of savings. Then you remove the 100KG battery, and replace it with a 20kg super-cap buffer box. The point of this is that the MGUh2 would directly feed the MGUK in the driveline. The super caps would be just for quick recovery (engine braking) and reuse. It would not be for "storage" as it is today.

2. The 2014 engines were a big jump over the 2013 engines due to actual research and development engineering. Im pretty sure the teams would have my concept competitive in a year or 2...

A further point (which works very nicely with the the planned introduction of eFuels is that gas turbines tend to be very fuel tolerant.

…and to back up your earlier point…
Turbocharger-style gas turbines are external combustion devices, the fuel mixture & combustion take place externally of the compressor & turbine housings.
They are also a very nice fit for additional GU-H devices.

Efficiency would be addressed by an operating within a very small window (perfect for a power generation unit).

Kg for Kg, it would probably be a very effective device.

Can use this as well...

He calls it an External Combustion device...

[TeamKoolGreen]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/adrian-ne ... ge-formula
quote

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

Speaking in an interview with Motorsport.com, Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey admitted it’s going to be a very strange scenario to adjust to.

“It’s certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he said.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.”

[wuzak]

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

That seems unlikely.

The ICE is connected to the wheels via the gearbox, which may only have 6 gears instead of 8.

Currently the cars drive through the hairpin with minimum engine speed of ~4,500rpm.

It is likely that in 2026 the rpms will be similar, possibly slightly lower due to the fewer number of gears, but the throttles on the engine will be fully open, and the ICE delivering approximately 100kW to the MGUK.

The driver's throttle pedal will at or near 0%.

The ICE won't be at "full revs" (15,000rpm maximum, 10,500rpm for maximum power).

[AnthonyG]

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

That seems unlikely.

The ICE is connected to the wheels via the gearbox, which may only have 6 gears instead of 8.

Currently the cars drive through the hairpin with minimum engine speed of ~4,500rpm.

It is likely that in 2026 the rpms will be similar, possibly slightly lower due to the fewer number of gears, but the throttles on the engine will be fully open, and the ICE delivering approximately 100kW to the MGUK.

The driver's throttle pedal will at or near 0%.

The ICE won't be at "full revs" (15,000rpm maximum, 10,500rpm for maximum power).

The clutch can disengage and the engine will just power the batteries in those places where the electric motors will be more efficient.

[wuzak]

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

That seems unlikely.

The ICE is connected to the wheels via the gearbox, which may only have 6 gears instead of 8.

Currently the cars drive through the hairpin with minimum engine speed of ~4,500rpm.

It is likely that in 2026 the rpms will be similar, possibly slightly lower due to the fewer number of gears, but the throttles on the engine will be fully open, and the ICE delivering approximately 100kW to the MGUK.

The driver's throttle pedal will at or near 0%.

The ICE won't be at "full revs" (15,000rpm maximum, 10,500rpm for maximum power).

The clutch can disengage and the engine will just power the batteries in those places where the electric motors will be more efficient.

If the clutch is disengaged, the car is rolling.

The 2026 rules do not, as yet, have the gearbox rules.

The current rules do specify that

9.3.5 The amount by which the clutch is engaged must be controlled solely and directly by the
driver with the exception of :
a. Stall prevention.
b. Gearshifts.
c. Bite point finder where brake pressure, wheel speed and driver clutch demand
safeguards are used.
d. De-clutch protections.
e. Power train protection on the track outside of any start lockout period or immediately
following stall prevention activation only.
f. Test signals enabled only when the car is connected to the garage system.

Gerashifts:
9.9.4 The maximum permitted duration for down changes and up changes is 300ms and 200ms
respectively. The maximum permitted delay for the latter is 80ms from the time of the driver
request to the original gear being disengaged.
The duration of a gear change is defined as the time from the request being made to the
point at which all gear change processes are terminated. If for any reason the gear change
cannot be completed in that time the car must be left in neutral or the original gear.

Automatic gear changes are not allowed, so the only time that the clutch would be disengaged is when the driver pulls the clutch lever or when the driver pulls a gearshift paddle, which allows only a small amount of time for the clutch to disengage.

[mzso]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/adrian-ne ... ge-formula
quote

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

Speaking in an interview with Motorsport.com, Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey admitted it’s going to be a very strange scenario to adjust to.

“It’s certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he said.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.”

Pretty much what I predicted, and probably many others as well. The FIA will probably only notice it it in 2028.

[FW17]

That seems unlikely.

The ICE is connected to the wheels via the gearbox, which may only have 6 gears instead of 8.

Currently the cars drive through the hairpin with minimum engine speed of ~4,500rpm.

It is likely that in 2026 the rpms will be similar, possibly slightly lower due to the fewer number of gears, but the throttles on the engine will be fully open, and the ICE delivering approximately 100kW to the MGUK.

The driver's throttle pedal will at or near 0%.

The ICE won't be at "full revs" (15,000rpm maximum, 10,500rpm for maximum power).

The clutch can disengage and the engine will just power the batteries in those places where the electric motors will be more efficient.

If the clutch is disengaged, the car is rolling.

The 2026 rules do not, as yet, have the gearbox rules.

The current rules do specify that

9.3.5 The amount by which the clutch is engaged must be controlled solely and directly by the
driver with the exception of :
a. Stall prevention.
b. Gearshifts.
c. Bite point finder where brake pressure, wheel speed and driver clutch demand
safeguards are used.
d. De-clutch protections.
e. Power train protection on the track outside of any start lockout period or immediately
following stall prevention activation only.
f. Test signals enabled only when the car is connected to the garage system.

Gerashifts:
9.9.4 The maximum permitted duration for down changes and up changes is 300ms and 200ms
respectively. The maximum permitted delay for the latter is 80ms from the time of the driver
request to the original gear being disengaged.
The duration of a gear change is defined as the time from the request being made to the
point at which all gear change processes are terminated. If for any reason the gear change
cannot be completed in that time the car must be left in neutral or the original gear.

Automatic gear changes are not allowed, so the only time that the clutch would be disengaged is when the driver pulls the clutch lever or when the driver pulls a gearshift paddle, which allows only a small amount of time for the clutch to disengage.

Maybe they will go to neutral gear after 8th

[Tommy Cookers]

... Maybe they will go to neutral gear

why ?

amusingly (iirc) the Monaco GP has a higher permissible MGU-K 'take' than any other race
as it has the highest lap count

[wuzak]

... Maybe they will go to neutral gear

why ?

amusingly (iirc) the Monaco GP has a higher permissible MGU-K 'take' than any other race
as it has the highest lap count

And it's the slowest and shortest race (260km vs ~ 310km for the others), so needs less energy!

[wuzak]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/adrian-ne ... ge-formula
quote

This means that, at low-speed corners, such as the hairpin at Monaco – the slowest corner on the calendar – the engines will be heard at full revs despite the low speed.

Speaking in an interview with Motorsport.com, Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey admitted it’s going to be a very strange scenario to adjust to.

“It’s certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he said.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.”

Prerry much what I predicted, and probably many others as well. The FIA will probably only notice it it in 2028.

What do you mean?

They have specifically allowed it in the rules.