2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[FittingMechanics]

I'm fine with the aero regulations, especially active aero. This seems like such a logical step for the fastest cars in the world that I am surprised they didn't allow it earlier.

But I am very confused with the idea behind the override. While I do get that it is intended to give you a little bit of extra "oomphf" at the end of the straight, it seems like such a bad idea because the cars will be very far apart at the moment you reach activation of the override. DRS reduced drag throughout the straight (obviously with higher effect at the end) but here they have override working only at the absolute end of the straight, meaning, often times you won't get any benefit at all.

I'm sceptical it will work as they think it will.

[bananapeel23]

I have massive doubts that active aerodynamics makes any sense.

The cars will be really slow on the straights otherwise as there will be much less power than now. That's where the "sense" is -- to improve lap time.

Maybe it would be safer if the cars were slower on the straights, as they will "look" the same speed in the corners, which is what matters to looking faster?

Who cares if they are 10s/lap slower instead of 6s/lap slower, as long as they are fast and dynamic like Super Formula Japan when cornering?

Edit -- Silly me, if there is no active aero then teams will take wing level off to seek a different compromise, so they will be slow in corners and straight if there was no active aero.

I don't think there is a problem with using the technology of the 1992 Mitsubishi GTO! Though it is a shame the idea of continuously variable wing level (controlled by software to optimise each corner) was abandoned IMO -- that would put a priority on software tuning of aero.

Still, my guess is that the 2026 season will be a disaster

Time will tell! FIA sets the engineering brief (the 2026 rules are very much "a camel is a horse designed by committee" it seems, a kind of compromise design, bits of venturi, bits of flat floor etc) and it is up to the teams to solve the brief!

I’m actually pleasantly surprised by the aero regs. They do appear to have shed a boatload of drag without totally ruining the downforce. The cars starting the races 60kg lighter (-30kg fuel -30kg car weight) will probably make them seem a lot more nimble, especially at the start of the races. Hopefully the new, slimmer tyres will make them a bit skittish as well, without being 2014 levels of unstable.

But I’m still absolutely dumbfounded by the choice to retain the 18 inch rims. They could lose like 20-30kg of unsprung mass (Or something like that) by going back to smaller rims.

If they went with larger rims to make them seem more road relevant and to sell pirelli rubber, having them covered by those ugly wheel covers nullifies any such effect. Going back to smaller rims is a total no-brainer if you want lighter cars.

If they really wanted to shed weight, they would:

1. Stop regulating battery weight, allowing the teams to develop more power dense and lighter batteries.

2. Go back to 13-inch rims.

[Cs98]

I have massive doubts that active aerodynamics makes any sense.

The cars will be really slow on the straights otherwise as there will be much less power than now. That's where the "sense" is -- to improve lap time.

Maybe it would be safer if the cars were slower on the straights, as they will "look" the same speed in the corners, which is what matters to looking faster?

Who cares if they are 10s/lap slower instead of 6s/lap slower, as long as they are fast and dynamic like Super Formula Japan when cornering?

Edit -- Silly me, if there is no active aero then teams will take wing level off to seek a different compromise, so they will be slow in corners and straight if there was no active aero.

I don't think there is a problem with using the technology of the 1992 Mitsubishi GTO! Though it is a shame the idea of continuously variable wing level (controlled by software to optimise each corner) was abandoned IMO -- that would put a priority on software tuning of aero.

Still, my guess is that the 2026 season will be a disaster

Time will tell! FIA sets the engineering brief (the 2026 rules are very much "a camel is a horse designed by committee" it seems, a kind of compromise design, bits of venturi, bits of flat floor etc) and it is up to the teams to solve the brief!

I’m actually pleasantly surprised by the aero regs. They do appear to have shed a boatload of drag without totally ruining the downforce. The cars starting the races 60kg lighter (-30kg fuel -30kg car weight) will probably make them seem a lot more nimble, especially at the start of the races. Hopefully the new, slimmer tyres will make them a bit skittish as well, without being 2014 levels of unstable.

But I’m still absolutely dumbfounded by the choice to retain the 18 inch rims. They could lose like 20-30kg of unsprung mass (Or something like that) by going back to smaller rims.

If they went with larger rims to make them seem more road relevant and to sell pirelli rubber, having them covered by those ugly wheel covers nullifies any such effect. Going back to smaller rims is a total no-brainer if you want lighter cars.

If they really wanted to shed weight, they would:

1. Stop regulating battery weight, allowing the teams to develop more power dense and lighter batteries.

2. Go back to 13-inch rims.

You won't lose 30kg of fuel, that's been walked back to accomodate fuel burning, rumoured 90-100kg to be the real limit. Realistically these current cars don't run the full 110kg anyways, so expect the weight reduction to be more like 40-45kg, probably less since I don't expect them to actually reach that chassi weight. Will probably be like 2022 all over again where they bump the weight last moment.

[Cs98]

What is actually included in that V6 weight? Is it just 30kg heavier to be cheaper to manufacture? Seems like an obvious place where you could've cut 15-20kg if that's the case.

[Autobahn303]

Too many rules and too many gimmicks

[LionsHeart]

What is actually included in that V6 weight? Is it just 30kg heavier to be cheaper to manufacture? Seems like an obvious place where you could've cut 15-20kg if that's the case. https://i.postimg.cc/XqG3gVd7/f126.jpg

Yes, it is very strange. It is as if they decided to use a thicker walled block and heavier pistons and connecting rods made of cast iron. It seems as if they wanted to use the same V6 architecture, so it is also unclear to me where the mass could have increased from? There is nothing to increase. I think there is a mistake in this picture.

151-4-7-25-100 = 15 free kilograms. From this we can assume that the current V6 turbocharged engines weigh around 115 kg.

[mzso]

Some folks are complaining of the meagre nature of the wheelbase reduction.

Should the 2026 rules have mandated a transverse gearbox to enable a more significant (500mm?) reduction in wheelbase?

Or even mandate that the gear cassette be outside the wheelbase, instead of inside, like older racing cars (I'm unsure of the implications to the rear crash structure)?

Those calling for significant reductions in size or weight don't seem to discuss how those would be achieved while keeping 2026 crash safety standards (+20 to +30% on crash test severity from 2024 IIRC)?

They should define a maximum length and let teams come up with solutions. But I guess variety, and creativity is not trendy these days.

Crash safety standars are not much relevant. The teams would just strengthen the front crash stuctures until they're strong enough.

[mzso]

But I’m still absolutely dumbfounded by the choice to retain the 18 inch rims. They could lose like 20-30kg of unsprung mass (Or something like that) by going back to smaller rims.

If they went with larger rims to make them seem more road relevant and to sell pirelli rubber, having them covered by those ugly wheel covers nullifies any such effect. Going back to smaller rims is a total no-brainer if you want lighter cars.

If they really wanted to shed weight, they would:

1. Stop regulating battery weight, allowing the teams to develop more power dense and lighter batteries.

2. Go back to 13-inch rims.

I think the tires add more weight, so maybe the should just decrease the profile to something more suitable for the rims. I think no-one ine the world uses such such high profile tires for road racing, outside F1.

[Zynerji]

Meh.

Cars are cool-ish, but why ruin it with the hybrid nonsense?

They could have just 1.6l V6 turbo and pushed them to 20k RPM, and would have had a much lighter, cheaper, uncomplicated machine that had more fan appeal.

Removing the VLIM system and such is just nonsense at this point. If they want to go for efficiency, VLIM/VLEM , VVT, VDT, TJI and the rest are all efficiency controllers. Those variables are imperative to getting the most power/RPM.

For downsizing at the auto industry level, one would think that developing a single, tightly packaged power unit that can be software tuned to meet any specific vehicle demand would just be a Unicorn that they would chase, thus justifying their involvement in F1, and pushing tech to the people.

[LionsHeart]

Meh.

Cars are cool-ish, but why ruin it with the hybrid nonsense?

They could have just 1.6l V6 turbo and pushed them to 20k RPM, and would have had a much lighter, cheaper, uncomplicated machine that had more fan appeal.

Removing the VLIM system and such is just nonsense at this point. If they want to go for efficiency, VLIM/VLEM , VVT, VDT, TJI and the rest are all efficiency controllers. Those variables are imperative to getting the most power/RPM. For downsizing at the auto industry level, one would think that developing a tightly packaged power unit that can be tuned to meet any specific vehicle demand would just be a Unicorn that they would chase.

Why rev a turbo engine to 20,000 rpm? In the 1980s, 12,500 rpm was enough to produce over 1,200 horsepower in qualifying mode. Turbo engines usually do not have an extremely high rev because they are more efficient at low rpm due to excess air at the intake. The higher the rpm, the greater the mechanical and thermal losses. No power plant will be able to overcome 7 racing weekends if they spin at 20,000 rpm. And how high will the fuel consumption be? There will be no efficiency.

[Seanspeed]

You're describing the pitfalls of the overtaking metric.

Like any measurement, people (management, usually) become obsessive about it, and suddenly it's more important than anything else.

All DRS really achieves is guaranteeing, as long as the circuit layout permits it, that the fastest car will get to the front. When you have five 9s reliability, that results in a very predictable race. Verstappen last year could start his race practically anywhere on the grid, and he'd get to the front.

Can you imagine Hungary 1989, or even 1990 with DRS? What about Imola 2005, or Argentina 1997? If the slightly quicker car (at that point in the GP) can sail by at +30KPH, is that really a motor race?

It's a bad solution and it really ought not to have lasted this long.

DRS didn't guarantee an overtake unless a car was quite a bit faster in most cases.

It enabled lots of close fighting that was simply quite rare before. We see it all the time, in almost every race, but because of confirmation bias, many people tend to ignore those and only note the more blowby sort of passes.

And again, if tracks weren't littered with DRS zones everywhere you look, it would be a lot more balanced and reasonable.

[Zynerji]

Meh.

Cars are cool-ish, but why ruin it with the hybrid nonsense?

They could have just 1.6l V6 turbo and pushed them to 20k RPM, and would have had a much lighter, cheaper, uncomplicated machine that had more fan appeal.

Removing the VLIM system and such is just nonsense at this point. If they want to go for efficiency, VLIM/VLEM , VVT, VDT, TJI and the rest are all efficiency controllers. Those variables are imperative to getting the most power/RPM. For downsizing at the auto industry level, one would think that developing a tightly packaged power unit that can be tuned to meet any specific vehicle demand would just be a Unicorn that they would chase.

Why rev a turbo engine to 20,000 rpm? In the 1980s, 12,500 rpm was enough to produce over 1,200 horsepower in qualifying mode. Turbo engines usually do not have an extremely high rev because they are more efficient at low rpm due to excess air at the intake. The higher the rpm, the greater the mechanical and thermal losses. No power plant will be able to overcome 7 racing weekends if they spin at 20,000 rpm. And how high will the fuel consumption be? There will be no efficiency.

Ok. I'm talking best of both worlds. The RPM of the 2.4l V8 with the TJI and turbo of the 1.6l V6. Dropping the battery pack and expanding the fuel tank would help lots. Cheap engines means they can do 1 per race and wring them out. And you're correct. Turbo engines with all of the variables mentioned earlier can produce huge torque at low RPM. But that would then be part of the rubric that the teams must overcome, as horsepower overcomes drag, and it has a natural balance point. This is where a defined fuel restriction curve and a 1000hp cap actually makes sense.

The reality of F1 is that most cars are actually good enough to win. It's finding the balance points on a collection of metric tensors that make "magical" races. If it was just easier for the teams to find this balance, the field would close up very quickly.

[LionsHeart]

Meh.

Cars are cool-ish, but why ruin it with the hybrid nonsense?

They could have just 1.6l V6 turbo and pushed them to 20k RPM, and would have had a much lighter, cheaper, uncomplicated machine that had more fan appeal.

Removing the VLIM system and such is just nonsense at this point. If they want to go for efficiency, VLIM/VLEM , VVT, VDT, TJI and the rest are all efficiency controllers. Those variables are imperative to getting the most power/RPM. For downsizing at the auto industry level, one would think that developing a tightly packaged power unit that can be tuned to meet any specific vehicle demand would just be a Unicorn that they would chase.

Why rev a turbo engine to 20,000 rpm? In the 1980s, 12,500 rpm was enough to produce over 1,200 horsepower in qualifying mode. Turbo engines usually do not have an extremely high rev because they are more efficient at low rpm due to excess air at the intake. The higher the rpm, the greater the mechanical and thermal losses. No power plant will be able to overcome 7 racing weekends if they spin at 20,000 rpm. And how high will the fuel consumption be? There will be no efficiency.

Ok. I'm talking best of both worlds. The RPM of the 2.4l V8 with the TJI and turbo of the 1.6l V6. Dropping the battery pack and expanding the fuel tank would help lots. Cheap engines means they can do 1 per race and wring them out. And you're correct. Turbo engines with all of the variables mentioned earlier can produce huge torque at low RPM. But that would then be part of the rubric that the teams must overcome, as horsepower overcomes drag, and it has a natural balance point. This is where a defined fuel restriction curve actually makes sense.

The reality of F1 is that most cars are actually good enough to win. It's finding the balance points on a collection of metric tensors that make "magical" races. If it was just easier for the teams to find this balance, the field would close up very quickly.

Ah, okay. I get it. You want to get rid of the battery and the motor generator altogether. In general, maybe that makes sense. But I doubt that it will improve the efficiency of the engine. I think we need to understand what exactly the goal of the FIA ​​and other structures is. What exactly they want. If the goal is to get the maximum possible engine power, then a hybrid is not needed. Please, the V12 or V10 of previous years have enough power. At Monza in the 2000s, they managed to get a speed of over 370 km / h. But if the goal is to get efficient engines, then there is no alternative to a hybrid.

I do not claim to know the truth, but I have some assumptions about what the internal combustion engine will be like in 2026.
So, most likely, the volume of the fuel tank will become smaller, which means that fuel consumption should become lower. By reducing the specific and instantaneous fuel consumption, it means that less air should enter the cylinders. I can only assume the following: the maximum rpm will be lower than now. Let's say 10,000-10,500 rpm. In this case, there is no need for a large turbocharger, which will have greater inertia. MGU-H is no longer there, which means there will be a large turbo lag. It can be reduced by reducing the size of the turbine. The rest should be compensated by MGU-K. How exactly the kinetic energy use map will be implemented, this is what the engine designers will have to decide. I think in general the system should be even more efficient and technologically simple. Perhaps this will even reduce the cost of power unit. And perhaps the resource of power unit will be even greater.

[yooogurt]

A team member who spoke to formu1a.uno , said that it is indeed possible to reach 400 km/h, but due to limitations in terms of electricity use it will be difficult.

[Vanja #66]

A team member who spoke to formu1a.uno , said that it is indeed possible to reach 400 km/h, but due to limitations in terms of electricity use it will be difficult.

People are not aware of the magnitude of cutting down 55% of drag, for the same power of around 1000HP you get a car reaching 300kmh jump to 390-400kmh. Anything over 330-340kmh in typical races is too much kinetic energy for a worst-case crash, so this will of course mean a lot less energy used during a race. Active aero allows unbelievable efficiency figures and I think in 27 or 28 teams and FIA will agree to increase the wings a bit, maybe even in the final 2026 rule set