2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[FW17]

First of all, why would the battery be much bigger?? Only reason I can think of is that they need more cooling because of the higher charge/discharge cycles.
But according to the regulations, the battery can only contain a maximum charge of 4MJ, that's the same as today.

It means 4 MJ can be deployed at a time not the total storage of MJ.

[Holm86]

First of all, why would the battery be much bigger?? Only reason I can think of is that they need more cooling because of the higher charge/discharge cycles.
But according to the regulations, the battery can only contain a maximum charge of 4MJ, that's the same as today.

It means 4 MJ can be deployed at a time not the total storage of MJ.

No

"5.4.8 The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track."

[Vanja #66]

No

"5.4.8 The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track."

Actually yes, you can store 44MJ or whatever if you want, but you can only deploy 4MJ before reaching minimal SOC. After you do, you need to recharge to use it again. They will be allowed 8.5MJ per lap, so there will be a lot of action for ES over a lap.

[Holm86]

No

"5.4.8 The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track."

Actually yes, you can store 44MJ or whatever if you want, but you can only deploy 4MJ before reaching minimal SOC. After you do, you need to recharge to use it again. They will be allowed 8.5MJ per lap, so there will be a lot of action for ES over a lap.

But what you're saying there makes zero sense, why on earth would you have a 44MJ battery if in could never go under 40MJ in that case.

The battery will probably have a minimum charge of perhaps 0.5MJ which means the maximum charge capacity probably won't be over 5MJ as the maximum state can only ever go 4MJ over the minimum, you need a bit og leeway

And as I said, the current regulations say exactly the same as those of 2026 when it comes to the delta charge of the battery, so why would it need to be bigger

[Vanja #66]

But what you're saying there makes zero sense, why on earth would you have a 44MJ battery if in could never go under 40MJ in that case.

The battery will probably have a minimum charge of perhaps 0.5MJ which means the maximum charge capacity probably won't be over 5MJ as the maximum state can only ever go 4MJ over the minimum, you need a bit og leeway

And as I said, the current regulations say exactly the same as those of 2026 when it comes to the delta charge of the battery, so why would it need to be bigger

Replied here --> https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 3#p1222253

[wuzak]

No

"5.4.8 The difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track."

Actually yes, you can store 44MJ or whatever if you want, but you can only deploy 4MJ before reaching minimal SOC. After you do, you need to recharge to use it again. They will be allowed 8.5MJ per lap, so there will be a lot of action for ES over a lap.

But what you're saying there makes zero sense, why on earth would you have a 44MJ battery if in could never go under 40MJ in that case.

The battery will probably have a minimum charge of perhaps 0.5MJ which means the maximum charge capacity probably won't be over 5MJ as the maximum state can only ever go 4MJ over the minimum, you need a bit og leeway

And as I said, the current regulations say exactly the same as those of 2026 when it comes to the delta charge of the battery, so why would it need to be bigger

The actual battery capacity is probably about 10MJ. Based on energy density of FE battery.

[wuzak]

Scarbs most recent take on the 2026 regs. He works for F1 and he's being reasonably objective. " it is a camel of an engine designed by a committee and its not really meeting anybody's needs"

Scarbs makes the same mistake as many others - assuming that the current PU rules include the weight of the battery in the 151kg minimum weight.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Scarbs most recent take on the 2026 regs. He works for F1 and he's being reasonably objective. " it is a camel of an engine designed by a committee and its not really meeting anybody's needs"

Scarbs makes the same mistake as many others - assuming that the current PU rules include the weight of the battery in the 151kg minimum weight.

You keep saying that about literally everyone including F1 accredited technical analysts.

[Stu]

Well, 2022 rules showed that methodical approach to rule making can make a difference. Of course, FIA crumbled under pressure and raised floor edges, making cars harder to follow and making one particular approach to bodywork design the only approach that works.

That and a marked reluctance to follow through on subverting the rules around endplates (front & rear); something that was stated would be treated with zero tolerance back in 2021…

2026 rules make a further step towards reducing the number of vortices all over the car, so I think those cars will be ok to follow through the corners. I would still prefer they stuck to the initial idea of giving the following car more downforce while following to offset the loss, instead of introducing a push-to-pass mode to replace DRS, but it is what it is...

Hopefully the downforce in the corners/low-drag on the straights will allow for some decent slipstreaming; I know we won’t get Classic Formula Ford racing, but the potential for closer racing is there. I’m just disappointed that they dropped the proper tunnel floors (lifting the floor edges has increased the tendency/requirement to run stiff - finding this I wonder why they didn’t go the other way & revert back the original regulations (there was always the capacity to operate without porpoising).

[mzso]

Venturi tunnels were introduced to kind of offset the loss of "dirty" downforce generated by massive amount of vortices on front wing and especially bargeboards since 2017. These vortices are the main cause of aero losses when following another car, they are significantly weaker (some probably broke up completely) and thus their impact was much lower. Contrary to that, these venturi floors generate 3 very strong and robust vortical structures - underfloor vortex shed from outwash fences, floor edge vortex shed outside of those fences and diffuser vortex which is unavoidable without side skirts.

You lost me here. You say "these are" the main cause then you say they are significantly weaker and break up. I think something is missing. What is weaker than what?
And what are venturi tunnels contrary to then?

Do the 2026 reg do away with the fences? What was the point of them anyway, it if just causes vortices and entailing problems?
You say "diffuser vortex which is unavoidable without side skirts." But don't you mean the floor edge vortex? Seems more logical.
Isn't the diffuser vortex which happens as the air leaves the diffuser at the very rear?

At the same time, low ride height will be a reliable floor performance generator but downforce levels will be a lot lower and this will allow a lot softer suspension setup anyway.

If this is true, I'm certain we're doomed to still have cars with stiff, bouncy spine murdering properties.
Why don't the make low ride height (beyong a point) disruptive to performance?

Well, 2022 rules showed that methodical approach to rule making can make a difference. Of course, FIA crumbled under pressure and raised floor edges, making cars harder to follow and making one particular approach to bodywork design the only approach that works.

2026 rules make a further step towards reducing the number of vortices all over the car, so I think those cars will be ok to follow through the corners. I would still prefer they stuck to the initial idea of giving the following car more downforce while following to offset the loss, instead of introducing a push-to-pass mode to replace DRS, but it is what it is...

As for 2009 rules, what were they good for? Absolutely nothing

How does the slight raising of floor edges result in worse following?
And is that really the reason behind the convergence of one body design? I thought the Red Bull philosophy was just simply the best.

[mzso]

According to french tv about 2026's regulation:
- Cost of e-fuel will around 120€ per liter versus 20€ currently for F1 fuel
- according to drivers who did simulator test, in order to have more electrical power they will have to downshift in the Middle of the straight, the ICE becoming a big dynamo.

I don't want to discredit bio fuel because it will be our way around hybrid. But just think of how much more energy is being consumed to make bio fuel if the cost is 120% more. Most of this sustainability stuff is worse for the environment than doing nothing.

Curious thing to say. Seeing as hybridization is unquestionably better for fuel economy and such "the environment".
But you imply horribly wasteful biofuel is acceptable by the very fact that you can use it as an excuse to avoid hybridization. Does not make sense...
Also full electrification would be even better. Even if you just end up burning the same fossil fuels with large very efficient power-plants.

By the way. Whatever happened with the magic bio-fuel developed by the FIA from a year or two ago, that is based on otherwise unutilized agricultural waste? Forgotten it seems.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... hybridization is unquestionably better for fuel economy and such "the environment".
Also full electrification would be even better. Even if you just end up burning the same fossil fuels with large very efficient power-plants......

how are those things true ?
(given that we have now an ICE of 50% even 52% efficiency)

''large very efficient power-plants' are only so if combined cycle (ICE & steam) - which most aren't for good reasons
and carry substantial losses eg 8-10% in grid & network transmission plus 10-12% battery charge/discharge cycle

the attraction of the hybrid and EV is their batteries bolstering against intermittency of the public electricity supply

[wuzak]

Scarbs most recent take on the 2026 regs. He works for F1 and he's being reasonably objective. " it is a camel of an engine designed by a committee and its not really meeting anybody's needs"

Scarbs makes the same mistake as many others - assuming that the current PU rules include the weight of the battery in the 151kg minimum weight.

You keep saying that about literally everyone including F1 accredited technical analysts.

They are comparing the current PU minimum weight of 151kg to the 2026 PU's minimum weight of 185kg.

5.7.1 Depending on where the MGU‐K mechanical transmission (as defined in item 26 of Appendix 3 to these Regulations) is located, the overall mass of the ICE “PU Mass group” elements as referred to in Appendix 3 to these regulations must be no less than the values defined below:
a) If all of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission resides in the MGU‐K the total mass of the ICE must be no less than 130.0kg.
b) If all of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission resides in the ICE the total mass of the ICE must be no less than 134.0kg.
c) If part of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission is situated in the MGU‐K and part in the ICE the total mass of the ICE must be no less than 132.0kg.

5.7.2 The overall mass of the PU must be a minimum of 185 kg.

5.19.9 The minimum mass for the ES Main Enclosure PU Mass group elements as defined in Appendix 3 to these Regulations is 35.0kg. The procedure which will be used to determine this value may be found in the Appendix to the Technical and Sporting Regulations

5.20.7 Depending on where the MGU‐K mechanical transmission is located, the total mass of the MGU‐K “PU Mass group” elements as referred to in Appendix 3 to these regulations must be no less than the values defined below:
a) If all of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission resides in the MGU‐K the total mass of the MGU‐K must be no less than 20.0kg.
b) If all of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission resides in the ICE the total mass of the MGU‐K must be no less than 16.0kg.
c) If part of the speed ratio of the MGU‐K mechanical transmission is situated in the MGU‐K and part in the ICE the total mass of the MGU‐K must be no less than 18.0kg.
The total mass of any shaft passing across the ICE/MGU‐K boundary must be allocated to either the MGU‐K or the ICE to assess compliance with this article and article 5.7.1.

Adding 5.7.1 to 5.20.7 and 5.19.9 gives
a) 130 + 20 + 35 = 180kg
b) 134 + 16 + 35 = 185kg
c) 132 + 18 + 35 = 185kg

Appendix 3, Table 1 of the 2026 rules has a column marked PU MASS GROUP

The following are part of the ES element of the PU, and their mass is assigned to the ESME mass group.
Item 31 ES Main Enclosure (ESME)
Item 32 Energy Store ES
Item 33 Regulatory DC sensors and Insulation monitoring device
Item 34 Safety devices (Fuses, Contactors, MSD, relays)
Item 35 Busbars, connectors conductors, looms or any other component fitted inside the ESME that is not explicitly mentioned in any other rows of this table.

The following are part of the PU‐CE (Control Electronics) element of the PU.
Item 36 CU‐K
Item 37 DC‐DC Unit
Item 38 Powerbox (ignition, injection, high pressure fuel pump driver)
Item 39 General electrical devices including Power distribution board, Driver for PU electric pumps, LV fuse box and any electronic box exclusively used for PU functionalities

Items 36 and 37 are assigned to the ESME mass group, Item 38 is assigned to the ICE mass group, item 39 can be assigned to iether the ICE or ESME mass group.

Clearly the ES is included in the minimum mass of the PU.




For the current rules:
5.5.1 The overall mass of the power unit must be a minimum of 151kg.

5.5.3 The total mass of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not exceed 25kg.


In appendix 3, of the 2024 rules there is a column marked Art. 5.5.1: Mass

It shows whether items are included in the mass of 151kg.

These items are among those excluded from the minimum mass of the PU.
Item 16: ES parts defined in Article 5.5.3
Item 17: ES excluding parts defined in Article 5.5.3

Clearly the ES is not included in the minimum mass of the PU.

[wuzak]

.... hybridization is unquestionably better for fuel economy and such "the environment".
Also full electrification would be even better. Even if you just end up burning the same fossil fuels with large very efficient power-plants......

how are those things true ?
(given that we have now an ICE of 50% even 52% efficiency)

It is true for road cars that primarily do low speed cummuting with a lot of stop-start.

It doesn't make the ICE more efficient, but the vehicle does use less fuel as the ICE is often turned off or run at lower power.

That doesn't apply in F1.

The best use for the ERS in F1 is to boost the engine when turbo-lag is an issue.

[Vanja #66]

That and a marked reluctance to follow through on subverting the rules around endplates (front & rear); something that was stated would be treated with zero tolerance back in 2021…

I'm not sure what teams are now doing is making things much worse, to be honest, both wings will generate tip vortices no matter what. Maybe the front wing outwash could have been looked at more back in 2022, but new regulations are soon enough right now and it's clearly good to let natural performance convergence occur.

You lost me here. You say "these are" the main cause then you say they are significantly weaker and break up. I think something is missing. What is weaker than what?
And what are venturi tunnels contrary to then?

Do the 2026 reg do away with the fences? What was the point of them anyway, it if just causes vortices and entailing problems?
You say "diffuser vortex which is unavoidable without side skirts." But don't you mean the floor edge vortex? Seems more logical.
Isn't the diffuser vortex which happens as the air leaves the diffuser at the very rear?

It might be best to answer this part later today, when I'm back at my computer, it's hard to find all the images online and post them in a coherent matter from phone

If this is true, I'm certain we're doomed to still have cars with stiff, bouncy spine murdering properties.
Why don't the make low ride height (beyong a point) disruptive to performance?

This (low ride height as performance driver) was always true and yet previous gen cars were a lot softer than today. The thing with them was having enough aero appendices to allow huge rakes which (when done right) can make a car faster in corners and then drop the rear for better top speed on straights.

2026 floors will generate a lot less downforce than 25 floors and depending on height of the central step there probably won't be any issue with bouncing no matter how soft the suspension is.

How does the slight raising of floor edges result in worse following?
And is that really the reason behind the convergence of one body design? I thought the Red Bull philosophy was just simply the best.

The problem occurs in the rear corner of the floor, where teams are doing whatever it takes to seal diffuser from dirty outside air. With raised edges, it became a lot more difficult to do so and as a result all cars now feature downwash sidepods. Early SF-23 spec was the best example how a peaky car can drop away from optimal conditions because diffuser is not sealed