2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[Tommy Cookers]

fwiw I had in mind something about 1000 times faster-acting
no springs of course (this isn't the 1980s)

as being the reason active suspension isn't a walk in the park (for rule-makers and rule compliance-checkers)

[TeamKoolGreen]

https://ibb.co/3k7jLBH

They should at least go full flat bottom without the 50mm step and keep only the 10 mm plank for ride height control.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE_UDfxXIAQS7t_.jpg

They should go full floor downforce from front to back, with no wings. Guide and ingest all the air in the middle, and expel it all in the diffuser. Keep the sides rigid and with a good gap from the ground.
Dispose of the skidplate, and make the bottom slightly curved, so getting closer to the ground wouldn't bring extra downforce.
Prevent teams from creating extra vortices. Add elements to reduce wake turbulence, similar to airplane wingtip devices.

Good idea. The wings are what is responsible for the outwash on the 2022 cars. No matter what they do , wings won't work for dirty air. But here they are reverting back to what didn't work from 2000 to 2021

[browney]

I wonder if the departure from relying on ground effects also explains why they aren't stopping any of the outwash concepts people are fitting into the current rules (when the rules came out, they said that they would adjust the rules to keep the intention of making he cars easier to overtake).

Maybe they want to make this ruleset look as bad as they can then the FIA can say they have made.it better with the next set of rules. Like pointing out to the boss all of your predecessor's mistakes.

[jjn9128]

why do y'all always think flat floor isn't ground effect?!?!? it's genuinely baffling . then say things like "no wings would make better racing" or "front wing = bad" when it's a ground effect device.

[wuzak]

DOn't know how realistic this would be

[Just_a_fan]

why do y'all always think flat floor isn't ground effect?!?!? it's genuinely baffling . then say things like "no wings would make better racing" or "front wing = bad" when it's a ground effect device.

Because that's what the TV and other journos say. Things like "the return of ground effect" when talking about pseudo-tunnel floors makes people think that the floors before weren't ground effect.

[bhall II]

In a previous life, I was a very outspoken critic of attempts to introduce major aerodynamic changes that would ostensibly increase overtaking, because I simply don't think it's possible. Anything short of complete standardization is just kicking the can down the road, and nothing I've seen in the intervening years has changed my mind.

(To be clear, I don't support the standardization of anything)

Seeing F1 now come full circle pisses me off all over again. I lament what could have been had the Grand Poobahs in charge taken a more holistic approach when assessing the overtaking problem. Instead, we got the Overtaking Working Group, which probably should have been called the Myopic Focus On Wake Turbulence Working Group, because little else was considered.

Fun fact: the winglets, VGs, flow conditionors, etc., that were discarded for 2009 weren't really eliminated for aerodynamic reasons...

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

That the FIA tends to get things wrong is actually one of the reasons why I tend to oppose these sorts of overhauls. The federation is far less likely to --- up when it's not really doing anything.

At any rate, it seems futile to me, because aerodynamic development within any ruleset inherently increases sensitivity to wake turbulence, and also because design convergence is inevitable, which leads to cars that all have the same strengths and weaknesses.

In other words, overtaking will be more and more difficult from year to year, no matter what you do. So why bother fighting a battle you can't win?

I think complaints about a lack of overtaking are in essence complaints about a lack of excitement. If you know you can't find that aerodynamically, then it's probably a good idea to look for it somewhere else.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the ideas Alex Wurz put forth in 2015 while advocating for the adoption of the halo...

I think that could actually lead to a scenario where, if we know the cars are safe and we know we don’t expose the helmets, we can go way more aggressive with track design, we can race on much wilder city tracks, we can race with higher speeds, we can make them even more aggressive to drive, because we don’t have consequences which could jeopardise the future of the sport and the involvement of sponsors.

[Vanja #66]

That the FIA tends to get things wrong is actually one of the reasons why I tend to oppose these sorts of overhauls. The federation is far less likely to --- up when it's not really doing anything.

At any rate, it seems futile to me, because aerodynamic development within any ruleset inherently increases sensitivity to wake turbulence, and also because design convergence is inevitable, which leads to cars that all have the same strengths and weaknesses.

In other words, overtaking will be more and more difficult from year to year, no matter what you do. So why bother fighting a battle you can't win?

I think complaints about a lack of overtaking are in essence complaints about a lack of excitement. If you know you can't find that aerodynamically, then it's probably a good idea to look for it somewhere else.

I'm not disagreeing on any point As I replied to another post here, there was a wide outcry about the weight of cars in 2022 and immediate reaction was requested and there was also an initiative to introduce a new generation of hybrids. The first point was accompanied by a valid complaint of cars being too long (and having too long wheelbase as well) which requires new chassis rules, while the second point prompted an introduction of long-overdue active aero in some way. Everyone was asking for this, it wasn't something that came from FIA directly.

Designing a rule set to allow cars to race more easily is a futile attempt to begin with, of course. So I was disappointed seeing the idea of increasing wing load to offset the downforce lost while following another car discarded, as this attacks the problem exactly when it appears. I can imagine it was a very complex idea and hard to determine how to decide when to allow this and how to implement it, but I think it's worth taking another look into it. Just like DRS, some teams would get it wrong at first but it would converge quickly.

[Moctecus]

The full 2026 Technical Regulations have been released here by the FIA.

[TeamKoolGreen]

This isn't that well put together of a video. But it shows the 2022 Ferrari destroying the 2004 Ferrari in the corners. So I am skeptical of this idea that slower in the corners = great racing or even better racing. What a shame. All F1 had to do was keep the tunnel cars and trim off more wing.

[TeamKoolGreen]

DOn't know how realistic this would be

There's no way they will be that close. Not even remotely. The 2022 cars had a bigger gap to 2021 and they had the same engines.

[wuzak]

DOn't know how realistic this would be

There's no way they will be that close. Not even remotely. The 2022 cars had a bigger gap to 2021 and they had the same engines.

I wonder if the ERS is modelled at all correctly, or if they just assume maximum power is available always.

[Moctecus]

Not the most important changes, but still interesting:

Wheel rims are now OSC (currently SSC supplied by BBS) and wheel covers are LTC with a prescribed geometry (currently SSC supplied by Red Bull Technology).
Is that the first time F1 has ever reverted turning a component into an SSC (that was actually introduced)?

[bhall II]

I'm not disagreeing on any point As I replied to another post here, there was a wide outcry about the weight of cars in 2022 and immediate reaction was requested and there was also an initiative to introduce a new generation of hybrids. The first point was accompanied by a valid complaint of cars being too long (and having too long wheelbase as well) which requires new chassis rules, while the second point prompted an introduction of long-overdue active aero in some way. Everyone was asking for this, it wasn't something that came from FIA directly.

Designing a rule set to allow cars to race more easily is a futile attempt to begin with, of course. So I was disappointed seeing the idea of increasing wing load to offset the downforce lost while following another car discarded, as this attacks the problem exactly when it appears. I can imagine it was a very complex idea and hard to determine how to decide when to allow this and how to implement it, but I think it's worth taking another look into it. Just like DRS, some teams would get it wrong at first but it would converge quickly.

I'm mainly just ranting.

It's been quite some time since I've followed F1 closely. I just happened upon those FIA renderings of the '26 regulations, and it irritated me a bit to see just how much of an about-face they represent after everything else basically killed my fandom.

"Ooops" lol

[Vanja #66]

I'm mainly just ranting.

It's been quite some time since I've followed F1 closely. I just happened upon those FIA renderings of the '26 regulations, and it irritated me a bit to see just how much of an about-face they represent after everything else basically killed my fandom.

"Ooops" lol

Unfortunately, those front wings are about the only thing that's common with cars from 20 years ago. Tight chassis regulations will lead to a field of identical-looking cars already in 2027, the only way to distinguish them will be an occasional different-looking airbox