2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[r85]

Is there a chance that we'll see aggressive rake angles return with the flat floors or is that only possible with the complex suspension from the previous regs?

[FW17]

Today is the day for signoff of the new regulations, is there any talk about it?

[BlueCheetah66]

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

Although the boxes might be kind of restrictive, I think the wording of the regulation is a bit more open than in the current cars. There's a lot less restriction of sections in Y and X plane in both the floor and the endplate/footplate parts

[MIKEY_!]

Any early thoughts from our aero gurus about the key challenges for this aero ruleset?

For example, how to treat the vortex coming off the top of the floor edge inwash fin/bargeboard - try to move it inwards or outwards relative to the floor edge, try to strengthen it or weaken it, try to draw it under the floor or exclude it at all costs? Lots of possibilities I'm not qualified to guess at.

I'm sure some of you have plans to post cfd when you get time, but I'm interested in any first impressions in the interim.

[Vanja #66]

For example, how to treat the vortex coming off the top of the floor edge inwash fin/bargeboard - try to move it inwards or outwards relative to the floor edge, try to strengthen it or weaken it, try to draw it under the floor or exclude it at all costs? Lots of possibilities I'm not qualified to guess at.

This will be one of the big questions of early 2026, different teams will have different approaches. Impossible to say anything now, all teams will run multiple solutions on January 1st 2025

In theory it should have an outward top side rotation, meaning it could potentially draw turbulence inside the diffuser as it expands and gets closer to rear tyre if it strong enough. This is the opposite rotation of the floor edge vortex that is formed by floor fences on cars today.

[Tommy Cookers]

what's happened to the 'active aero' ?

[mzso]

So what are the regs? Whatever the final draft was?

[Stu]

So what are the regs? Whatever the final draft was?

Released on the FIA website, I think. I know that the teams have them.

In summary…
Like being forced to wear a straight-jacket in a locked suitcase.
Pure PU formula!!!

[Vanja #66]

Although the boxes might be kind of restrictive, I think the wording of the regulation is a bit more open than in the current cars. There's a lot less restriction of sections in Y and X plane in both the floor and the endplate/footplate parts

As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdf

3.1.4 Component Bodywork
Unless otherwise stated, all individual Bodywork Components described in Articles 3.5 to 3.11, and in Article 3.14, prior to any Trim and Combination operations, must:
a. be single volumes that are simply connected.
A simply connected volume is a volume where any closed curve lying on the surface can be continuously contracted to a single point without leaving the surface.
b. in any X, Y and Z plane, only contain a single section.

This single-section issue with 3.1.4b. This is the real killer...

[Hutchie.91]

Even in the current regs, the boxes weren't the issue. It was the specific syntax that really restricted us; for instance:

prescribing how many sections could there be through any X, Y and/or Z plane, whether or not they are open or closed and maximum angles a tangency line to an intersection can be relative to an axis (look at the rules for the virtual surfaces for the fences and the edge wing/flank cut-out).

In some areas the complete surface of a component has to be visible from either above or below, meaning we have to jump through some awkward hoops just to pull off a handicapped attempt at doing anything funky in the keel/canoe and keel-vane area.

Defining maximum/minimum radius of curvature (nothing new, R75 rule has been around since '09), but they now go further by splitting it between concave and convex, where some areas have leeway with convex curvature being less than R25, but any concave portion of the same surface MUST be R25 or more).

Again, the curvature rule gets even more crazy now where curves produced by intersections may need to be at least R50 concave or R200 depending on whether or not said curves are visible looking at the car from the front or the centre-line. (Bearing in mind, you also have to create all the construction that proves all of these lines of the regs on top of the actual geometry itself. It's like constructing mathematical proofs in Catia/NX). SPOD LE's are a good example of this.

And unfortunately, it's this aspect of the regs in terms of using very concise syntax instead of general statements and reg boxes that makes the '26 regs even more of a restrictive pain.

[FW17]

As per --> https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-24.pdf

Did we even see one news article on this?

[FW17]

10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95

Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5

What does this mean?

[F1NAC]

10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95

Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5

What does this mean?

Width dimensions of wheel with tolerance of +- 0.5 mm?

[FW17]

10.7.2 Wheel rim dimensions page 95

Overall Width Front wheel 334 ± 0.5 Rear Wheel 420.3 ± 0.5

What does this mean?

Width dimensions of wheel with tolerance of +- 0.5 mm?

The 2026 tyre is expected to be 280 mm at front and 375 at the rear, why would the rims be so much wider?

Current regulations mention this as Tyre mounting width = 335.3mm +/-0.5mm (front) Tyre mounting width = 429.3mm +/-0.5mm (rear)

[ME4ME]

Even in the current regs, the boxes weren't the issue. It was the specific syntax that really restricted us; for instance:

prescribing how many sections could there be through any X, Y and/or Z plane, whether or not they are open or closed and maximum angles a tangency line to an intersection can be relative to an axis (look at the rules for the virtual surfaces for the fences and the edge wing/flank cut-out).

In some areas the complete surface of a component has to be visible from either above or below, meaning we have to jump through some awkward hoops just to pull off a handicapped attempt at doing anything funky in the keel/canoe and keel-vane area.

Defining maximum/minimum radius of curvature (nothing new, R75 rule has been around since '09), but they now go further by splitting it between concave and convex, where some areas have leeway with convex curvature being less than R25, but any concave portion of the same surface MUST be R25 or more).

Again, the curvature rule gets even more crazy now where curves produced by intersections may need to be at least R50 concave or R200 depending on whether or not said curves are visible looking at the car from the front or the centre-line. (Bearing in mind, you also have to create all the construction that proves all of these lines of the regs on top of the actual geometry itself. It's like constructing mathematical proofs in Catia/NX). SPOD LE's are a good example of this.

And unfortunately, it's this aspect of the regs in terms of using very concise syntax instead of general statements and reg boxes that makes the '26 regs even more of a restrictive pain.

Brilliant engineers solving meaningless problems created by equally brilliant engineers.
Any attempt by F1 to claim world-relevance is just a joke.

Good post though.