2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[AR3-GP]

Mclaren and Williams are not happy:

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stell ... /10620729/

Speaking about the speed profile of the 2026 cars, Stella said: "Well, I would say that at the moment, for the way cars are in the draft version of the regulations…the cars are not fast enough in the corners and too fast on the straights. These two aspects need to be rebalanced."
Williams team boss James Vowles backed up Stella's belief that the performance issue had to be addressed and said it was essential F1 maintained its place as the fastest single-seater category in the world above Super Formula and IndyCar.
"It's imperative that we are still the leading series in motorsport," said Vowles. "That's how I see us, we are the pinnacle of this.

"We support the intent of the objectives at a high level," he explained. "However, if we look at the regulations in the draft form that has been circulated, they are still far from being able to achieve those agreeable objectives and intent.
"It is the time for the FIA, F1 and the teams to work together, listen to one another and contribute to form a solution that will allow the sport to meet those objectives.
"I think if we meet those objectives, we're going to have F1 in a good shape. But we need to make sure that, when it's the time of implementation, we actually deliver a product that meets those targets and objectives."

[browney]

Mclaren and Williams are not happy:

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stell ... /10620729/

Speaking about the speed profile of the 2026 cars, Stella said: "Well, I would say that at the moment, for the way cars are in the draft version of the regulations…the cars are not fast enough in the corners and too fast on the straights. These two aspects need to be rebalanced."
Williams team boss James Vowles backed up Stella's belief that the performance issue had to be addressed and said it was essential F1 maintained its place as the fastest single-seater category in the world above Super Formula and IndyCar.
"It's imperative that we are still the leading series in motorsport," said Vowles. "That's how I see us, we are the pinnacle of this.

Fast in the straight and slower in the corners could work well for overtaking, bigger braking zones. Tbh, while I don't have trust is the FIA, the teams being involved in writing the rules is much worse.

We have compromised engines because what the manufactures want already. If it was up to the teams we'd end up with huge, high downforce cars that are impossible to overtake.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Mclaren and Williams are not happy:

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/stell ... /10620729/

Speaking about the speed profile of the 2026 cars, Stella said: "Well, I would say that at the moment, for the way cars are in the draft version of the regulations…the cars are not fast enough in the corners and too fast on the straights. These two aspects need to be rebalanced."
Williams team boss James Vowles backed up Stella's belief that the performance issue had to be addressed and said it was essential F1 maintained its place as the fastest single-seater category in the world above Super Formula and IndyCar.
"It's imperative that we are still the leading series in motorsport," said Vowles. "That's how I see us, we are the pinnacle of this.

"We support the intent of the objectives at a high level," he explained. "However, if we look at the regulations in the draft form that has been circulated, they are still far from being able to achieve those agreeable objectives and intent.
"It is the time for the FIA, F1 and the teams to work together, listen to one another and contribute to form a solution that will allow the sport to meet those objectives.
"I think if we meet those objectives, we're going to have F1 in a good shape. But we need to make sure that, when it's the time of implementation, we actually deliver a product that meets those targets and objectives."

The highlighted is the whole problem James. You and your collogues support of virtue signalling corporate sloganeering nonsense.

Good to see Williams and McLaren have the balls to speak up

[TeamKoolGreen]

55%, I'm skeptical about that figure, these are still open wheel cars where the tyres are a huge drag factor.

I wonder why the FIA ruled out the use of a partial rear wheel fairing, similar to on the current Indycar spec aerokit?

[Or the original Dallara DW12 or Formula E type triangular bodywork, but I like the current Indycar style with elements of a both a sidepod and fairing. ]

Would such fairings create outwash ahead of the rear wheels, which is undesired in the 2026 regulation set?

I've seen the rear fairing discussion before. Some of the purists say it takes away from the open wheel character of the car. I think its nonsense. They are safer and more efficient. And there would be better racing bc you don't have to worry about locking wheels

[FW17]

F1 should go back to 2014 tyre sizes to achieve the weight target.

I don't see these ugly 18 inch wheels bringing anything positive to F1

[wuzak]

It probably wouldn't be allowed, but would it be beneficial for the active aero to be activated and deactivated at different times front to rear?

An example would be in the braking zone. The front wing stays open while the back wing closes so that the aero balance moves rearwards to aid in energy recovery?

[TeamKoolGreen]

F1 should go back to 2014 tyre sizes to achieve the weight target.

I don't see these ugly 18 inch wheels bringing anything positive to F1

In the first iteration of the 2026 cars , the wheels were to be 16 inch. Which was a nice middle ground. But then it changed back to 18 inch again. Which is another one of their big weight saving ideas gone. Yes they will be narrower. But the sidewalls will be as stiff as they are now

I wasn't that worried about 26 with this older version

[JordanMugen]

F1 should go back to 2014 tyre sizes to achieve the weight target.

You think the reduction in rear tyre width in 1993 was a positive step then?

The cars still looked cool between 1993 and 1997 when they had the narrow rear tyres but were still 2.0m wide with nice elegant long suspension arms.

It's only when they were reduced to 1.8m in 1998 that they started to look goofy and squashed.

IMO, the 2017 change just put the rear tyres back to the traditional size (~1972-1992), it's just a shame that the front tyres were scaled proportionately up when they had never been scaled down in the first place.

[Dunlay]

F1 should go back to 2014 tyre sizes to achieve the weight target.

I don't see these ugly 18 inch wheels bringing anything positive to F1

I still don't understand why they went with 18 inch wheels. It's not like they can sell the F1 tires to road cars. They always looked heidious and add to enormous weight of the car. Going for 14 or 15 inch might help in reducing the spray they generate in wet. They could further reduce the widthnof the tires to help in this regard and provide better avenues to produce floor down force provide the delta in grip

[Andi76]

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

55% less drag is massive. To visualize what's possible here one only needs to consider two things - the cars around the 00s reached 370 km/h without any problems, the BAR, where they tried to reduce drag as much as possible, reached 413 km/h in the Mojave Desert. And actually the cars seem to look more like the 00s carsbin that regard than the current ones, as the whole appearance of the car looks more like an early 2000s car than a 2010s or 2020s car. The drag figures are therefore probably more similar to the early 00s cars than the current ones and these didn't have active aerodynamics. Speeds of 380, 390 kmh should therefore not be a problem with these cars without any limitations. Is anything over 340 km/h too much kinetic energy? We'll see where the FIA draws the line. After all, the '00 cars also reached 360-370 km/h and today's safety standards are higher. But also the "safety thinking". From what Tombazis says, it sounds like the new cars will be cut off somewhere between 350 and 360 kmh.

When I look at the new car it looks like they are once again trying to massively restrict the aerodynamics of the underfloor and diffuser. Not only do they want to massively reduce both, but they also want a lot more turbulence to reduce their performance, because the way the area behind the frontwing and at the intake looks, there's no way to really control the airflow that goes under the car. Somehow I find the whole thing a bit strange (without putting a value on it now) - they've put millions into research and development for the 2022 cars which should enable better racing, following and overtaking (which, as we saw at the beginning of 2022, actually worked) only to now discard much of it again. I don't know if it wouldn't have been better to simply ban all the "tricks" used by the teams to generate outwash and adapt the regulations instead of coming up with a completely new "car". And that after only three years. I welcome the fact that the cars are getting smaller again and will probably be more agile and less sluggish. But the fact that after just three years they are leaving a path that initially seemed quite promising and might only have needed a some adjustments... but maybe that's exactly what happened and I just don't see it. I just hope that Tombazis here knows what he's doing. He's certainly good enough for that.

[wuzak]

55% less drag is massive. To visualize what's possible here one only needs to consider two things - the cars around the 00s reached 370 km/h without any problems, the BAR, where they tried to reduce drag as much as possible, reached 413 km/h in the Mojave Desert.

The drag figures are therefore probably more similar to the early 00s cars than the current ones and these didn't have active aerodynamics. Speeds of 380, 390 kmh should therefore not be a problem with these cars without any limitations. Is anything over 340 km/h too much kinetic energy? We'll see where the FIA draws the line. After all, the '00 cars also reached 360-370 km/h and today's safety standards are higher. But also the "safety thinking". From what Tombazis says, it sounds like the new cars will be cut off somewhere between 350 and 360 kmh.

The difference between the 2000s and now is that the 2000s cars had 859-900hp available to achieve that top speed.

Under the 2026 rules:

48% thermal efficiency gives an ICE output of 400kW/536hp.

The MGUK output is reduced with speed above 290kph.
Total power
at 290kph = 750kW/1,006hp
at 300 kph = 700kW/939hp
at 320kph = 600kW/805hp
at 340kph = 500kW/671hp
at 345kph = 400kW/536hp.

In override mode, the full MGUK power of 350kW is maintained to 337.5kph, so total PU output of 750kW/1,006hp, falling a total of 400kW/536hp at 355kph.

[Vanja #66]

When I look at the new car it looks like they are once again trying to massively restrict the aerodynamics of the underfloor and diffuser. Not only do they want to massively reduce both, but they also want a lot more turbulence to reduce their performance, because the way the area behind the frontwing and at the intake looks, there's no way to really control the airflow that goes under the car. Somehow I find the whole thing a bit strange (without putting a value on it now) - they've put millions into research and development for the 2022 cars which should enable better racing, following and overtaking (which, as we saw at the beginning of 2022, actually worked) only to now discard much of it again. I don't know if it wouldn't have been better to simply ban all the "tricks" used by the teams to generate outwash and adapt the regulations instead of coming up with a completely new "car". And that after only three years. I welcome the fact that the cars are getting smaller again and will probably be more agile and less sluggish. But the fact that after just three years they are leaving a path that initially seemed quite promising and might only have needed a some adjustments... but maybe that's exactly what happened and I just don't see it. I just hope that Tombazis here knows what he's doing. He's certainly good enough for that.

Yes, the inwashing floor fences at the front seem to be made to force the front tyre wake ingestion and thus introduce some trouble for floor performance on purpose. I believe teams will find a way to minimise this effect, most likely by dropping down the outside of the floor leading edge as much as allowed by rules and thus create a separate tunnel inlet for clean air.

I'm disappointed only with cutting down diffuser length and separation from beam wing influence. It's not a drag generation to leave it longer and would add a decent amount of downforce, thus increasing overall aero efficiency in any case

48% thermal efficiency gives an ICE output of 400kW/536hp.

The MGUK output is reduced with speed above 290kph.
Total power
at 290kph = 750kW/1,006hp
at 300 kph = 700kW/939hp
at 320kph = 600kW/805hp
at 340kph = 500kW/671hp
at 345kph = 400kW/536hp.

In override mode, the full MGUK power of 350kW is maintained to 337.5kph, so total PU output of 750kW/1,006hp, falling a total of 400kW/536hp at 355kph.

So this means in a regular lap you have no e-deployment above 345 kmh and rely solely on ICE? Or is even the ICE limited to 400kW output and you can (must?) send the rest to MGU and batteries?

[Zynerji]

I didn't dig in yet, but what about the suspension? Are we stuck with basic-b1tch like we have now, or are back to hydraulic FRIC systems?

[organic]

Why 2026 F1 rules are a headache by an F1 aerodynamicist

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... ynamicist/

[MIKEY_!]

Keeping in mind that these are not the final regs, I think these regs are a decent solution to a tough problem. I definitely don't buy the doomsaying!

The inwashing bargeboards will pose an interesting challenge. Presumably they want the cars to ingest the front tire wake (this was one aim of the 90s narrow track regs IIRC). I'm especially pleased we're losing the incredibly long front overhang and extreme delta front wing.

The reduction in diffuser height and overhaul of rear aero is an interesting choice which I assume is aimed at reducing spray in wet conditions and allowing us to go racing!

I do think the FIA has missed a few tricks.
1. Downforce could probably be increased for very little extra drag by improving the diffuser and beam wing treatment.
2. Smaller diameter wheels e.g. 16in would give an immediate weight saving.
3. The wheelbase could have been even shorter behind the driver, we know there's heaps of scope for this on the current cars.
4. I suspect a bit more ground effect wouldn't be a bad thing, drivers complaining about stiff suspension suddenly go quiet when their car is working well and the vertical acceleration regs can prevent excessive forces.