2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[MIKEY_!]

AMUS is apparently reporting front and rear tire width will be 275mm and 375mm respectively (down from 305mm and 405mm). I took this from a Facebook post so don't have a link to an article.

[Stu]

Fronts are still too wide! I’d like to see the down to around 250mm.

[Holm86]

Fronts are still too wide! I’d like to see the down to around 250mm.

Because?

[Stu]

Fronts are still too wide! I’d like to see the down to around 250mm.

Because?

At the current width ratio between front & rear tyres, the front tyres are overpowerful in comparison with the rears (this has been ‘a thing’ since the move to grooved slicks back in the nineties).
The plus side to more narrow (less wide?) front tyres would increase braking distances, reduce cornering speeds (due to requiring a car balance) & positively impact drag (less need for outwashing).
Smaller diameter tyres would improve driver visibility.

[Tommy Cookers]

... The plus side to more narrow (less wide?) front tyres would increase braking distances ....

disproportionately increasing the duration of regeneration at 350 kW ....
that's handy ....

[Stu]

... The plus side to more narrow (less wide?) front tyres would increase braking distances ....

handily this would disproportionately increase the duration available for regeneration at 350 kW ....

Indeed!

[delsando53]

Do you think there is scope of thinking outside the box and maybe this design Ferrari 92A might have a second chance?

[CaribouBread]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s- ... /10596682/

F1’S 2026 ACTIVE AERO PLAN SET FOR CHANGE AFTER ALARMING SIMULATOR FINDINGS
by Jon Noble

Important bits;

According to sources, when the rear wing was in its most low-drag configuration and the engine was at full power, the car was almost undriveable – with multiple examples of drivers spinning on straights under acceleration or being unable to take the smallest of curves without the rear stepping out.

One insider even suggested that the only way to prevent the cars spinning was to drive so conservatively that the lap times ended up being slower than current Formula 2 machinery.

Instead, the FIA has decided that the 2026 aero plan will need to incorporate both the front and rear wing moving in conjunction with each other if the cars are going to deliver the performance characteristics hoped for.

By ensuring that the two wings work together, it should help reduce the aero balance offset that has been causing trouble in the simulator.

[wuzak]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1s-2 ... /10596701/

One path being explored was for only the rear wing to be moveable, as it could then work easily in conjunction with DRS and would be the least complicated solution.

According to sources, when the rear wing was in its most low-drag configuration and the engine was at full power, the car was almost undriveable – with multiple examples of drivers spinning on straights under acceleration or being unable to take the smallest of curves without the rear stepping out.

And FIA sources have revealed that the conclusion has been reached that the moveable aero plan will not work with only the rear wing changing configuration.

Instead, the FIA has decided that the 2026 aero plan will need to incorporate both the front and rear wing moving in conjunction with each other if the cars are going to deliver the performance characteristics hoped for.

By ensuring that the two wings work together, it should help reduce the aero balance offset that has been causing trouble in the simulator.

So why would they be spinning on the straight?

Rear wing activeted when power is still bing fed in?

Surely once the PU is at full power the car shouldn't suddenly become undriveable when a DRS is activated?

[wuzak]

Another solution would be to ditch the moveable aero altogether, raise the fuel flow of the ICE and lower the ERS output.

[FW17]

Active rear wing does not work as there is too much of an imbalance, resulting in lap times comparable to F2

They are looking at front wing also to be active, but by doing that wont it change the entire flow to the floor? Something that could be its own can of worms

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s- ... /10596682/

[Vanja #66]

Active rear wing does not work as there is too much of an imbalance, resulting in lap times comparable to F2

They are looking at front wing also to be active, but by doing that wont it change the entire flow to the floor? Something that could be its own can of worms

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s- ... /10596682/

Wow, that's unexpected. We've had 4 generations of cars with DRS since 2011 and the latest generation is very different from those before, none of them shown too much inherent instability with DRS open on straights and fast corners. I think some important info wasn't given to the media. My first guess is either the low drag configuration is massively lower drag and downforce level than current DRS by design (and actual DRS would be even lower drag obviously) or somehow it triggers a massive CoP shift on the floor when switching to low drag mode.

[SiLo]

Are we getting active suspension along with active aero?

[CaribouBread]

Wow, that's unexpected. We've had 4 generations of cars with DRS since 2011 and the latest generation is very different from those before, none of them shown too much inherent instability with DRS open on straights and fast corners. I think some important info wasn't given to the media. My first guess is either the low drag configuration is massively lower drag and downforce level than current DRS by design (and actual DRS would be even lower drag obviously) or somehow it triggers a massive CoP shift on the floor when switching to low drag mode.

Its confusing, the article claims a "shift in aero balance that was estimated to be three times as much as is currently experienced when DRS is open.", but i'd still have assumed the floor to make enough downforce to keep the rears planted on a straight.

[Vanja #66]

Are we getting active suspension along with active aero?

No, total downforce coefficients will be about 40% lower than right now so suspension can be slightly softer. There's not a lot of details on floor rules, but we know so far there will be less vanes (maybe only the outboard one on each side) so perhaps the rules are being made to yield a very, very small benefit with extra low ride height, while going a bit higher and softer on suspension you gain more time in slower corners. Mechanical grip will only be slightly reduced with slightly narrower tyres.

Its confusing, the article claims a "shift in aero balance that was estimated to be three times as much as is currently experienced when DRS is open.", but i'd still have assumed the floor to make enough downforce to keep the rears planted on a straight.

That kind of CoP shift is quite big. We know floors will have a lot smaller downforce yield than right now, maybe rear wing will be much more important than today so taking that away causes such a big shift...