2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[AR3-GP]

You missed the important part off when you quoted me:

I don't get it...Saying it's all politics implies that there are no legitimate technical concerns with these regulations.

The fact that the FIA have now increased the fuel allocation by 30kg, a 40% increase of the original determination, suggest otherwise....

Yes, but the moans are political. It doesn't matter that the fuel allocation has increased - it's the same for all and thus shouldn't matter. However, it's an issue for the individual teams for various reasons be it PU deficit, suspension deficit, etc., whatever it is that their team will struggle with as a result of the changes. So the moans are political.

Yes, there are no problems because it's the same for everyone so there shall be nothing to discuss anymore...

[Just_a_fan]

I don't get it...Saying it's all politics implies that there are no legitimate technical concerns with these regulations.

The fact that the FIA have now increased the fuel allocation by 30kg, a 40% increase of the original determination, suggest otherwise....

Yes, but the moans are political. It doesn't matter that the fuel allocation has increased - it's the same for all and thus shouldn't matter. However, it's an issue for the individual teams for various reasons be it PU deficit, suspension deficit, etc., whatever it is that their team will struggle with as a result of the changes. So the moans are political.

Yes, there are no problems because it's the same for everyone so there shall be nothing to discuss anymore...

The TPs aren't making noises because they care about the purity of the sport or any other such stuff. They're making noises because they generally don't like change unless it might benefit their team, and they really don't like change that leads to outcomes they can't control.

Horner, for one, would love the current rule set to stay in place for several years. Why? Because his team has stolen a march on the rest and he's eyeing up a possible title run such as Mercedes have just enjoyed. He hated it when they were doing it and, unsurprisingly, now he loves it and he doesn't want any changes that might mess it up for his team. It's his job to protect that position for his team.

Other TPs will have similar concerns based on how they think they might do compared to those around them. PU customer teams, for example, are unlikely to want changes if they're currently competing well against their PU supplier e.g. McLaren. Why, because such a change hands the PU supplier an advantage until the customers get on top of the new rules.

It's all political games.

[AR3-GP]

Yes, but the moans are political. It doesn't matter that the fuel allocation has increased - it's the same for all and thus shouldn't matter. However, it's an issue for the individual teams for various reasons be it PU deficit, suspension deficit, etc., whatever it is that their team will struggle with as a result of the changes. So the moans are political.

Yes, there are no problems because it's the same for everyone so there shall be nothing to discuss anymore...

The TPs aren't making noises because they care about the purity of the sport or any other such stuff. They're making noises because they generally don't like change unless it might benefit their team, and they really don't like change that leads to outcomes they can't control.

Horner, for one, would love the current rule set to stay in place for several years. Why? Because his team has stolen a march on the rest and he's eyeing up a possible title run such as Mercedes have just enjoyed. He hated it when they were doing it and, unsurprisingly, now he loves it and he doesn't want any changes that might mess it up for his team. It's his job to protect that position for his team.

Other TPs will have similar concerns based on how they think they might do compared to those around them. PU customer teams, for example, are unlikely to want changes if they're currently competing well against their PU supplier e.g. McLaren. Why, because such a change hands the PU supplier an advantage until the customers get on top of the new rules.

It's all political games.

I don't understand your point. I'm not interested in having a discussion about politics but since you insist and we are talking about power units, Horner has no incentive to want the regs to remain because RBPT doesn't have a MGU-H based power unit and removal of the MGU-H is the key part that enabled Audi and RBPT to enter, MGU-H is too complex. His best hope is an intellectual reset for everyone including his own team. I have no clue what you are going on about because it doesn't make any sense in the context of power units. It seems like instead of admitting Horner was right, you're going "off-road".

In any case, it doesn't matter to me what Horner or any other self-interested team principal has said because you don't need to know their opinion on it to see the issues with the PU regulations and discuss them. Remove the MGU-H, triple the MGU-K output, and give them 70kg of fuel and you will go from PUs that are 1000hp most of the time, to 1000hp some of the time and embarrassing deceleration near the end of the straights.

It may not always be the case, but currently the comments from some in the paddock are consistent with the actual issues. The first bit of evidence of that being the 30kg of fuel they have added for charging the battery.

What other oversights remain?

[Stu]

Similar arguments and posturing were made pre-2014; ICE was intended to be a L4 block. Ferrari stated that they would leave as they have no place in their brand (showing complete ignorance of their history in the process).

[Just_a_fan]

Similar arguments and posturing were made pre-2014; ICE was intended to be a L4 block. Ferrari stated that they would leave as they have no place in their brand (showing complete ignorance of their history in the process).

Exactly. They're all positioning to try to get what suits them as individual teams.

[Just_a_fan]

Remove the MGU-H, triple the MGU-K output, and give them 70kg of fuel and you will go from PUs that are 1000hp most of the time, to 1000hp some of the time and embarrassing deceleration near the end of the straights.

So what? Why is it "embarrassing"? The teams already spend various amounts of time at the ends of straights in regen or even lift-and-coast i.e. delivering reduced or even no power to the rear wheels. We've heard drivers being told to do multiple hundred-metres of lift-and-coast, and, guess what? If we didn't hear the radio we wouldn't know they were doing it.

And if there is a change in how the PU delivers, guess what? The teams will work out strategies to minimise the lap time just as they do now. And the vast majority of punters will know SFA about it unless one team either pulls a blinder or drops a clanger.

[Zynerji]

Remove the MGU-H, triple the MGU-K output, and give them 70kg of fuel and you will go from PUs that are 1000hp most of the time, to 1000hp some of the time and embarrassing deceleration near the end of the straights.

So what? Why is it "embarrassing"? The teams already spend various amounts of time at the ends of straights in regen or even lift-and-coast i.e. delivering reduced or even no power to the rear wheels. We've heard drivers being told to do multiple hundred-metres of lift-and-coast, and, guess what? If we didn't hear the radio we wouldn't know they were doing it.

And if there is a change in how the PU delivers, guess what? The teams will work out strategies to minimise the lap time just as they do now. And the vast majority of punters will know SFA about it unless one team either pulls a blinder or drops a clanger.

Just a quick Q for you JaF. How much laptime loss is acceptable for you? I'm fine with losing 3-4s over the current cars, but we may be looking at 8-10 with these regs...

Where are you on that?

[Just_a_fan]

Just a quick Q for you JaF. How much laptime loss is acceptable for you? I'm fine with losing 3-4s over the current cars, but we may be looking at 8-10 with these regs...

Where are you on that?

Is that based on today's lap times or the lap times we might be seeing in two years? 8-10s today might be 6-8s by the end of 2025. And that won't be too horrible IMHO.

There's also the fact that the teams will figure the new rules out quite quickly. Look at the start of the hybrid era. Silverstone (high speed, lots of PU use so perhaps a good show of PU change effects) pole time was cut from 1.35 in 2014 to 1.29 in 2016. 6 seconds in 2 years.

And if the rules take us back 8-10 seconds, that's no different to going back to 2014 levels of pace - Max's Silverstone pole lap was 9 seconds quicker this year than Nico's in 2014. And I remember people moaning that the cars were "slow" in 2014 but really they weren't that bad - certainly no one stood by the track could tell the difference. So, perhaps let's not all worry too much at this stage.

Oh, and if I offered you 8s / lap slower but some of the best racing you've ever seen, would that 8s still be an issue? Perhaps the different strategies brought out to deal with the changes will gives us some excitement on track. We can but dream.

[Zynerji]

Just a quick Q for you JaF. How much laptime loss is acceptable for you? I'm fine with losing 3-4s over the current cars, but we may be looking at 8-10 with these regs...

Where are you on that?

Is that based on today's lap times or the lap times we might be seeing in two years? 8-10s today might be 6-8s by the end of 2025. And that won't be too horrible IMHO.

There's also the fact that the teams will figure the new rules out quite quickly. Look at the start of the hybrid era. Silverstone (high speed, lots of PU use so perhaps a good show of PU change effects) pole time was cut from 1.35 in 2014 to 1.29 in 2016. 6 seconds in 2 years.

And if the rules take us back 8-10 seconds, that's no different to going back to 2014 levels of pace - Max's Silverstone pole lap was 9 seconds quicker this year than Nico's in 2014. And I remember people moaning that the cars were "slow" in 2014 but really they weren't that bad - certainly no one stood by the track could tell the difference. So, perhaps let's not all worry too much at this stage.

Oh, and if I offered you 8s / lap slower but some of the best racing you've ever seen, would that 8s still be an issue? Perhaps the different strategies brought out to deal with the changes will gives us some excitement on track. We can but dream.

I was just checking your temperature on that topic. If 8-10 puts us back to 2014 speed, that honestly isn't too terrible.

[wuzak]

Similar arguments and posturing were made pre-2014; ICE was intended to be a L4 block. Ferrari stated that they would leave as they have no place in their brand (showing complete ignorance of their history in the process).

Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes were all willing to go to a 4 cylinder. In part, the 4 cylinder was to lure a member of VAG, but that didn't happen.

The move to ditch the L4 for V6s didn't come until after VAG said they wouldn't join, and Ferrari weren't the only ones to prefer the V6. Some teams were also in support for V6s (for packaging).

If VAG signed up for 2014, the PUs would have been L4s.

[wuzak]

Remove the MGU-H, triple the MGU-K output, and give them 70kg of fuel and you will go from PUs that are 1000hp most of the time, to 1000hp some of the time and embarrassing deceleration near the end of the straights.

So what? Why is it "embarrassing"? The teams already spend various amounts of time at the ends of straights in regen or even lift-and-coast i.e. delivering reduced or even no power to the rear wheels. We've heard drivers being told to do multiple hundred-metres of lift-and-coast, and, guess what? If we didn't hear the radio we wouldn't know they were doing it.

And if there is a change in how the PU delivers, guess what? The teams will work out strategies to minimise the lap time just as they do now. And the vast majority of punters will know SFA about it unless one team either pulls a blinder or drops a clanger.

The difference is that for 2026 the cars could potentially go from 1000hp to 400hp while at full throttle on the straight.

Currently the equivalent is likely to be 1000hp to 850hp (turn off the MGUK near the end of the straight to recover energy from MGUH to battery).

Lift and coast is generally for fuel saving or brake saving, not so much about the ERS.

[wuzak]

Yes, but the moans are political. It doesn't matter that the fuel allocation has increased - it's the same for all and thus shouldn't matter. However, it's an issue for the individual teams for various reasons be it PU deficit, suspension deficit, etc., whatever it is that their team will struggle with as a result of the changes. So the moans are political.

There is also the fact that the FIA are trying to promote sustainability, which is difficult to show when the PU has reduced average available power but still uses the same amount of fuel in a race.

There are also now claims of needing 30kg of extra cooling for the 2026 cars. That also means extra drag, which also goes against sustainability.

I am starting to wonder if the extra power of the ERS will only be compensating for its own weight, rather than contributing to performance.

[Just_a_fan]

Lift and coast is generally for fuel saving or brake saving, not so much about the ERS.

Yes, but the point is that the teams are doing it and, without the radio telling us, most have no idea. It doesn't affect visuals because people can't tell.

Similarly, Red Bull backing off through Eau Rouge/ Raidillon. Big difference in speed according to the data, but who noticed it live during the race?

[KimiRai]

https://www.racefans.net/2023/08/16/tea ... its-krack/

Teams will need “drastic steps” on chassis to suit 2026 power units – Krack

Aston Martin team principal Mike Krack says he shares Red Bull counterpart Christian Horner’s concerns over Formula 1’s 2026 power unit regulations.

Red Bull’s Horner has repeatedly expressed worries this year about the power unit regulations set to be introduced in 2026. Although 1.6-litre V6 engines will be retained, the power unit designs will see heavily revised as F1 plans to drop the MGU-H element and greatly increases electrical power as a proportion of overall output.
Horner suggested that the rules risk creating “Frankenstein” cars and could lead to undesirable driving situations where drivers would have to shift down on long straights to maximise power unit performance. Reigning world champion Max Verstappen has also said the current regulations would produce “terrible” cars based on Red Bull’s early simulator analysis.

In an exclusive conversation with RaceFans, Krack was asked whether the 2026 regulations were a concern to him and his response was: “Yes, it is.”

“It is for all of us,” he continued. “I think the engine manufacturers – or the PU manufacturers that we have to call them – together with the FIA, they made this set of regulations believing that the chassis can follow. And then we have seen that we have to take some drastic steps on the chassis regulations to make it work. But it is technically possible.

“That is why I always say let’s work together in the interests of the whole thing to make it work. I’m quite confident that we can find a set of regs that will make it work and that everybody will be happy with.”

Aston Martin will move on from a long-term partnership with Mercedes predating the 1.6L V6 era when the 2026 power unit formula comes into effect as they switch supplier to Honda. Krack says that his team are already involved in heavy discussions with the Japanese manufacturer about the new power units.

“There is a dialogue on all fronts,” he said. “Be it from sporting – how many passes do you need – be it what structure you need in the paddock, do we sit together, do we do separate, these kind of things because they also have long, long lead times.

“But then it’s also about how is the packaging of the engine in a ’26 chassis from what we know so far. So these are these preliminary talks. You discuss basically from sporting, finance, technical, the whole areas, we all have defined partners or business partners. And the collaboration has started there with discussions regularly. We try to see each other here and there.”

Despite Honda infamously struggling during the early years of the hybrid turbo V6 era after they rejoined F1 as a power unit supplier in 2015, Krack says he is “very confident” that Honda will deliver a strong power unit in 2026.

“I’m very confident because from what I see Honda is fantastic, they are real racers,” Krack said. “They push everything and you see, they are giving the world championship engine.

“It is more about being humble, like how can we cope and how can we maintain a high level with them. But there is no prejudice at all, from what I have seen so far I’m very impressed.”

[Vanja #66]

https://www-formulapassion-it.translate ... r_pto=wapp

This is a bad move, there is now talk of continuously variable aero loading. This needs to be cut back to the idea of regular configuration for corners and low drag configuration for straights.

Continuously variable aero sounds like going from crawling to running sprints with jumping hurdles - completely skipping walking and regular running in the process... Why am I not surprised they found a way to make a good idea very bad...