2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[AR3-GP]

A "number" being 2?

1) Front wheel MGU would help with the braking balance, should be less of an issue than teh rear brake by wire with such powerful recovery.

Uncapped how?
In power recovery, or energy per lap, or both?
Underbraking only, or anywhere, anytime?

Uncapped recovery under braking and getting rid of running the ICE to make electricity. The entire braking capacity should be performed by MGU. Mechanical brakes would only be available for emergency stopping if MGU failure occurs.

 

2) How much range?

Current battery rules allow for 4MJ per lap from 35kg ES, ~25kg of which is the actual batteries.

The actual storage capacity is probably 10Mj, or more. 10MJ would give ~28s at full power.

A Grand Prix is ~80-120 minutes.

The formula E battery has 51kWh (183.6MJ), weighs 284kg. Pit recharging is allowed (but not yet the planned 30s charging), and the races last 45 minutes.

Making the racing worse is not a criteria (and has never stopped F1 before) so weight does not matter. If they want road relevance, they should go all the way. I think the F1 hybrids are only tangentially related to the road in their design and how they are used. Perhaps include an EV-only range component and maybe EV only in the pitlane and under safety car?

What we have now for 2026 is burning petrol with ~48% thermal efficiency to make electricity so that we may claim that our cars are "electric" . The reason they are using less fuel is not because efficiency increased appreciably, but instead because they just cut the fuel flow in the regs and said "good luck" to the people responsible for the chassis regs...

Nobody is claiming that the 2026 car is "electric".

Wait for the marketing materials.

You can already find this in F1.com

Environmental sustainability – the 2026 power unit will include an increase in the deployment of electrical power to up to 50% and utilise a 100% sustainable fuel

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... ytVVYjz2Z5

New power unit rules introduced for 2026 will see a move to 50% internal combustion and 50% electrical power together with the use of 100% sustainable fuels.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... Mes0c8M9kc

It's a deceiving way of explaining things.

It is a hybrid system, where the maximum power is roughlky 50/50 split between the ICE and the electric motor.

They will use less fuel because the cars will have less drag and be slower.

They are using less fuel because the PU regulations tell you how much fuel to use and it is simply less. While active aero would be desirable in any sustainability/efficiency campaign, it has only become a discussion point after the PU regulations were produced and it was believed that there would be deficiencies in the racing/entertainment.


The way they have gone about this seems a bit halfhearted? What are they doing on the logistics side where most of F1's carbon footprint lies? Where are the electric transporters and electric safety cars?

I think F1 should decide what it wants to be and go full send in that way. We seem to be in a strange middle ground that optimizes nothing?

[peewon]

It is, of course, an absolute coincidence only Red Bull is publicly complaining so hard

Its possible its self serving but true (at least to some extent) at the same time. Some of the potential issues with the regs were highlighted in this video as well..

[mzso]

Turbo lag has been mentioned as something that can make the cars exciting to watch, but it could be several seconds before the turbo comes on boost. The current units would be around 5-10s if not for the MGUH.

Can the manufacturers just incorporate anti-lag into their engine maps or is that prevented by the regs?

Anti-lag uses fuel which is restricted in current F1, and is only allowed to be injected into the combustion chamber by direct injection.

Any reason to think turbo lag will be relevant, when there's a powerful electric motor in the back?
Which you want to use for acceleration as much as possible anyway.

[Vanja #66]

Its possible its self serving but true (at least to some extent) at the same time. Some of the potential issues with the regs were highlighted in this video as well..

Rules are still being written and updated regularly. The basic scope and the layout was agreed almost 2 years ago. There are areas that should be defined better, areas that should be defined in a different way and areas yet to be defined at all. 5 makers can hardly be heard unless asked and they raise some concerns in a constructive matter when doing so.

[Cs98]

One of those 5 manufacturers is not like the others, at least not in the context of your sentence, you know… given they have always been in f1. It’s nice for FIA and FOM to know they won’t quit over some engine rules.

Aren't they? Their business is selling cars, they are publicly traded. Their interests align with the other manufacturers in that regard.

But I don’t think you get to make fun of the other teams for beating them and telling them to do better rather than whine, but engine changes instead you go back to whining.

Is there a point in here?

Engine changes have been a part of f1 forever, and hybrids for a decade now. They aren’t going away and RBR entered the engine business and broke the relationship with honda knowing this was happening.

That they have, and they can always be discussed and criticised on the merits of the change. Change is not good by definition, it all depends on what the change is. In this particular case, I think there are issues that need to be addressed. Certainly since RB made their comments a year ago things have already happened. First there were reports of the fuel weight being bumped from 70kg to 90-100kg, hardly insignificant. Now recently we've had the reports of the FIA having to rethink active aero due to the envisioned aero concept creating cars that were dangerous and slow. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but if you are coming to that realisation with around 6 months to go until these rules need to be ready, maybe there's an issue. Maybe you've left yourself with an aerodynamic problem that is bigger than you anticipated, because some manufacturers wanted a big electrification number for marketing.

Once you have both aero/chassis and engine you are a manufacturer like the others.

In F1, but not in your core business that you are trying to market through F1.

[Xyz22]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/what ... /10599603/

[dren]

Should have modified the PU regulations so they wouldn't need this nonsense.

[Zynerji]

After reading this

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10599702/

I'm now all for pushing the 2026 regs out until 2028, and let us have 3 years of convergence racing!

Having Q2 covered by .2s would make the most exciting season of all time.

[mzso]

Should have modified the PU regulations so they wouldn't need this nonsense.

Not even that. Just a bit of "add more fuel" would help. Which is more like a PU usage regulation.

[mzso]

After reading this

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10599702/

I'm now all for pushing the 2026 regs out until 2028, and let us have 3 years of convergence racing!

Having Q2 covered by .2s would make the most exciting season of all time.

The ones winning always claim that the field is converging. So that their accomplishments seem more meaningful, and to stave off interference to their dominance.

[Zynerji]

After reading this

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/newey ... /10599702/

I'm now all for pushing the 2026 regs out until 2028, and let us have 3 years of convergence racing!

Having Q2 covered by .2s would make the most exciting season of all time.

The ones winning always claim that the field is converging. So that their accomplishments seem more meaningful, and to stave off interference to their dominance.

Meh. I feel 2021 was kinda the same way. If the 22 regs would have been delayed until this year, the racing would be super tight.

[deadhead]

[Hoffman900]

https://ibb.co/LpFHywP

I don’t think it’s that easy… the wing sets up flow over and under the entire car. Doing what is illustrated may very well actually increase drag

[Vanja #66]

True, if used front active aero should be limited to small changes of the rear most front wing flap, even then it will be tricky but solvable

[FW17]

True, if used front active aero should be limited to small changes of the rear most front wing flap, even then it will be tricky but solvable

Tricky but it will be interesting field of study for Aero department. The shaping of the side pods will be all the more important as to be low drag when front DRS is open and closed.

Red Bull has a wonderful system of having least drag when rear wing is open now which is a real differentiator with other teams. 2026 is going to be all the more a test for the aero department to come up with the best car in both states of the DRS