2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[Chuckjr]

They unfortunately banned turbos because those engines were 1600+ horse.

They were nowhere near 1600hp at the 1987 and 1988 maximum boost levels!

It was only in earlier years that there was no boost limit. Weren't the the turbos around 650hp in 1988?

You are correct. It was 1985 when they were running about 1400 horse in quali trim. I sure would like to see those kinds of numbers again!

[mzso]

They unfortunately banned turbos because those engines were 1600+ horse.

They were nowhere near 1600hp at the 1987 and 1988 maximum boost levels!

It was only in earlier years that there was no boost limit. Weren't the the turbos around 650hp in 1988?

You are correct. It was 1985 when they were running about 1400 horse in quali trim. I sure would like to see those kinds of numbers again!

1986 was the last unrestricted year. So surely the most power was produced that year.

[Tommy Cookers]

They were nowhere near 1600hp at the 1987 and 1988 maximum boost levels!
It was only in earlier years that there was no boost limit. Weren't the the turbos around 650hp in 1988?

1st or 2nd gear - (automatic and fault) flap positions A (highest Cdf:Cd ratio)
3rd or 4th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions B etc
5th or 6th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions C etc
7th or 8th gear - (automatic non-fault) flap positions D (lowest Cdf:Cd ratio)
flap positions (front & rear wings) would be car and venue-specific
what's not to like ?

You'd have "no" downforce in high speed corners?! :?:
Far from fixing Andrea Stella's concerns of the cars being too slow in corners and too fast on straights, won't your proposal make those characteristics even worse?!

not so IMO
eg the DF in eg 7th or 8th gear corners is due to whatever has been chosen as (front & rear wing flap positions) D
this scheme should make the car quicker everywhere (than it would be with fixed aero)
it could even give eg at slow speed more DF than Monaco and at high speed less DF than Monza ...
what it gives is due to whatever A B C & D positions were chosen by whatever team for whatever venue
its USP is that braking is longer in distance and duration (than if max Cdf was developed at start of braking)
ie the MGU-K spends much more time for max regen - so much more energy is harvested
the driver's braking task is no more difficult (than the present braking task)


re the turbo engines .....
yes 1986 was the last year without boost limits (or NA cars) ... but ...
for 1986 fuel was reduced to 195 litres (1985 fuel limit was 220 litres for turbo and for NA) ... but ....
the emergence of high-density fuels temporarily defeated the rulemakers (control of power by control of fuel volume)
(and early boost limit mandated hardware/rules were ineffective)

[wuzak]

for 1986 fuel was reduced to 195 litres (1985 fuel limit was 220 litres for turbo and for NA)

Not a problem for qualifying.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Funny how the FIA, Ford and the usual Japanese brands are ditching hybrid in WRC to you guessed it , bring in more manufacturers.

It looks to me like venturi floors and diffusers are shrinking bigtime to reduce drag for the weak power unit. But they are saying that the floors are shrinking to help passing. I don't think that's really true though. They just don't want to say it.

Why can't they vent the venturi tunnels to reduce drag? Neweys AM street car has tunnel vents.

For the record , i was a big supporter of the 2022 regs and still am. So this is really a gut punch. All they have to do is downsize the current cars a bit and amend the rules ro reduce outwash.

[organic]

Funny how the FIA, Ford and the usual Japanese brands are ditching hybrid in WRC to you guessed it , bring in more manufacturers.

It looks to me like venturi floors and diffusers are shrinking bigtime to reduce drag for the weak power unit. But they are saying that the floors are shrinking to help passing. I don't think that's really true though. They just don't want to say it.

Why can't they vent the venturi tunnels to reduce drag? Neweys AM street car has tunnel vents.

For the record , i was a big supporter of the 2022 regs and still am. So this is really a gut punch. All they have to do is downsize the current cars a bit and amend the rules ro reduce outwash.

Diffuser and floor makes up a very slim proportion of chassis drag. And the flat floor proposed won't be making no downforce/drag either.

The main difference between flat and venturi tunnels are the way the cars need to be run in terms of dynamics. It's more likely that move away from venturi tunnels is to prevent cars from needing to run so stiff/low which makes the cars lose all of their agility. According to the FIA, a big goal for 2026 is to improve the agility of the cars which will aid ability of drivers to race closely.

Considering the complaints about current cars from drivers and fans are mostly about the stiffness/ride/weight/drive like boats i think it's not a big leap to assume this is a bigger reason than drag.

[Moctecus]

This is what the FIA themselves said in the press release (source):

- The cars will feature a partially flat floor and a lower-powered diffuser, which will reduce the ground effect and the reliance of the cars on ultra-stiff and low set-ups [emphasis mine].

According to AMuS, this was done for the sake of the drivers' health (source):

The rule-makers want to make life bearable for drivers again by increasing suspension travel. FIA President Mohammed bin Sulayem favours himself as the drivers' advocate. He did not want to be confronted with the accusation that the drivers would suffer long-term damage if they continued to drive the cars of the current generation with their stiff suspensions.

[JordanMugen]

This is what the FIA themselves said in the press release (source):

- The cars will feature a partially flat floor and a lower-powered diffuser, which will reduce the ground effect and the reliance of the cars on ultra-stiff and low set-ups [emphasis mine].

So many people supposed ground effects (or rather Venturi tunnels) would be the solution to great racing, "bring back Venturi tunnels!", but it turns out to be a failure.

That's a shame, but at least they tried.

It's ironic as it is not like teams weren't running cars with rock solid suspension in 1982 once skirts were banned, so surely the stiff suspensions were anticipated?

Were people spoiled by the very soft compliant high-rake cars in 2021 (with the 13" tyres helping too), and startled by the difference?

IIRC even in 2021, F2 cars with 18" tyres were much stiffer than F1 cars -- the F2 cars would lift inside wheels, where the F1 cars would glide over bumps. At first I thought making F1 cars more like F2 cars was neat, i.e., they need more driving and don't just glide over bumps and kerbs, but it seems people don't like that?

[mzso]

This is what the FIA themselves said in the press release (source):

- The cars will feature a partially flat floor and a lower-powered diffuser, which will reduce the ground effect and the reliance of the cars on ultra-stiff and low set-ups [emphasis mine].

According to AMuS, this was done for the sake of the drivers' health (source):

The rule-makers want to make life bearable for drivers again by increasing suspension travel. FIA President Mohammed bin Sulayem favours himself as the drivers' advocate. He did not want to be confronted with the accusation that the drivers would suffer long-term damage if they continued to drive the cars of the current generation with their stiff suspensions.

Couldn't they have just simply raised the sidewall edges? Then made efforts to make sure they're rigid enough?

[Vanja #66]

This is what the FIA themselves said in the press release (source):

- The cars will feature a partially flat floor and a lower-powered diffuser, which will reduce the ground effect and the reliance of the cars on ultra-stiff and low set-ups [emphasis mine].

According to AMuS, this was done for the sake of the drivers' health (source):

The rule-makers want to make life bearable for drivers again by increasing suspension travel. FIA President Mohammed bin Sulayem favours himself as the drivers' advocate. He did not want to be confronted with the accusation that the drivers would suffer long-term damage if they continued to drive the cars of the current generation with their stiff suspensions.

So it's confirmed... This will make it very easy for all teams to reach the peak performance of the chassis and will once again turn Formula 1 into Formula PU.

[FW17]

So welcome back to this.............

[billamend]

So welcome back to this.............

https://www.formula1-dictionary.net/Ima ... 1_2017.jpg

Hope so, that looked so aggressive.

[mzso]

So many people supposed ground effects (or rather Venturi tunnels) would be the solution to great racing, "bring back Venturi tunnels!", but it turns out to be a failure.

That's a shame, but at least they tried.

I don't think that can be concluded. I think it's an FIA failure. They made getting as close to the ground as possible most beneficial for performance.
I think it could have neen avoided. With the sides higher and shaping the floor in such a way that when it gets close to the ground, it decreases downforce.

[Vanja #66]

So many people supposed ground effects (or rather Venturi tunnels) would be the solution to great racing, "bring back Venturi tunnels!", but it turns out to be a failure.

That's a shame, but at least they tried.

It's ironic as it is not like teams weren't running cars with rock solid suspension in 1982 once skirts were banned, so surely the stiff suspensions were anticipated?

Were people spoiled by the very soft compliant high-rake cars in 2021 (with the 13" tyres helping too), and startled by the difference?

Venturi tunnels were introduced to kind of offset the loss of "dirty" downforce generated by massive amount of vortices on front wing and especially bargeboards since 2017. These vortices are the main cause of aero losses when following another car, they are significantly weaker (some probably broke up completely) and thus their impact was much lower. Contrary to that, these venturi floors generate 3 very strong and robust vortical structures - underfloor vortex shed from outwash fences, floor edge vortex shed outside of those fences and diffuser vortex which is unavoidable without side skirts.

Another key issue was reliance on low front wing for very high downforce, this was obviously massively impacted on the following car and this was especially the case with high-rake cars. It will be interesting to see if any team will be able to reintroduce high rake since there will be no bodywork that will allow them to generate strong "floor sealing" structures to prevent big diffuser losses. At the same time, low ride height will be a reliable floor performance generator but downforce levels will be a lot lower and this will allow a lot softer suspension setup anyway.

***
Additionally, new PUs will actually peak 100 HP higher than today (around 1100 HP) according to Tombazis

https://www.racefans.net/2024/06/12/for ... s-in-2026/

[FW17]

It will be interesting to see if any team will be able to reintroduce high rake since there will be no bodywork that will allow them to generate strong "floor sealing" structures to prevent big diffuser losses.

There were not much of a barge boards in 2016, yet we say Red Bull RB-12 worked quiet well with a high rake.