2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
JordanMugen
84
Joined: 17 Oct 2018, 13:36

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:
12 Jun 2024, 20:54
I tend to think that fans, by and large, prefer the aesthetic of cars from the era in which they started following the sport.
I started following in narrow track grooved tyres but I prefer by far the looks of 1989-1992 (or 1972-1992 2.15m width rule era generally). Narrow track cars with narrow rear tyres always looked goofy (like a junior category) to me, especially when the rear wings were narrowed in 2009 and the goofy looking short front wishbones at silly angles (for aero).

By comparison, the 1989-1992 cars with fat rear tyres and small front tyres set far away from the body on long wishbones look wide, mean and "correct" IMO.



Having lost some of the overly fussy bodywork of the 1970's for sleeker designs, they are now wide, mean, sleek and they just look right, no?

Watching the cars trackside at historics, it's the 2.15m F1 cars with the fat rear tyres and high wide rear wings that in person also look perfect and spot on. 8)

I absolutely do not understand why fans prefer narrow track F1 cars to full track F1 cars, or they prefer the narrow reduced width rear tyre? :?:

Yet instead of going up from 2.0m track to the traditional 2.15m track, we are going down to 1.9m track. :| Oh well, at least we aren't going all the way down to 1.8m track...

Would it really be so hard to go back to the above proportions? 245/640-660 R?? front tyres (the actual rim diameter doesn't matter, Goodyear were 640mm diameter, Bridgestone went up to the 660mm maximum permitted) and 385-405/660 R?? rear tyres (or 670-680mm diameter, 680mm is a pretty common diameter for other racing cars), 2.15m track? :)

Would making the front tyres much narrower than the rears again, and moving the mandatory weight distribution rearwards, encourage teams to make much shorter cars? (Or you could just set the maximum wheelbase at 2900-3000mm and tell the teams to like or lump it!)

[To be fair, the 2.0m track cars with narrow front and narrow rear tyres from 1993-1997 still look reasonably in proportion. It's only the 1.8m track cars that look really squashed and goofy, unfortunately the squashed front suspension look still remained somewhat in 2017 due to how the front tyres were scaled up despite never having been scaled down in the first place. (Who at the FIA decided that reducing the "free" roll stiffness of the cars in 1998 would make things better?!)]

Why are the FIA pandering to fans and moving the tyres closer to the body in 2026? Is it really true that narrower 1.9m track combined with inwashing front wing and inwashing floor vane will reduce the width of the wake behind the car? :?:

Obviously the actual 1.8m track era had dire racing and dire dirty air problems, despite the cars being physically narrow (partially due to the tyres being too close to the body than 2.15m and 2.0m era, thus making flow control of front tyre wake far more critical?).

-----

Of course all the 1960's cigar cars are really beautiful, I quite like the early wing cars after a maximum rear wing height had been introduced. But that's another age (outboard fuel tanks allowed among other things!) and there's no chance of the cars looking like anything like that again! 8)

User avatar
Vanja #66
1562
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:
12 Jun 2024, 20:54
In a previous life, I was a very outspoken critic of attempts to introduce major aerodynamic changes that would ostensibly increase overtaking, because I simply don't think it's possible. Anything short of complete standardization is just kicking the can down the road, and nothing I've seen in the intervening years has changed my mind.

(To be clear, I don't support the standardization of anything)

Seeing F1 now come full circle pisses me off all over again. I lament what could have been had the Grand Poobahs in charge taken a more holistic approach when assessing the overtaking problem. Instead, we got the Overtaking Working Group, which probably should have been called the Myopic Focus On Wake Turbulence Working Group, because little else was considered.

Fun fact: the winglets, VGs, flow conditionors, etc., that were discarded for 2009 weren't really eliminated for aerodynamic reasons...
Well, 2022 rules showed that methodical approach to rule making can make a difference. Of course, FIA crumbled under pressure and raised floor edges, making cars harder to follow and making one particular approach to bodywork design the only approach that works.

2026 rules make a further step towards reducing the number of vortices all over the car, so I think those cars will be ok to follow through the corners. I would still prefer they stuck to the initial idea of giving the following car more downforce while following to offset the loss, instead of introducing a push-to-pass mode to replace DRS, but it is what it is...

As for 2009 rules, what were they good for? Absolutely nothing :mrgreen:

wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 00:59
The power output of the MGUK already is reduced at speed.

Reducing the maximum output in normal mode would not require any hardware changes.
No, of course it wouldn't, but then the whole thing is too big and heavy for its purpose. At the same time, MGU is far more efficient under acceleration than an ICE so this "lower" speed range is where it's most useful.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
638
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 07:55
wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 00:59
The power output of the MGUK already is reduced at speed.
Reducing the maximum output in normal mode would not require any hardware changes.
No, of course it wouldn't, but then the whole thing is too big and heavy for its purpose.

At the same time, MGU is far more efficient under acceleration than an ICE so this "lower" speed range is where it's most useful.
it can't be smaller/lighter unless its generation capability is similarly reduced

'"the MGU-K is far more efficient under acceleration than the ICE"
what does that even mean ?
(on this site only the word 'stable' engenders more meanings than does the word 'efficient')

both the ICE and the MGU-K have limits to their speed of response loaded and unloaded - the MGU-K's isn't better

the MGU-K has the luxury of being a part-time worker that is allowed to hold back fuel for use when most beneficial
recovery & 'holding back' by means other than electrical has never been allowed ...
because F1 is the hybrid show
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 13 Jun 2024, 11:32, edited 2 times in total.

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 07:55
wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 00:59
The power output of the MGUK already is reduced at speed.

Reducing the maximum output in normal mode would not require any hardware changes.
No, of course it wouldn't, but then the whole thing is too big and heavy for its purpose. At the same time, MGU is far more efficient under acceleration than an ICE so this "lower" speed range is where it's most useful.
I was only suggesting reducing the output of teh MGUK. Its recovery could still be at 350kW.

With 350kW in and 250kW out 10s of braking recovery would give 14s of deployment.

And the best use for the MGUK is to overcome turbo lag.

With the low drag concept, and the rules as they are written, there is little need for 350kW output.

Also, if the energy recovery is reduced to only be from braking, the battery could be smaller and the cooling for the ERS potemtially be smaller and lighter.

Also, the whole PU is overweight for its output.

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 10:52
the MGU-K has the luxury of being a part-time worker that is allowed to rest and to recover and store its fuel
Probably won't be too much time for the MGUK to rest.

Probably it will spend most of its time slowing the car down - recovery during braking, recovery at full throttle at the end of straights, recovery at part throttle.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1562
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 10:52
it can't be smaller/lighter unless its generation capability is similarly reduced

'"the MGU-K is far more efficient under acceleration than the ICE"
what does that even mean ?

both the ICE and the MGU-K have limits to their speed of response loaded and unloaded - the MGU-K's isn't better

the MGU-K has the luxury of being a part-time worker that is allowed to hold back fuel for use when most beneficial
recovery & 'holding back' by means other than electrical has never been allowed ...
because F1 is the hybrid show
We've literally been over this 2 months ago in this same thread, e-motor (MGU) is capable of delivering peak torque values along the entire RPM span from 80-95% energy efficiency, while typical piston engine is capable of reaching only 25-35% efficiency in these conditions. This most likely increased to 35-45% for F1 engines today, which is still over 2 times worse than what any decent e-motor is capable of.

Image

Image

wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 10:59
I was only suggesting reducing the output of teh MGUK. Its recovery could still be at 350kW.

With 350kW in and 250kW out 10s of braking recovery would give 14s of deployment.

And the best use for the MGUK is to overcome turbo lag.

With the low drag concept, and the rules as they are written, there is little need for 350kW output.

Also, if the energy recovery is reduced to only be from braking, the battery could be smaller and the cooling for the ERS potemtially be smaller and lighter.

Also, the whole PU is overweight for its output.
But why would you reduce the output in acceleration conditions when it works the best and you want to deploy it?
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 11:38
But why would you reduce the output in acceleration conditions when it works the best and you want to deploy it?
250kW not enough for that?

If the MGUK is used for acceleration from low speed, why not have it at 350kW to 200kph and then ramp it down to 100kW or 0kW at 300kph?

Also, at a lot of those acceleration zones the cars are traction limited. So adding power from the MGUK may not help.

And if the acceleration zone is traction limited, they may make as much power from the ICE as possible and use the MGUK to remove power from the drive train (ie MGUK is in recovery mode) to get to the power demanded by teh driver.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
638
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 11:38
Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 10:52
'"the MGU-K is far more efficient under acceleration than the ICE"
what does that even mean ?
We've literally been over this 2 months ago in this same thread, e-motor (MGU) is capable of delivering peak torque values along the entire RPM span from 80-95% energy efficiency, while typical piston engine is capable of reaching only 25-35% efficiency in these conditions. This most likely increased to 35-45% for F1 engines today, which is still over 2 times worse than what any decent e-motor is capable of.
pardon me for asking what was meant !

sadly ....
the MGU-K fuel is electricity made by recovery from mechanical energy that is made by the ICE from its chemical fuel
so the MGU-K propulsion route on the 2026 F1 car is 35-45% efficient not 80-95% efficient

User avatar
Vanja #66
1562
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 12:33
If the MGUK is used for acceleration from low speed, why not have it at 350kW to 200kph and then ramp it down to 100kW or 0kW at 300kph?
Yes, 350kW is about optimal to 200-250kmh I think, but FIA and teams will agree on the final distribution obviously.

wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 12:33
Also, at a lot of those acceleration zones the cars are traction limited. So adding power from the MGUK may not help.

And if the acceleration zone is traction limited, they may make as much power from the ICE as possible and use the MGUK to remove power from the drive train (ie MGUK is in recovery mode) to get to the power demanded by teh driver.
The whole point of these PUs would be to deploy MGU as much as possible in acceleration phase where they are far more efficient than ICE (this is how plug-in hybrids work when both MGU and ICE are working), so I'd rather reduce ICE input while accelerating at traction limit as it doesn't work in a very efficient regime. This is also the reason why teams aren't harvesting in acceleration

Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 12:42
sadly ....
the MGU-K fuel is electricity made by recovery from mechanical energy that is made by the ICE from its chemical fuel
so the MGU-K propulsion route on the 2026 F1 car is 35-45% efficient not 80-95% efficient
That's not correct for two reasons:

1) braking energy is also stored (this is why hybrids were introduced as KERS 15 years ago) and this will obviously increase even more with 2026 PU ES storage capacity over a lap
2) you'd want to harvest ICE energy at peak efficiency of the ICE, which has been over 50% for years as far as I know; this is why teams are harvesting on straights and not during acceleration (other than the fact they are deploying under acceleration)

This is the working principle behind increased efficiency and lower fuel consumption of any hybrid powertrain.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
638
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 13:08
Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 12:42
sadly ....
the MGU-K fuel is electricity made by recovery from mechanical energy that is made by the ICE from its chemical fuel
so the MGU-K propulsion route on the 2026 F1 car is 35-45% efficient not 80-95% efficient
That's not correct for two reasons:
1) braking energy is also stored (this is why hybrids were introduced as KERS 15 years ago) and this will obviously increase even more with 2026 PU ES storage capacity over a lap
2) you'd want to harvest ICE energy at peak efficiency of the ICE, which has been over 50% for years as far as I know; this is why teams are harvesting on straights and not during acceleration (other than the fact they are deploying under acceleration)
This is the working principle behind increased efficiency and lower fuel consumption of any hybrid powertrain.
you don't say !!

this is still 'smoke-and-mirrors' talk as if the ICE/electric storage hybrid is the only type possible
the FIA ban on any other type is the reason for this (eg Williams mechanical energy storage people would think)
and the FIA's double standards (eg the ICE can't choose its fueling rate but the MGU-K can)

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 14:52
Vanja #66 wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 13:08
Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 12:42
sadly ....
the MGU-K fuel is electricity made by recovery from mechanical energy that is made by the ICE from its chemical fuel
so the MGU-K propulsion route on the 2026 F1 car is 35-45% efficient not 80-95% efficient
That's not correct for two reasons:
1) braking energy is also stored (this is why hybrids were introduced as KERS 15 years ago) and this will obviously increase even more with 2026 PU ES storage capacity over a lap
2) you'd want to harvest ICE energy at peak efficiency of the ICE, which has been over 50% for years as far as I know; this is why teams are harvesting on straights and not during acceleration (other than the fact they are deploying under acceleration)
This is the working principle behind increased efficiency and lower fuel consumption of any hybrid powertrain.
you don't say !!

this is still 'smoke-and-mirrors' talk as if the ICE/electric storage hybrid is the only type possible
the FIA ban on any other type is the reason for this (eg Williams mechanical energy storage people would think)
and the FIA's double standards (eg the ICE can't choose its fueling rate but the MGU-K can)
The MGUK has a limit on its "fueling rate" - 350kW.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
638
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 17:37
Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 14:52
... '(eg the ICE can't choose its fueling rate but the MGU-K can)
The MGUK has a limit on its "fueling rate" - 350kW.
the ICE has a limit on the amount of fuel per rev (both above and below 10500 rpm) ...
so ICE torque is artificially constrained (ie it doesn't increase at lower rpm) ..
so the ICE tends to be run around 10500
this helps the electrical designer (by keeping the voltage high) and maybe hinders the ICE designer

the MGU-K fuel is current not power - (and torque is proportional to current regardless of rpm or power)
350 kW regardless of rpm means the permissible MGU-K fueling rate increases as rpm is lower (than 10500 rpm)
ie the permitted torque isn't artificially constrained as rpm falls
this permitted MGU-K torque rise as rpm falls is at present capped c.5800 rpm - so helping the electrical designer)
permitted torque x MGU-K rotational speed = 350 KW for all speeds (above c.5800 rpm or whatever in 2026)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 14 Jun 2024, 10:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1562
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
13 Jun 2024, 14:52
this is still 'smoke-and-mirrors' talk as if the ICE/electric storage hybrid is the only type possible
the FIA ban on any other type is the reason for this (eg Williams mechanical energy storage people would think)
and the FIA's double standards (eg the ICE can't choose its fueling rate but the MGU-K can)
Not sure what you're trying to argue there, to be honest :) Till next time, cheers!
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

TeamKoolGreen
TeamKoolGreen
-5
Joined: 22 Feb 2024, 01:49

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Scarbs most recent take on the 2026 regs. He works for F1 and he's being reasonably objective. " it is a camel of an engine designed by a committee and its not really meeting anybody's needs"


User avatar
Holm86
247
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 03:37
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
14 Jun 2024, 04:31
Scarbs most recent take on the 2026 regs. He works for F1 and he's being reasonably objective. " it is a camel of an engine designed by a committee and its not really meeting anybody's needs"

First of all, why would the battery be much bigger?? Only reason I can think of is that they need more cooling because of the higher charge/discharge cycles.
But according to the regulations, the battery can only contain a maximum charge of 4MJ, that's the same as today.

They also speak of a much more powerful DRS, because the following car can open both front and rear wing in the low drag configuration, but as I understand it, all car will be able to use the low drag configuration on the straights, no matter if they're within the 1 second of the car in front??? The overtaking aid will be the increase in battery power if within that 1 second...