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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

mzso wrote:
18 Jun 2024, 13:31
Okay, so what did you mean?
Sorry for a late reply, it was a hectic weekend and not in a good way to be honest. As far as CFD results go, this article is a gold mine for anyone interested in learning more about the level of CFD preparation for F1 aero development

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulati ... vid-penner

The best visualisation of vortices is this one (this is bottom view, so floor and lower barge board vortices are visible)

Image

What strikes first is how clean the front wing area is, apart from Y250 vortices. With 2018 wings like bellow, front wing was equally ridden with vortices etc, so this is why FOM and FIA introduced 2019 front wing simplification, to try to reduce the losses to front wing of the following car at least

Image

These vortices have a direct downforce benefit when they are spinning near the surface, as their core is very low pressure due to high rotation velocity, and this is visible bellow. The floor itself has a lot of leading edge vortex generators and overall at least 3 big vortices are formed along each side of the floor in this case

Image

Also note how many small vortices there are outboard in this area, clearly visible with skin friction visualisation

Image

Vorticity depends on pressure difference, so when there's smaller delta you have lower vorticity, which can be reduced so much the vortex breaks up before it can even "do" anything. Smaller pressure delta on the following car comes from two thing mainly and both get worse as you get closer:

- different airflow angle due to upwash caused by the car ahead
- lower total energy in this same turbulent upwash wake, further reducing both pressure and suction on every surface of the following car

This is an article on this topic from a few years ago --> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/formula- ... rn-larsson

Image

So everything about those cars that relied heavily on strong vorticity to generate downforce was always going to be very bad for racing. I'd go as far as saying DRS flap gap should have been bigger to allow bigger top speed delta with those cars.

Image

Ultimately, this is interesting for aerodynamicist and performance engineers, but it's a big problem for drivers when they don't have 3+s of clear air ahead. This is why keeping the idea of clean surfaces is good for 2026 cars and having already decided to abandon tunnels, I hope the FIA will at least allow a big leading edge height for the floor to allow teams to do what they want with it and make it possible to gain some performance with time.
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:
19 Jun 2024, 08:20
Off topic posts from the last couple of days have been reported, let's please separate PU from Aero and Chassis regs discussions and keep things on topic here, thanks

2026 PU thread is here --> https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29581
The PU is linked with the chassis, because its characteristics dictate what is required from the chassis.

Also, discussion about the minimum weight of the PU is important, as there seems to be the impression that the 2026 PUs will be 30kg+ heavier than the current units.

If the PU is truly 30kg heavier, losing 30kg from the current cars wilol mean 60kg loss in the chassis, which would be difficult.

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 11:04
The PU is linked with the chassis, because its characteristics dictate what is required from the chassis.

Also, discussion about the minimum weight of the PU is important, as there seems to be the impression that the 2026 PUs will be 30kg+ heavier than the current units.

If the PU is truly 30kg heavier, losing 30kg from the current cars wilol mean 60kg loss in the chassis, which would be difficult.
Yes, that's why previous discussions were on topic. Endless ping-pong about how "green" electric power is, if sound is core attribute of F1 cars, should ICE be outlawed etc is off topic even in 2026 PU thread...
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

FW17 wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 07:46
deadhead wrote:
18 Jun 2024, 21:11
https://ibb.co/3k7jLBH
They should at least go full flat bottom without the 50mm step and keep only the 10 mm plank for ride height control.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE_UDfxXIAQS7t_.jpg
We had flat bottoms for years. And it results in the following car burning its tires off , creating gaps and terrible racing. That everyone seems to have forgotten about. And there was lots of different changes to try and mitigate it. None worked.

2 years ago , 2026 was known as the power unit regs change. The chassis was supposed to basically be the same. It wasn't a chassis reg change. But it turned into that thanks to the Frankenstein power units.

The 2026 rules will be the least future poof yet. By 2030, another total revamp will be needed. Probably a reversion back to tunnel floors.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 07:46
deadhead wrote:
18 Jun 2024, 21:11
https://ibb.co/3k7jLBH
They should at least go full flat bottom without the 50mm step and keep only the 10 mm plank for ride height control.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE_UDfxXIAQS7t_.jpg
Why?
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 09:48


What strikes first is how clean the front wing area is, apart from Y250 vortices. With 2018 wings like bellow, front wing was equally ridden with vortices etc, so this is why FOM and FIA introduced 2019 front wing simplification, to try to reduce the losses to front wing of the following car at least

The model used is missing some under-wing strakes on the front wing, it should be noted. Of course, even with those included, it would still be "clean" compared to the hugely involved wings from 2 seasons before.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 22:57
We had flat bottoms for years. And it results in the following car burning its tires off , creating gaps and terrible racing. That everyone seems to have forgotten about. And there was lots of different changes to try and mitigate it. None worked.
I don't recall there being talk of "burning the tyres off", except in the recent past with Pirelli.

Before that it was a matter of the following car losing downforce and teh balance of downforce front to rear.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 23:28
FW17 wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 07:46
deadhead wrote:
18 Jun 2024, 21:11
https://ibb.co/3k7jLBH
They should at least go full flat bottom without the 50mm step and keep only the 10 mm plank for ride height control.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE_UDfxXIAQS7t_.jpg
Why?
Floors are more efficient than wings when following cars closely
The increased reliance on high downforce wings is going to make it difficult to follow closely
Floor running closer to road will be more efficient and less prone to turbulence in close running rather than one that is 50 mm off the ground (assumption)
So the stepped floor that is proposed will not allow cars to follow closely in the corners and will solely depend on overspeed from the MGUK for overtaking on the straights

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

TeamKoolGreen wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 22:57


We had flat bottoms for years. And it results in the following car burning its tires off , creating gaps and terrible racing. That everyone seems to have forgotten about. And there was lots of different changes to try and mitigate it. None worked.
We had flat bottom from 1983 to 1994
We had stepped bottom from 1995 to 2021

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 04:48
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 22:57


We had flat bottoms for years. And it results in the following car burning its tires off , creating gaps and terrible racing. That everyone seems to have forgotten about. And there was lots of different changes to try and mitigate it. None worked.
We had flat bottom from 1983 to 1994
We had stepped bottom from 1995 to 2021
Flat or stepped aren't going to make a noticeable difference in following characteristics.

Aggressive tunnel floors is the answer. I'll look forward to 2025. And 2031 when they will probably be back

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

George Russell called for active suspension in 2022. He was probably right. Then the tunnel floor cars wouldn't have to be so stiff and low.

Active suspension was taken out due to cost but if the components were made spec , it would be cheap and easy

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

wuzak wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 02:43
TeamKoolGreen wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 22:57
We had flat bottoms for years. And it results in the following car burning its tires off , creating gaps and terrible racing. That everyone seems to have forgotten about. And there was lots of different changes to try and mitigate it. None worked.
I don't recall there being talk of "burning the tyres off", except in the recent past with Pirelli.

Before that it was a matter of the following car losing downforce and teh balance of downforce front to rear.
It happened constantly in 2021 between Max and LH.

Here is a quote from Sainz .

Driver’s view – Carlos Sainz: “It’s surface overheating especially. It’s the thing that as soon as you are behind a car and you lose a bit of traction, a bit of braking grip, you start slipping the tyre and that extra slip means the next corner you have less grip, the next corner you have a bit less grip and you are only able to follow for one or two laps and then you have to back off.”

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

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 04:46
Floor running closer to road will be more efficient and less prone to turbulence in close running rather than one that is 50 mm off the ground (assumption)
Less turbulence ingested depends a lot on how high the leading edge is and how the flow ahead of and around the leading edge behaves, with all the bodywork and front wheels ahead etc. Non-stepped floor, being very low, is also prone to scraping the ground in roll and thus accidentally getting sealed off, meaning unpredictable downforce levels in corners
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 08:59
FW17 wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 04:46
Floor running closer to road will be more efficient and less prone to turbulence in close running rather than one that is 50 mm off the ground (assumption)
Less turbulence ingested depends a lot on how high the leading edge is and how the flow ahead of and around the leading edge behaves, with all the bodywork and front wheels ahead etc. Non-stepped floor, being very low, is also prone to scraping the ground in roll and thus accidentally getting sealed off, meaning unpredictable downforce levels in corners
In the years I watched F1 I never saw a car loosing control because the floor hit the ground

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

Post

FW17 wrote:
20 Jun 2024, 04:46
Just_a_fan wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 23:28
FW17 wrote:
19 Jun 2024, 07:46


They should at least go full flat bottom without the 50mm step and keep only the 10 mm plank for ride height control.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE_UDfxXIAQS7t_.jpg
Why?
Floors are more efficient than wings when following cars closely
The increased reliance on high downforce wings is going to make it difficult to follow closely
Floor running closer to road will be more efficient and less prone to turbulence in close running rather than one that is 50 mm off the ground (assumption)
So the stepped floor that is proposed will not allow cars to follow closely in the corners and will solely depend on overspeed from the MGUK for overtaking on the straights
Flat bottomed cars had their own issues and, strangely, didn't always allow the drivers to follow that well either.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.