Holm86 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2025, 15:47
There's no DRS in the 2026 regulations
...and it’s being replaced by an “adjuster system” (AS).
Per issue 13:
-There are front wing and rear wing versions of the adjuster system (FWAS & RWAS).
-FW: up to 3 profiles, one or two of the rearmost of which can comprise the FWAS.
-RW: up to 3 profiles, the rearmost of which can comprise the RWAS.
-If using 2 profiles in the FWAS they can rotate along their own axis, with a max deviation of 30 mm for the “Primary Flap” and 60mm for the “Secondary Flap.”
-FWAS flap pivot axis can be angled up to 30 deg from transverse, meaing (I take it) there can be one continuous flap with a 0* axis (like current RW DRS) or one flap per side with up to a 30* axis (like current FW flaps)
-FWAS can have one or two actuators, one centrally with a fairing, or one per side faired with the FW pylons, and be driven electrically (new) or hydraulically
-Two positions like DRS: “corner mode” and “straight-line mode” with a maximum 400 ms transition time.
-There will still be “activation zones” defined by the FIA similar to the current DRS zones--presumably comprising any applicable corners and straights per track.
All told I see one major potential differentiation available across teams: a FWAS that has either one, two, or four rotating flaps. Another less visible one will be the choice to use a hydraulic piston or an electromechanical actuator.
From this section of the regs I’ll leave everyone with a word of the day: fishplate.
lucafo wrote: ↑13 Aug 2025, 09:46
But, with all that restriction, why do not standardize floor and cockpits? A lot of cost savings on crash test and blinded developments!
That might reduce the cost of a car, but all the teams pride themselves on being constructors. I doubt any of them would want a spec chassis, because it would be at odds with their business plan. They’re aerospace companies, vehicle fabricators, etc. They could become assemblers only, but that would be a downsizing to the point of becoming another type of business venture. They might seek other markets if that occurred, as an alternative to selling their manufacturing infrastructure. Once teams start doing that, they might form a breakaway series...
dren wrote: ↑12 Aug 2025, 19:50
Thanks again for the sketches and descriptions. I was not expecting the differences at the start of the last set of regulations so I am hoping I am pleasantly surprised once again with this new set, but there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room.
Lots of boxes each with varying amounts of dev potential. We may see a repeat of '22 onward. One team gets it right and the simplicity forced by the regs means they can be quickly emulated. Given that Newey, an artisan who intuitively knows what won't work, has been technical director on the team that got the aero regs right at the start twice in a row ('09 and '22; '17 was an evolution of '09/'14) it stands to reason we may see a repeat of that. A result of these more prescriptive regulations is that it seems to force one optimal solution due the limited amount of geometry that can used, whereas previously you could argue that two or three distinct dev paths could yield competitive results. It only took one season (or less) for teams to start emulating RB's '22 floor philosophy, suspension, sidepods. McLaren are the only one who took all the details in totality and said, "I'll have that, thank you," and took them even farther--now they're on to be WCC champs two seasons in a row.
