2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[TeamKoolGreen]

A lesson for F1

[mzso]

A lesson for F1

What would be the lesson? That you can achieve similar performance with heavy a heavy EV and a light ICE?

[Tommy Cookers]

the video is wrong about the crash performance of smaller cars
but I can't tell you why because of this site's new torrent of ads

the crash tests measure the effect on a small car of hitting another small car
not the effect on a small car of hitting a larger car
(for that the concrete block should be moving towards the small car being tested)

a 4 star (or whatever) result in a small car doesn't mean that the small car is as safe as a bigger car that scores the same

[Tommy Cookers]

perhaps the mystery down-marker could enlighten us - how is my previous post incorrect ?

isn't the physics of a crash at 60 mph into a 62 ton concrete block ....
exactly the same as crashing a car at 60 mph into an identical car coming the other way at 60 mph ? ....
and different to what happens if the car coming the other way at 60 mph is eg a bigger car

ok we might exempt F1 - but there's some disadvantageous precedent set thereby

[Holm86]

perhaps the mystery down-marker could enlighten us - how is my previous post incorrect ?

isn't the physics of a crash at 60 mph into a 62 ton concrete block ....
exactly the same as crashing a car at 60 mph into an identical car coming the other way at 60 mph ? ....
and different to what happens if the car coming the other way at 60 mph is eg a bigger car

ok we might exempt F1 - but there's some disadvantageous precedent set thereby

I feel like down votes on this page have become disagree votes, which is kind of sad

[hollus]

Well, the downvote does say “Off topic” as the reason. Normal users see that, right?

[Holm86]

Well, the downvote does say “Off topic” as the reason. Normal users see that, right?

No, we can't see the reasons for down votes which can be frustrating as sometimes you get down votes that doesn't make sense

[hollus]

Interesting, thanks! I’ll check if this is as intended.

[mzso]

Well, the downvote does say “Off topic” as the reason. Normal users see that, right?

No, we can't see the reasons for down votes which can be frustrating as sometimes you get down votes that doesn't make sense

Yes we can. Click on the icon, not the number.

For your own posts you can check when and what votes you got. (Edit: actually you can do that for everyone, if you click on the user's reputation value.)

[Holm86]

Well, the downvote does say “Off topic” as the reason. Normal users see that, right?

No, we can't see the reasons for down votes which can be frustrating as sometimes you get down votes that doesn't make sense

Yes we can. Click on the icon, not the number.

For your own posts you can check when and what votes you got.

Okay thanks, didn't know that, it's also not that intuitive as it looks like it's the same button

[Z-one]

https://x.com/Qvist_Designs/status/1862407822891225554

[laspeorasdeaston]

I really recommend you guys to follow this guy https://x.com/Qvist_Designs on Twitter/X, he posts 3d models of each new iteration of the oficial FIA 2026 regs. Its super useful, and they guy is crazy talented.

[FW17]

likely to see this back

[BorisTheBlade]

Hi everyone,

maybe I am a bit late to the party, but the discussions in this topic regarding Adrian Newey's statement and how the whole Drivetrain might be handled led me to some thoughts and conclusions, which I would like to share and discuss with you. Some of them might be totally wrong from my lack of understanding, so please feel free to correct me.

Energy Management Basics
The MGU-K has a limit of 350 kW which works both ways - so you can either accelerate or brake with that amount of power.

There is a 9 MJ or 9.000 kWs recovery limit per lap (although there are also mentions, that this was reduced to 8,5 MJ - but that does not matter much for the topic in general).
If recovery would only take place during braking, you would need to brake for at least 26 seconds (rounded) each lap to recover the full amount allowed. This assumes, that you can recover the full 350 kW during the full length of any braking activity. This will not be the case, as can be seen below.

The following chart shows the g-force that needs to be applied at any given speed in order to recover 350 kW by the MGU-K (no losses included) for a car with a weight of 768 kg (2026 F1 car on fumes).



The bottom line is that, as a safe assumption, all braking occurrences above 100 km/h should net you the full 350kW during the time of braking. At some point below 100 km/h, the g-force might be too much for the rear-wheels to not block - especially given the loss of downforce at lower speeds and mass moving forward under braking.
Front axle recovery would have helped a lot in this regard, but for rear axle recovery, we might lose quite a bit from the theoretical max. of 350 kW when braking for slow corners.

There is no deployment limit - obviously, you will will only be able to apply more than 9.000 kWs a lap in special situations like Qualifying.

The catch is the prescribed maximum capacity of the Battery with only 4 MJ or 4.000 kWs.
Assuming full deployment of the MGU-K for a continous duration, this will only last for 11,5 s (rounded).

If energy would only be recovered during braking - even under ideal circumstances - for any sequence on the lap, where the [amount of time deploying the MGU-K in a meaningful way] - [amount of time braking] is greater than 11,5 s (slightly rounded), you would end up with a fully depleted battery.

ICE Energy Limit
Fuel flow rate is limited to 3.000 MJ per hour, or 3.000.000 kWs per hour or 833 kW. In order to apply 400 kW to the drive shaft with an ICE, it needs an efficiency of 48%. That should be quite a challenge without a MGU-H for further harvesting.
Or am I getting this wrong and it is not a peak limit but an average limit (over a lap/race/whatever)?

Just as a rough calculation: As 1 kg of petrol has around 11,6 kWh of energy, this roughly equates to a consumption of 108 kg during a typical race of 90 minutes and an atypical full throttle part of 100%.
As the fuel limit was raised from 70 to 100 kg for races, this strongly indicates, that it is indeed (now) intended for the ICE to work at 400 kW for >90% of the time.

In the coming weeks I would like to analyse this further based on telemetry data of this year's Barcelona GP, as this has always been kind of a reference track for me. But this takes some, so until then I need to live with some gut feeling and looking at the data at TracingInsights.com.
Does anybody have a source that provides this telemetry data with time on the x-axis instead of distance?

That being said, I see no realistic chance for 26 s of braking over 100 km/h taking place at this track with an average laptime of somewhere between 1:22 and 1:30 during the race next year.
I also do not see a full throttle potential of >90% of the time (not distance).

Conclusion
Not having the MGU-K on disposal when you need it, will cost you significant amounts of laptime next year. So how to not get starved?
All the above leads me to believe, that Newey exactly meant what he said, but that Loew's might have been just a bad example for the purpose of bringing the point across.
There will be a lot of ICE-based energy recovery during cornering - specifically in the range of the lap, where the driver demands between -350 kW (slight braking) and +350 kW (medium acceleration) with his feet. I hope, the idealized chart below helps.



As several people already pointed out, this is obviously influenced by the engine being connected to the wheels via gearbox. So in some corners, different gears will be used due to harvesting instead of what would have been used otherwise. And this is were Loew's is just a bad example, as it already is a 1st gear corner.

But even in Loew's, they will harvest. And only the maximum amount of harvesting has to do with RPM, but even when cornering with the same RPM as today, they will be able to harvest.
Think of it just like a '97 Renault Clio going with 140 km/h on a German Autobahn, when suddenly between let's say Chemnitz and Dresden it hits a 10% steep ascent. The engine is obviously doing a lot of work against the resistance of the hill, but still struggling to keep the RPM or even decreasing.
The MGU-K basically also induces such a resistance against the drive shaft, but in a much more controlled way. This way, ICE-based harvesting will take place during slight-braking, constant speed and up to medium acceleration.

Does any of this make sense to you? Eagerly awaiting your comments. In the meantime, I will need to review the 2026 regulations once again, as all this implies a lot with regards to driver aids.

P.S.
I honestly have no idea how the max. 200 Nm torque constraint in the regulations might influence all of the above.

[michl420]

Hi everyone,

maybe I am a bit late to the party, but the discussions in this topic regarding Adrian Newey's statement and how the whole Drivetrain might be handled led me to some thoughts and conclusions, which I would like to share and discuss with you. Some of them might be totally wrong from my lack of understanding, so please feel free to correct me.

Energy Management Basics
The MGU-K has a limit of 350 kW which works both ways - so you can either accelerate or brake with that amount of power.

There is a 9 MJ or 9.000 kWs recovery limit per lap (although there are also mentions, that this was reduced to 8,5 MJ - but that does not matter much for the topic in general).
If recovery would only take place during braking, you would need to brake for at least 26 seconds (rounded) each lap to recover the full amount allowed. This assumes, that you can recover the full 350 kW during the full length of any braking activity. This will not be the case, as can be seen below.

The following chart shows the g-force that needs to be applied at any given speed in order to recover 350 kW by the MGU-K (no losses included) for a car with a weight of 768 kg (2026 F1 car on fumes).

https://i.imgur.com/d28vKFZ.png

The bottom line is that, as a safe assumption, all braking occurrences above 100 km/h should net you the full 350kW during the time of braking. At some point below 100 km/h, the g-force might be too much for the rear-wheels to not block - especially given the loss of downforce at lower speeds and mass moving forward under braking.
Front axle recovery would have helped a lot in this regard, but for rear axle recovery, we might lose quite a bit from the theoretical max. of 350 kW when braking for slow corners.

There is no deployment limit - obviously, you will will only be able to apply more than 9.000 kWs a lap in special situations like Qualifying.

The catch is the prescribed maximum capacity of the Battery with only 4 MJ or 4.000 kWs.
Assuming full deployment of the MGU-K for a continous duration, this will only last for 11,5 s (rounded).

If energy would only be recovered during braking - even under ideal circumstances - for any sequence on the lap, where the [amount of time deploying the MGU-K in a meaningful way] - [amount of time braking] is greater than 11,5 s (slightly rounded), you would end up with a fully depleted battery.

ICE Energy Limit
Fuel flow rate is limited to 3.000 MJ per hour, or 3.000.000 kWs per hour or 833 kW. In order to apply 400 kW to the drive shaft with an ICE, it needs an efficiency of 48%. That should be quite a challenge without a MGU-H for further harvesting.
Or am I getting this wrong and it is not a peak limit but an average limit (over a lap/race/whatever)?

Just as a rough calculation: As 1 kg of petrol has around 11,6 kWh of energy, this roughly equates to a consumption of 108 kg during a typical race of 90 minutes and an atypical full throttle part of 100%.
As the fuel limit was raised from 70 to 100 kg for races, this strongly indicates, that it is indeed (now) intended for the ICE to work at 400 kW for >90% of the time.

In the coming weeks I would like to analyse this further based on telemetry data of this year's Barcelona GP, as this has always been kind of a reference track for me. But this takes some, so until then I need to live with some gut feeling and looking at the data at TracingInsights.com.
Does anybody have a source that provides this telemetry data with time on the x-axis instead of distance?

That being said, I see no realistic chance for 26 s of braking over 100 km/h taking place at this track with an average laptime of somewhere between 1:22 and 1:30 during the race next year.
I also do not see a full throttle potential of >90% of the time (not distance).

Conclusion
Not having the MGU-K on disposal when you need it, will cost you significant amounts of laptime next year. So how to not get starved?
All the above leads me to believe, that Newey exactly meant what he said, but that Loew's might have been just a bad example for the purpose of bringing the point across.
There will be a lot of ICE-based energy recovery during cornering - specifically in the range of the lap, where the driver demands between -350 kW (slight braking) and +350 kW (medium acceleration) with his feet. I hope, the idealized chart below helps.

https://i.imgur.com/yrXYdRb.png

As several people already pointed out, this is obviously influenced by the engine being connected to the wheels via gearbox. So in some corners, different gears will be used due to harvesting instead of what would have been used otherwise. And this is were Loew's is just a bad example, as it already is a 1st gear corner.

But even in Loew's, they will harvest. And only the maximum amount of harvesting has to do with RPM, but even when cornering with the same RPM as today, they will be able to harvest.
Think of it just like a '97 Renault Clio going with 140 km/h on a German Autobahn, when suddenly between let's say Chemnitz and Dresden it hits a 10% steep ascent. The engine is obviously doing a lot of work against the resistance of the hill, but still struggling to keep the RPM or even decreasing.
The MGU-K basically also induces such a resistance against the drive shaft, but in a much more controlled way. This way, ICE-based harvesting will take place during slight-braking, constant speed and up to medium acceleration.

Does any of this make sense to you? Eagerly awaiting your comments. In the meantime, I will need to review the 2026 regulations once again, as all this implies a lot with regards to driver aids.

P.S.
I honestly have no idea how the max. 200 Nm torque constraint in the regulations might influence all of the above.

In my opinion that is 100% right.
A question is, can the ICE deliver some power (to the MGUK) in this slight braking events while the driver is off trottle.