2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[Holm86]

https://youtu.be/hrIJjCc19AM?si=FIbluSr8cROd2hAc

What I posted this summer:

...we might see teams try to make these things more outwashing by various means f.e. a small forward portion of the bargeboard ("floor board") could be situated in opposition to the majority of it. Lower item below.

https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjRd9B/2026strakesbargeboard.jpg

Yes i remember you made some awesome sketches, I just don't get it, if outwash is the FIA's biggest enemy, why do they half-ass the regulations so it's that easy to create outwash again

[Xyz22]

https://youtu.be/hrIJjCc19AM?si=FIbluSr8cROd2hAc

A lot of things in the new regulations seems poorly written

F1 teams will easily outplay the FIA once again

[FW17]

Dellusional to think rake is not coming back.

The guy's credentials read better than yours. There's rake and then there's RAKE.

I agree with him. The cars could very well look like the 2018 cars but just smaller is size and dimensions. Matter of fact,
the "coke bottle" shape could also make a return.

Car will likely be raked when both wings are closed for the good low speed front end performance that was feature of pre 2022 cars.
When both wings are open designers will want car to be off the ground at the T tray edge and rear to have the floor produce the least amount of downforce, they probably will be helped by regulations of front wing opening which was not possible in the past.

[FW17]

Last F1 3 element rear wings from 2002

[vorticism]

https://youtu.be/hrIJjCc19AM?si=FIbluSr8cROd2hAc

What I posted this summer:

...we might see teams try to make these things more outwashing by various means f.e. a small forward portion of the bargeboard ("floor board") could be situated in opposition to the majority of it. Lower item below.
https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjRd9B/2026strakesbargeboard.jpg

...if outwash is the FIA's biggest enemy, why do they half-ass the regulations so it's that easy to create outwash again

I think it's too early to judge the ruleset and how its written. While the front third of the floor board could be turned outward, it's still only just, and within a narrow box, and the entire box itself is still angled inward. It seems like it would mainly reduce the efficacy of the floor board, not necessarily convert it into an outwashing wing or whatever is being suggested. The big gains with outwash, if advantageous, would seem to be found with the sidepod, imo. For example:

...a sidepod that is strongly outwashing at the blunt front end and inwashing along most of its trailing surface. In contrast to a traditional coke-bottle engine cover which I would describe as outwashing at the front and downwashing along its trailing surface.

[BorisTheBlade]

Could you shed some light as to why outwash is so desired? Is this to protect/seal the underfloor from dirty air?
Also: Doesn't it induce quite a lot of drag, if you try to counter inwashing components with outwashing surfaces later on?
I could imagine, that being as aero-efficient as possible is of high priority in this energy-efficiency formula.

[michl420]

The maxium rear wing size next year is around half of 2025 and even that one is gone at straight line. I imagine drag will be no problem next year. They will go for downforce at every price.

[vorticism]

That seems like a good guess. Also another reason to use rake, imo. There was also the story about updating the regs to include an extra mode for rain races to avoid "the nose scraping into the ground," or maybe it was the t-tray, when the wings were demanded to be closed including near V max. Either way, they said some sort of front contact first, not even plank contact, which to me implies they are running sims with enough rake to cause this.

Could you shed some light as to why outwash is so desired? Is this to protect/seal the underfloor from dirty air?
Also: Doesn't it induce quite a lot of drag, if you try to counter inwashing components with outwashing surfaces later on?
I could imagine, that being as aero-efficient as possible is of high priority in this energy-efficiency formula.

If those are for me: What I posted in August was simply noting “this could be done.” If the floor board is generally detrimental then you may want to reduce its efficacy. If it's beneficial then you may want to enhance its efficacy, which is what I guessed at in the more recent post. There is a new, large wing on the side of the car so I would be inclined to test the effect of directing clean air at it with the sidepod/engine cover.

[mzso]

https://youtu.be/hrIJjCc19AM?si=FIbluSr8cROd2hAc

What I posted this summer:

...we might see teams try to make these things more outwashing by various means f.e. a small forward portion of the bargeboard ("floor board") could be situated in opposition to the majority of it. Lower item below.

https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjRd9B/2026strakesbargeboard.jpg

Ugh. These regs seem to be most poorly thought out ever. From the miserable PU regs, to troublesome constantly tweaked active aero, to not being able to prevent outwash even at the beginning.

My best hope is that it fails so spectacularly, that everyone will be in a rush to change it.

[theWPTformula]

Could you shed some light as to why outwash is so desired? Is this to protect/seal the underfloor from dirty air?
Also: Doesn't it induce quite a lot of drag, if you try to counter inwashing components with outwashing surfaces later on?
I could imagine, that being as aero-efficient as possible is of high priority in this energy-efficiency formula.

It’s used to push the front tyre wake away from the car and prevent it being pulled inside of the rear wheel where there are sensitive aerodynamic surfaces (floor edge, diffuser wall, rear brake duct, lower rear wing, etc.).

Re: Drag: Moving the air laterally in any direction causes drag, but the net result of all the airflow manipulations — how much downforce do you get for a certain amount of drag, i.e. efficiency — is what matters.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

https://youtu.be/hrIJjCc19AM?si=FIbluSr8cROd2hAc

What I posted this summer:

...we might see teams try to make these things more outwashing by various means f.e. a small forward portion of the bargeboard ("floor board") could be situated in opposition to the majority of it. Lower item below.

https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjRd9B/2026strakesbargeboard.jpg

Ugh. These regs seem to be most poorly thought out ever. From the miserable PU regs, to troublesome constantly tweaked active aero, to not being able to prevent outwash even at the beginning.

My best hope is that it fails so spectacularly, that everyone will be in a rush to change it.

What annoys me is that they could have kept the ICE spec the same, just change to synthetic fuels, but simplify the electrical side and increase the output over a lap.

Instead they're compromising pretty much the entire car around a PU that appears not up to the task.

[Espresso]

What annoys me is that they could have kept the ICE spec the same, just change to synthetic fuels, but simplify the electrical side and increase the output over a lap.

Instead they're compromising pretty much the entire car around a PU that appears not up to the task.

But in contrast power limitations also creates/forces strategic opportunities during the race when and where to apply the electric power.

[Holm86]

[TeamKoolGreen]

^ I came here to post that video. Basically he says as the rules are written , the main inwashing strake can be made porous so that the air can go right through it.

So the main element that the inwashing concept is based on, won't be inwashing anything at all.

[TeamKoolGreen]

What I posted this summer:

Ugh. These regs seem to be most poorly thought out ever. From the miserable PU regs, to troublesome constantly tweaked active aero, to not being able to prevent outwash even at the beginning.

My best hope is that it fails so spectacularly, that everyone will be in a rush to change it.

What annoys me is that they could have kept the ICE spec the same, just change to synthetic fuels, but simplify the electrical side and increase the output over a lap.

Instead they're compromising pretty much the entire car around a PU that appears not up to the task.

Originally , the only regulations that were up for renewal in 2026 was the engines. The chassis was supposed to stay the same. But back in 2022 VW was all the rage. Porsche almost bought Red Bull and Audi was coming in. So they would do literally anything to appease them. So they hacked up the 2022 chassis and aero after just 4 years.

In the meantime , the Russia Ukraine war started. And the sanctions , counter sanctions and the price of natural gas has hit the German industrial sector hard. Porsche won't even consider it anymore and Audi will be looking for gulf oil money to keep its entry going.

Thankfully everyone knows , including F1 and the FIA that the world has changed and this was all a mistake.