2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[AR3-GP]

This latest BSport video is also not encouraging. And it doesn't even have the outwashy "inwash" bargeboards he proposed.

There is no reason to draw a conclusion from an out of context CFD image. The cars have less downforce (30% less than 2025). This is the biggest predictor for how well cars follow, not CFD streamlines. Less downforce equals better following.

Anything cutting through air going at the speed of F1 cars is going to produce dirty air. Just the 4 open wheels will make significant dirty air regardless if the car has any downforce.

There was a lot less downforce in 2014 cars compared to the 2013. The wings were shallower and narrow. The beam wing was gone. I don't recall any noticable improvement in following.

Following was fine in 2014 and Mercedes rocket boost mode made overtaking a breeze. The problem with 2014 was the massive field spread.

[AR3-GP]

Which part of the front wing is alloved to move? All of it? I assumed that the motion would be restricted to flaps and not the middle portion of the wing. However the FIA animation shows the entire wing moving, similar to the rear wing.

[Badger]

Which part of the front wing is alloved to move? All of it? I assumed that the motion would be restricted to flaps and not the middle portion of the wing. However the FIA animation shows the entire wing moving, similar to the rear wing.

https://i.postimg.cc/P5MCFDFc/Active-Front-Wing.gif

The wing has three elements and the top two move. The bottom one is structural so can't move for obvious reasons.

[AR3-GP]

Which part of the front wing is alloved to move? All of it? I assumed that the motion would be restricted to flaps and not the middle portion of the wing. However the FIA animation shows the entire wing moving, similar to the rear wing.

https://i.postimg.cc/P5MCFDFc/Active-Front-Wing.gif

The wing has three elements and the top two move. The bottom one is structural so can't move for obvious reasons.

My confusion stems from the VCARB design vs the Red Bull one. The VCARB has two actuators located outboard, and the middle section of the flaps is actually attached to the first element. This would imply that the middle section does not move.




The FIA illustration suggest that the middle section moves.

The Red Bull rendering doesn't have outboard actuators which led some to believe that the visible attachment in the middle is the actuator.

[Badger]

Which part of the front wing is alloved to move? All of it? I assumed that the motion would be restricted to flaps and not the middle portion of the wing. However the FIA animation shows the entire wing moving, similar to the rear wing.

https://i.postimg.cc/P5MCFDFc/Active-Front-Wing.gif

The wing has three elements and the top two move. The bottom one is structural so can't move for obvious reasons.

My confusion stems from the VCARB design vs the Red Bull one. The VCARB has two actuators located outboard, and the middle section of the flaps is actually attached to the first element. This would imply that the middle section does not move.

https://i.postimg.cc/SRQTCC5V/image.png


The FIA illustration suggest that the middle section moves.

The Red Bull rendering doesn't have outboard actuators which led some to believe that the visible attachment in the middle is the actuator.

https://cdn.racingnews365.com/2026/_975 ... 1768550774

My guess, this VCARB design is someone having a bit of fun at our expense.

[vorticism]

Nice, was just about to post this. They're depicting the 4-flaps, 2-actuators option. I wrote about it earlier in this thread:

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.
...
-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
...
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.

[AR3-GP]

https://i.postimg.cc/SRQTCC5V/image.png

Nice, was just about to post this. They're depicting the 4-flaps, 2-actuators option. I wrote about it earlier in this thread:

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.
...
-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
...
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.

I'm still confused. Is the center section allowed to move as depicted here? I'm not convinced that it is because what VCARB did doesn't make sense then. Why would you not open the center section? It's free DRS.

[vorticism]

Yes.

[AR3-GP]

Yes.

It's strange no? Why wouldn't you open the middle section?

[wogx]

Maybe vortices created by the tips of the FAAS mechanism will be beneficial? Could this be the new Y250?

[mzso]

Maybe vortices created by the tips of the FAAS mechanism will be beneficial? Could this be the new Y250?
https://i.imgur.com/raP24wd.jpeg

Does it need to be vortices? Isn't smoothing the airflow going under a the floor a useful thing, for example.
Also do the two actuators have an aero purpose potentially?

[Holm86]

[Stu]

Do the flaps on the FW pivot around the front or rear of the structure. What effects of each would be beneficial for each.
Flow from the front wing directly affects everything downstream.
The FIA animation seems to suggest that the pivot is at the rear, but is this stipulated or optional?

[AR3-GP]

Straight rear wing support pillars on both the Red Bull and Racing Bulls renders. No swan-neck to carry the first element from above. Maybe there's some weight saving going on.

Swan neck wing supports are 'banned' in these regs, the wing support reg box doesn't extend above the top of the main plane meaning underside supports are all that's possible

Are you sure about this?

[AR3-GP]

Do the flaps on the FW pivot around the front or rear of the structure. What effects of each would be beneficial for each.
Flow from the front wing directly affects everything downstream.
The FIA animation seems to suggest that the pivot is at the rear, but is this stipulated or optional?

The flaps will have to pivot at the rear because that's the only way to have the fail-safe in the high downforce position (i.e if the actuator fails, then the downforce will close the drs. If pivot is at the front, then actuator failure means that the downforce would open the drs.