2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[chlebekf1]

Something I'm genuinely curious about, is why a very large portion of this forum seems to think that teams are trying to fool the other teams with "temporary bodywork" and "oversimplified cars" when teams have 6 days of running available, they'd be stupid not to use all of the available time to actually get useful data about their cars and see if they can squeeze in a larger upgrade package based on the data gathered by the time Melbourne comes up. I heavily disagree with this sentiment being touted in every single car thread so far. Teams just don't have the resources anymore with the cost cap in place especially to do things like that. B-spec cars might exist, we'll most likely see them in Bahrain if any team has a B-spec in development.

you are wrong, but there is no point in convincing you otherwise

I asked a general question I'm curious about, not sure why you feel the need to get personal, but you do you, pal...

This isn't about cheating anyone, it's just that the teams brought basic versions of the cars to the tests near Barcelona because it's mainly about reliability, checking whether the data matches the tunnel and simulation, and the weather conditions currently prevailing in Barcelona don't compare to what they will be like during the season, so any extensive testing doesn't make sense.

[ChrisM40]

Several teams brought temporary bodywork to testing in 2022, so its not unheard of, most notably Mercedes. I dont think anyone is going to turn up to the last test or Australia in a radically different car, but they will be different from what we see here now.

Some of the cars look a bit placeholdery, but they are the ones expected to be at the back.

[bananapeel23]

Something I'm genuinely curious about, is why a very large portion of this forum seems to think that teams are trying to fool the other teams with "temporary bodywork" and "oversimplified cars" when teams have 6 days of running available, they'd be stupid not to use all of the available time to actually get useful data about their cars and see if they can squeeze in a larger upgrade package based on the data gathered by the time Melbourne comes up. I heavily disagree with this sentiment being touted in every single car thread so far. Teams just don't have the resources anymore with the cost cap in place especially to do things like that. B-spec cars might exist, we'll most likely see them in Bahrain if any team has a B-spec in development.

You misundersdtand B-specs. It has little to nothing to do with tricking other teams. It's all about bringing a fairly representative aerodynamic setup to evaluate the mechanical platform. I.e. they are trying to verify that the general car concept works by bringing simple, old spec parts that were signed off months ago.

Pre-season testing is not competitive. It's all about collecting data and experience working with the car. You don't want to waste unnecessary time tweaking aerodynamic characteristics and car balance due caused by unforeseen wind tunnel correlation issues or suspension issues. All focus is on running the car and checking to find mechanical and reliability issues.

You sign off on and produce a version of the car that is outdated compared to what is currently in the wind tunnel, but which still represents a similar aerodynamic platform and which is expected to handle similarly to your most recent iteration.

You will likely see more representative iterations for Bahrain testing.

[Baulz]

When would designs have to be finalized in order to have enough parts produced in time for the first race? Would it be right after this weeks testing is finished?

[TeamKoolGreen]

I'm pretty sure the narrative wasnt that theyre going to ride high, but that they'd no longer not work if not slammed to the ground, hence despite your screen shot of a car low down at higher speed, we also see them with significantly more rake while at lower speeds or while braking.

Either way, the narrative is that these new cars are going to ride better and make drivers more comfortable. But the people pushing this were Toto Wolf, who couldn't figure out venturi floors. So I am not convinced. A stiff and low car is always going to be the fastest. When George Russell first voiced his concern about the ride, the main thing he was lobbing for was getting some kind of ride control back. Not scrapping venturi floors.

And judging by the pics of his car, somehow I doubt he's going to be bragging about how nice the ride is. But we'll see.

For those who missed the pic from the previous page

https://i.postimg.cc/0NqrxX7h/Screenshot-4878.png

I don't get what you mean...
The ground effect cars were slammed to the ground and sparking away going into turn 9, the photo you posted of this years car shows the opposite with actually quite a bit of ground clearance.

If you think that pic shows lots of ground clearance then we live in different realities.

And again , F1 cars have always been low and stiff. This wasn't some new thing from ground effect. The new thing was the banning of ride control after 2021

[TeamKoolGreen]

Is Ferrari using electric power to exit pits and launch to pit speed in this clip

https://x.com/i/status/2016156993464254912

[kHz33]

Something I'm genuinely curious about, is why a very large portion of this forum seems to think that teams are trying to fool the other teams with "temporary bodywork" and "oversimplified cars" when teams have 6 days of running available, they'd be stupid not to use all of the available time to actually get useful data about their cars and see if they can squeeze in a larger upgrade package based on the data gathered by the time Melbourne comes up. I heavily disagree with this sentiment being touted in every single car thread so far. Teams just don't have the resources anymore with the cost cap in place especially to do things like that. B-spec cars might exist, we'll most likely see them in Bahrain if any team has a B-spec in development.

You misundersdtand B-specs. It has little to nothing to do with tricking other teams. It's all about bringing a fairly representative aerodynamic setup to evaluate the mechanical platform. I.e. they are trying to verify that the general car concept works by bringing simple, old spec parts that were signed off months ago.

Pre-season testing is not competitive. It's all about collecting data and experience working with the car. You don't want to waste unnecessary time tweaking aerodynamic characteristics and car balance due caused by unforeseen wind tunnel correlation issues or suspension issues. All focus is on running the car and checking to find mechanical and reliability issues.

You sign off on and produce a version of the car that is outdated compared to what is currently in the wind tunnel, but which still represents a similar aerodynamic platform and which is expected to handle similarly to your most recent iteration.

You will likely see more representative iterations for Bahrain testing.

I didn't say B-specs were about tricking teams, when I mentioned B-specs, I was thinking of the most up to date iteration of designs that's visibly very different from the first spec they test with in Barcelona

[GrizzleBoy]

Either way, the narrative is that these new cars are going to ride better and make drivers more comfortable. But the people pushing this were Toto Wolf, who couldn't figure out venturi floors. So I am not convinced. A stiff and low car is always going to be the fastest. When George Russell first voiced his concern about the ride, the main thing he was lobbing for was getting some kind of ride control back. Not scrapping venturi floors.

And judging by the pics of his car, somehow I doubt he's going to be bragging about how nice the ride is. But we'll see.

For those who missed the pic from the previous page

https://i.postimg.cc/0NqrxX7h/Screenshot-4878.png

I don't get what you mean...
The ground effect cars were slammed to the ground and sparking away going into turn 9, the photo you posted of this years car shows the opposite with actually quite a bit of ground clearance.

If you think that pic shows lots of ground clearance then we live in different realities.

And again , F1 cars have always been low and stiff. This wasn't some new thing from ground effect. The new thing was the banning of ride control after 2021

https://e0.365dm.com/15/04/2048x1152/fo ... 0421105646

I dont know.ow if its because you only joined F1T in 2024, but im really not understanding what point youre trying to make.

Rear suspension squat due to rake level was always a topic of discussion, and that was adequate possible by softer suspension settings and a higher maximum floor height.

The cars before 2022 had the ability to have a more significantly raked floor that allowed the cars to have suspension setups that allowed for:

- The cars rear to squat under high downforce load which reduced wing angle for straights.

- The cars rear to spring upwards under braking and provide more downforce and stability as the cars biggest wing (the floor) changed angle as the car slowed down.

- The cars body to roll during corners so the cars weight could lean better on the outer tyres for better traction.

- The cars to not have floors that made porpoising issues, regardless of whether the floor got low or not.

Yes, compared to regular vehicles, F1 cars have always been low with stiff suspension, but i have no idea why youre reacting so negatively to people noting that these 2026 style of cars are omce again able to have softer suspension setups that facilitate the higher rake that we're already seeing from cars like the Red Bull?

I'm pretty sure nobody ever made the claim that F1 cars weren't always stiff sprung or that harsh bumps in the track didnt go right up the drivers backs, but it was also absolutely nothing like what it was like from 2022 to 2025 where the cars had to be sprung for maximum stability amd drivers and teams were making conscious decisions between performance.or driver health.

[HungarianRacer]

I think these cars will be in 2016 range of lap times

Pole in 2016 was 1:22 with the chicane, 6 seconds adjusted to it is a 1:16
They are running 1:18, corrected for cold it is 1:17 (faster than 2015) and not in qualifying mode, it is a very good start.

NAH, once they arrive back here in June and everything is turned up to 11, and the track is in prime condition (assuming it's not scorching hot), they'll be dipping into the 1:14's at the very least, 13's might be a stretch, but it wouldn't shock me either...

[matteosc]

I don't get what you mean...
The ground effect cars were slammed to the ground and sparking away going into turn 9, the photo you posted of this years car shows the opposite with actually quite a bit of ground clearance.

If you think that pic shows lots of ground clearance then we live in different realities.

And again , F1 cars have always been low and stiff. This wasn't some new thing from ground effect. The new thing was the banning of ride control after 2021

https://e0.365dm.com/15/04/2048x1152/fo ... 0421105646

I dont know.ow if its because you only joined F1T in 2024, but im really not understanding what point youre trying to make.

Rear suspension squat due to rake level was always a topic of discussion, and that was adequate possible by softer suspension settings and a higher maximum floor height.

The cars before 2022 had the ability to have a more significantly raked floor that allowed the cars to have suspension setups that allowed for:

- The cars rear to squat under high downforce load which reduced wing angle for straights.

- The cars rear to spring upwards under braking and provide more downforce and stability as the cars biggest wing (the floor) changed angle as the car slowed down.

- The cars body to roll during corners so the cars weight could lean better on the outer tyres for better traction.

- The cars to not have floors that made porpoising issues, regardless of whether the floor got low or not.

Yes, compared to regular vehicles, F1 cars have always been low with stiff suspension, but i have no idea why youre reacting so negatively to people noting that these 2026 style of cars are omce again able to have softer suspension setups that facilitate the higher rake that we're already seeing from cars like the Red Bull?

I'm pretty sure nobody ever made the claim that F1 cars weren't always stiff sprung or that harsh bumps in the track didnt go right up the drivers backs, but it was also absolutely nothing like what it was like from 2022 to 2025 where the cars had to be sprung for maximum stability amd drivers and teams were making conscious decisions between performance.or driver health.

I agree with everything, except for the body roll, because:

• The weight transfer is not related to the roll angle and it is only a function of the position of the center of gravity, no matter the suspension
• You want to reduce as much as possible the weight transfer: having more weight on the outer tyres is totally undesirable
• You want to limit the rolling angle as much as possible, to keep the contact patch optimal and the aerodynami platform stable

[GrizzleBoy]

If you think that pic shows lots of ground clearance then we live in different realities.

And again , F1 cars have always been low and stiff. This wasn't some new thing from ground effect. The new thing was the banning of ride control after 2021

https://e0.365dm.com/15/04/2048x1152/fo ... 0421105646

I dont know.ow if its because you only joined F1T in 2024, but im really not understanding what point youre trying to make.

Rear suspension squat due to rake level was always a topic of discussion, and that was adequate possible by softer suspension settings and a higher maximum floor height.

The cars before 2022 had the ability to have a more significantly raked floor that allowed the cars to have suspension setups that allowed for:

- The cars rear to squat under high downforce load which reduced wing angle for straights.

- The cars rear to spring upwards under braking and provide more downforce and stability as the cars biggest wing (the floor) changed angle as the car slowed down.

- The cars body to roll during corners so the cars weight could lean better on the outer tyres for better traction.

- The cars to not have floors that made porpoising issues, regardless of whether the floor got low or not.

Yes, compared to regular vehicles, F1 cars have always been low with stiff suspension, but i have no idea why youre reacting so negatively to people noting that these 2026 style of cars are omce again able to have softer suspension setups that facilitate the higher rake that we're already seeing from cars like the Red Bull?

I'm pretty sure nobody ever made the claim that F1 cars weren't always stiff sprung or that harsh bumps in the track didnt go right up the drivers backs, but it was also absolutely nothing like what it was like from 2022 to 2025 where the cars had to be sprung for maximum stability amd drivers and teams were making conscious decisions between performance.or driver health.

I agree with everything, except for the body roll, because:

• The weight transfer is not related to the roll angle and it is only a function of the position of the center of gravity, no matter the suspension
• You want to reduce as much as possible the weight transfer: having more weight on the outer tyres is totally undesirable
• You want to limit the rolling angle as much as possible, to keep the contact patch optimal and the aerodynami platform stable

Hmm interesting. Surely center of gravity moving from one side to another would be related to weight transfer? (Unless im just using incorrect terminology lol).

I wouldve thought it would've been helpful for traction on the apex/exit of low speed, long duration tight corners like hairpins to help rotate the rear of the car with the throttle pedal due to increased traction on one side of the axle (something i also think has been missing from the 2022 to.2025 regs since as you said everything about that regulation set was about an absolutely stable platform).

Obviously when I say roll, I don't mean monster trucks level of roll, im talking F1 minute suspension shift.

[matteosc]

I dont know.ow if its because you only joined F1T in 2024, but im really not understanding what point youre trying to make.

Rear suspension squat due to rake level was always a topic of discussion, and that was adequate possible by softer suspension settings and a higher maximum floor height.

The cars before 2022 had the ability to have a more significantly raked floor that allowed the cars to have suspension setups that allowed for:

- The cars rear to squat under high downforce load which reduced wing angle for straights.

- The cars rear to spring upwards under braking and provide more downforce and stability as the cars biggest wing (the floor) changed angle as the car slowed down.

- The cars body to roll during corners so the cars weight could lean better on the outer tyres for better traction.

- The cars to not have floors that made porpoising issues, regardless of whether the floor got low or not.

Yes, compared to regular vehicles, F1 cars have always been low with stiff suspension, but i have no idea why youre reacting so negatively to people noting that these 2026 style of cars are omce again able to have softer suspension setups that facilitate the higher rake that we're already seeing from cars like the Red Bull?

I'm pretty sure nobody ever made the claim that F1 cars weren't always stiff sprung or that harsh bumps in the track didnt go right up the drivers backs, but it was also absolutely nothing like what it was like from 2022 to 2025 where the cars had to be sprung for maximum stability amd drivers and teams were making conscious decisions between performance.or driver health.

I agree with everything, except for the body roll, because:

• The weight transfer is not related to the roll angle and it is only a function of the position of the center of gravity, no matter the suspension
• You want to reduce as much as possible the weight transfer: having more weight on the outer tyres is totally undesirable
• You want to limit the rolling angle as much as possible, to keep the contact patch optimal and the aerodynami platform stable

Hmm interesting. Surely center of gravity moving from one side to another would be related to weight transfer? (Unless im just using incorrect terminology lol).

I wouldve thought it would've been helpful for traction on the apex/exit of low speed, long duration tight corners like hairpins to help rotate the rear of the car with the throttle pedal due to increased traction on one side of the axle (something i also think has been missing from the 2022 to.2025 regs since as you said everything about that regulation set was about an absolutely stable platform).

Obviously when I say roll, I don't mean monster trucks level of roll, im talking F1 minute suspension shift.

The weight transfer is not really a function of the center of gravity "moving", but of its position. In a corner, the weight transfer is only a function of the center of gravity height, the wheelbase and the lateral acceleration. Everything else is a consequence, including the roll angle. The reason why you want to minimize the weight transfer is due to how the tyres behave. If you increase the vertical load on one side, that side will have more traction (ability to withstand lateral or longitudinal forces), but the other side will have less traction. Unfortunately the overall traction is maximum when the two side have exactly the same load, so with any lateral weight tranfer, you have less overall traction.
This is why you always hear teams trying to lower the center of gravity: to reduce lateral weight transfer!

Longitudinal weight transfer is a slightly different story and in theory could help traction, but unfortunately the only way to increase it is to increase the height of the center of gravity, which would damage your corner grip.

[matteosc]

Not sure if it was discussed already, but I think the energy recovering strategy could be particurarly interesting this year.

I think there are two main ways of recovering energy:

• During breaking, with engine off the throttle
• During cornering, with partial throttle and MGU-K recovering all the power provided by the engine

The first strategy allows for lower fuel consumptions and better overall efficiency, but the second allows the turbo to be still spinning at the exit of the turn, reducing turbo lag. I would expect teams to use a mix of these two strategy (considering that there is also a limit on how much you can harvest per lap), depending on the situation. Maybe more of the second in qualifying, or whenever the fuel consumption doesn't matter, and more of the first when some fuel saving would be beneficial.

[Peter Ian Staker]

Is Ferrari using electric power to exit pits and launch to pit speed in this clip

https://x.com/i/status/2016156993464254912

I just sounds like the engine is just running at low revs before Charles gives it more throttle to me.
Electric only launches have far more distinctive whine sound before the ICE kicks in.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqyGJTioXnc

[mzso]

Is Ferrari using electric power to exit pits and launch to pit speed in this clip

https://x.com/i/status/2016156993464254912

I just sounds like the engine is just running at low revs before Charles gives it more throttle to me.
Electric only launches have far more distinctive whine sound before the ICE kicks in.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqyGJTioXnc

Why do you guys associate the gear noise with "electric power"?
It's more likely to be something like the normal gearbox. If it's anything like the Honda the K is deep within, near the center of the car. The gearbox on the other hand is rather exposed.