2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[mzso]

You are right, I saw a nuclear power plant sprout off a tree on my way back from work the other day, and uranium and thorium were being sold for pennies in this economy.

LMAO. Are we not all engineers here?

How about being a realist? France has long proven that if the will is there, nuclear capacity can be built up very quickly.
In contrast nuclear technology is practically banned nowadays. Smothered by legislation and bureaucracy, and fools who think themselves "green". And lack of state funding.

This is OT. I’m not against nuclear power at all, need more of it.

Why are you folks against solar is a mystery instead. It doesn’t get cheaper than solar, you can complain about night power, bad weather and so on but it is cheaper and not even at scale yet so potential to be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Well, the cheapness is mostly a hoax. All things considered: batteries, power electronics, installation costs, panels that maybe last 15-20 years before requiring replacement.
I'm not opposed to the concept, but I don't think it's good enough.

You're joking with "orders of magnitude", right? The panels themselves only the Chinese can produce economically already, and installation costs and electronics won't be going down. And there's a huge demand for batteries.

[De Wet]

You are right, I saw a nuclear power plant sprout off a tree on my way back from work the other day, and uranium and thorium were being sold for pennies in this economy.

LMAO. Are we not all engineers here?

How about being a realist? France has long proven that if the will is there, nuclear capacity can be built up very quickly.
In contrast nuclear technology is practically banned nowadays. Smothered by legislation and bureaucracy, and fools who think themselves "green". And lack of state funding.

This is OT. I’m not against nuclear power at all, need more of it.

Why are you folks against solar is a mystery instead. It doesn’t get cheaper than solar, you can complain about night power, bad weather and so on but it is cheaper and not even at scale yet so potential to be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Sadly, that "cheaper" price will never be passed on to the consumer if achieved.

[Stu]

Back on topic please.

[matteosc]

There was literally no reason for any car to pass in 2025 because of the field spread. And there was still mid pack battles front wing to gearbox until someone made a mistake. You can kiss those goodbye. Nobody even remembers what real bad racing is.

And about that pesky thing called physics. If you thought the 2025 car was bad , putting a flat floor on it is going to make it worse.

Let's wait and see. My opinion is that the differences in potential energy usage will allow drivers to overtake, this should lead to some interesting tactical battles and unorthodox overtakes.

We already had this with the 2014 to 2022 cars. Just to a lesser degree. So it isn't something new.

Everyone blamed DRS for easy overtakes when we already had this defacto push to pass. The faster car from behind would use less energy by virtue that it was faster. So it could accumulate more battery power. Then when the time came to pass, it was that much faster when it deployed the power.

https://preview.redd.it/the-battery-rem ... 8de6faece5

Yes, there was, but the electrical part is now way more important, so a difference in electrical power delivered will have a much bigger effect. That is why they "replaced" the DRS with the push to pass. They did the calculations and, for how wrong they can be, it was clearly a relevant enough difference to replace the DRS.

[matteosc]

What these 22 cars actually burn is of course irrelevant in the large scale. They are only 22 cars, running only every other weekend.
Its image value is much higher, and yes, I think this is a gigantic exercise in politics and marketing.

This is probably not the place to discuss global geopolitics, so let’s not go there, but while you guys discuss the origin of this energy, I like to think of it this way: Synthetic fuels are an easily transportable form of energy storage.
Think of it, gasoline was once a waste product, because there were no practical machines capable of using it. Until there were (about 10% efficient, initially).
Now we have these machines, we make forums about them. And we have a global distribution network to move that easily storable, easily transportable energy.
And while moving energy in very long distances remains difficult in certain ways, here is F1 having a very public show of transporting said stored energy and deploying it in a very public, very sexy, very oooohhhh way.
It is this image, from a measly 22 show cars, that is the real exercise here.
That transportable energy has been obtained in a very inefficient way, but then everything surrounding those 22 cars seems to be an exercise in inefficient, arbitrary, excessive use of resources.

I think is even more then just marketing. Clearly the effect of 22 cars running every other weekend is completely negligible, but what is important is the technology developed. Formula 1 had very often pioneered solutions that made it into normal cars, years or decades after. That is what is the hope for synthetic fuels (as well as battery technology): to bring car manufacturers to invest in renewable technology while racing. I think it makes sense, even though it may not relate directly to "pure racing".

[AR3-GP]

Because of energy density, obviously. Energy density is the one deciding factor in Motorsports and also the reason, why Battery Technology needs to have some further revolutions to be competitive in Racing.

They'll lift and coast on qualifying laps

Mod edit: off topic content removed

[BorisTheBlade]

Because of energy density, obviously. Energy density is the one deciding factor in Motorsports and also the reason, why Battery Technology needs to have some further revolutions to be competitive in Racing.

They'll lift and coast on qualifying laps

Not to be nitpicky, but I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

Mod edit: reference to deleted off topic content removed.

[Badger]

Because of energy density, obviously. Energy density is the one deciding factor in Motorsports and also the reason, why Battery Technology needs to have some further revolutions to be competitive in Racing.

They'll lift and coast on qualifying laps

Not to be nitpicky, but I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

You can only do 250kW of "super-clipping", so it still makes sense to maximise the braking zone where you can get the full 350kW, and the way to do that is to elongate it. It will resemble something like LiCo with very strong engine braking.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

is this exempt from the (I presume) moderating demands of the (default) mapping .... ?
ie ...
throughout the race the PU output torque must be the same (for each % accelerator/% rpm combination) ....
regardless of how much of that PU torque has come from the ICE and how much has come from/gone to the MGU-K

moderating the robbing of Peter to pay Paul and vice-versa

[matteosc]

They'll lift and coast on qualifying laps

Not to be nitpicky, but I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

You can only do 250kW of "super-clipping", so it still makes sense to maximise the braking zone where you can get the full 350kW, and the way to do that is to elongate it. It will resemble something like LiCo with very strong engine braking.

They can also recover during turning, by running the thermal engine and recharging with the electrical.
Overall larger use of fuel, but not really relevant on a single lap. May be worth the extra weight to carry along at the beginning of the race, if allows for less lift and coast. As a side benefit you really eliminate any turbo lag at corner exits.

[DChemTech]

Well, the cheapness is mostly a hoax. All things considered: batteries, power electronics, installation costs, panels that maybe last 15-20 years before requiring replacement.
I'm not opposed to the concept, but I don't think it's good enough.

You're joking with "orders of magnitude", right? The panels themselves only the Chinese can produce economically already, and installation costs and electronics won't be going down. And there's a huge demand for batteries.

Always interesting how people have extremely specific criticisms and grievances with renewables but are unwilling or incapable of being equally critical about the fossil status quo.
As if there are no additional costs associated with the air-, water- and land pollution of they cause, and subsequent impacts on climate and human health.
I'm all for a comprehensive comparison of the true cost of different energy modalities, but then make it a truely fair comparison.

[BorisTheBlade]

.... I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

is this exempt from the (I presume) moderating demands of the (default) mapping .... ?
ie ...
throughout the race the PU output torque must be the same (for each % accelerator/% rpm combination) ....
regardless of how much of that PU torque has come from the ICE and how much has come from/gone to the MGU-K

I am not sure, if I understand which rule you mean. Do you mean C 5.12.1 and .2?
Yeah, this has nothing to do with it. 5.12.6 allows you to reduce the effect that takes place when the driver demands "driver maximum power demand". The pedal position stays exactly the same. Drivers are already on quote as describing this as "like driving up a steep hill". And yes, when reducing power to the wheels from 750 KW to 150 KW, this might force you to shift down.

/edit: Link to current regulations for the sake of simplicity: https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110

[BorisTheBlade]

Yeah, I know, but I couldn't resist
Not to be nitpicky, but I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

You can only do 250kW of "super-clipping", so it still makes sense to maximise the braking zone where you can get the full 350kW, and the way to do that is to elongate it. It will resemble something like LiCo with very strong engine braking.

They can also recover during turning, by running the thermal engine and recharging with the electrical.
Overall larger use of fuel, but not really relevant on a single lap. May be worth the extra weight to carry along at the beginning of the race, if allows for less lift and coast. As a side benefit you really eliminate any turbo lag at corner exits.

Yeah, but this is only in the ballpark of around 100 KW. Although it does not cost laptime, this and braking alone will not lead you to the 8,5 MWs allowed per lap on most tracks. Super-clipping is needed additionally.

[BorisTheBlade]

They'll lift and coast on qualifying laps.

Not to be nitpicky, but I am 99,9% sure, that they will not lift and cost. Instead, they will use super-clipping (full-throttle-recovery), as this nets you the most energy per laptime-loss, so to say.

You can only do 250kW of "super-clipping", so it still makes sense to maximise the braking zone where you can get the full 350kW, and the way to do that is to elongate it. It will resemble something like LiCo with very strong engine braking.

Do we agree on the following? Cornering aside, there are really only two operating modes you want a racecar in, in order to get around a track as fast as you can. These are "applying maximum power" and "braking as late and as hard as you possibly can".
As this will not be possible for energy starved cars, you need to look to the next best options.
With super-clipping, you recover 250 KW and have 150 KW of forward power and have 30% drag reduction.
With your lift and coast (IMHO kind of a one-pedal-driving) you get 350 KW recovery, 0 KW forward power and 42% more drag.
Although to be 100% sure, calculations or even simulations would be needed. But simply looking at these numbers, I fail to see how the second one would be better for laptime. It is a bit like saying "if you brake less, you can drive through the corner faster".
Or am I missing something?

[motobaleno]

Do we agree on the following? Cornering aside, there are really only two operating modes you want a racecar in, in order to get around a track as fast as you can. These are "applying maximum power" and "braking as late and as hard as you possibly can".
As this will not be possible for energy starved cars, you need to look to the next best options.
With super-clipping, you recover 250 KW and have 150 KW of forward power and have 30% drag reduction.
With your lift and coast (IMHO kind of a one-pedal-driving) you get 350 KW recovery, 0 KW forward power and 42% more drag.
Although to be 100% sure, calculations or even simulations would be needed. But simply looking at these numbers, I fail to see how the second one would be better for laptime. It is a bit like saying "if you brake less, you can drive through the corner faster".
Or am I missing something?

Yes, but imho you forget one important variable in the equation: with superclipping, as you said "you recover 250 KW and have 150 KW of forward power and have 30% drag reduction" at the expense of maximum istantaneous fuel burning
with LICO you get 350 KW recovery, 0 KW forward power and 42% more drag with no fuel burning...that's not negligible