2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[matteosc]

Could also be that they are going to keep the rear wing more loaded (shut earlier after DRS) than the frong wing upon braking? Also how the shocks and springs are set up can compensate for the dive obviously. So a lot of interesting things to uncover.

I don't think this is legal.

Also not sure they would want to do that. They would rather recover energy than "throwing it away" with drag.

[mzso]

Given the cars are going to be generally 'energy starved' will that change qualifying, in that previously, cars went as slow as they could on the outlap, to save the tyres, but presumably doing that sort of thing now, won't be enough to fully charge the battery? Will they have to push harder on the outlap to do that, which could impact favoured tyre choice even?

No reason. They can easily charge the battery with K during the outlap.
The problem is during the qualifying lap. Apparently for maximum lap-time they need to lift and coast.

[ScottB]

"Super clipping"? Unserious sport

This set of regulations is just completely mad, it's band-aids covering other band-aids, for self-inflicted cuts. And it's all extremely obtuse and complicated, I wouldn't want to be a F1 Commentator, just imagine trying to describe all this malarkey to random people who just want to watch fast cars?

"Well, you see, he is now going slower to go faster later on, and the wings can now be open and go into MODE X, but wait, we are now in MODE VF - Are you sure Martin, the frequency of the brake lights indicate it could be MODE 667FH!"

In the case of Croft, he will be 100% still going on about DRS

[matteosc]

"Super clipping"? Unserious sport

This set of regulations is just completely mad, it's band-aids covering other band-aids, for self-inflicted cuts. And it's all extremely obtuse and complicated, I wouldn't want to be a F1 Commentator, just imagine trying to describe all this malarkey to random people who just want to watch fast cars?

"Well, you see, he is now going slower to go faster later on, and the wings can now be open and go into MODE X, but wait, we are now in MODE VF - Are you sure Martin, the frequency of the brake lights indicate it could be MODE 667FH!"

I think they could have fix 90% of the issues by simply allowing a slightly more powerful thermal engine, a little more energy flow and/or a slightly bigger battery. Not sure why they had to corner themself in this situation.

[vorticism]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

[TeamKoolGreen]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

Dual DRS setups is not simpler bodywork. The previous wings were basically flat with a simple almost spec endplate. How anyone could say that these wavey front wings with the Quinton Tarantino end plates is simpler is beyond me. Same goes for the whole power unit. That is a bold claim to say a higher stressed battery, MGUK and associated parts and wiring is going to be more reliable than the previous regs, which were reliable in the extreme.

It has already been reported that these cars are still intensely physical on the drivers. The anti dive is more extreme on some of the new cars than it was before. Specifically the Aston Martin.

They had one job. Just keep the venturi floor so that cars could follow in the corners without overheating the tires. The venturi in the corners with the active aero on the straight would have been the best of both worlds but nope. They had to fumble it.

I don't know why some people don't just watch Formula E. The new FE car looks good and is going to be faster. At least it is going in the right direction.

[matteosc]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

Definitely not simpler (as openly stated by Williams, for example), since both wings are more complex. The engine may be cheaper, but electric part is definitely more expensive, not to mention the astronomically more expensive fuel.
Driveability seems to have improved a lot, though, at least when they are not busy checking the energy left...

[TeamKoolGreen]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

Definitely not simpler (as openly stated by Williams, for example), since both wings are more complex. The engine may be cheaper, but electric part is definitely more expensive, not to mention the astronomically more expensive fuel.
Driveability seems to have improved a lot, though, at least when they are not busy checking the energy left...

Drivability has not improved a lot. There was way more off track excursions, spins and crashes in the first leg of testing in 2026 than there was in 2022. In the first leg of 2022, Max spun once. And nobody spun or crashes or anything on day 2.

[dialtone]

RB22 has very little anti-dive on the front control arms. Very notable considering they were one of the main proponents of extreme anti-dive. Leads me to believe they have found something somewhere else and the other teams are missing a trick.

Could it be that the trick is that they are relying much less on traditional braking? There have been people quoted from the brake manufacturers that teams have requested smaller calipers, etc; could a heavier dependence on the MGU-K braking (only operating through the rear axle) that results in a change of dynamic forces reacted through the front suspension?
Going back to 2021, the last time that rake was a useful tool, they ran significantly less anti-dive.

I don’t know if you’ve ever driven an EV but off pedal energy recovery is a massive slow down of the car.

Most of these cars are driven as a one pedal car where your rarely ever touch the brakes.

Even if no brakes the weight transfer to the front is very significant and at least my Rivian has an owner experience where you need to replace the front tires relatively often (pirelli too so maybe it’s their fault) because they get eaten through by the recovery brake.

[dialtone]

Given the cars are going to be generally 'energy starved' will that change qualifying, in that previously, cars went as slow as they could on the outlap, to save the tyres, but presumably doing that sort of thing now, won't be enough to fully charge the battery? Will they have to push harder on the outlap to do that, which could impact favoured tyre choice even?

No reason. They can easily charge the battery with K during the outlap.
The problem is during the qualifying lap. Apparently for maximum lap-time they need to lift and coast.

Because the battery is 50% of your power. Max speed at the end of a straight is just a few seconds in a lap, cornering and acceleration is a lot more time in the lap and good traction gets you fast faster.

You always want battery out of corners so you optimize for that, not top speed at the end of straights.

[matteosc]

RB22 has very little anti-dive on the front control arms. Very notable considering they were one of the main proponents of extreme anti-dive. Leads me to believe they have found something somewhere else and the other teams are missing a trick.

Could it be that the trick is that they are relying much less on traditional braking? There have been people quoted from the brake manufacturers that teams have requested smaller calipers, etc; could a heavier dependence on the MGU-K braking (only operating through the rear axle) that results in a change of dynamic forces reacted through the front suspension?
Going back to 2021, the last time that rake was a useful tool, they ran significantly less anti-dive.

I don’t know if you’ve ever driven an EV but off pedal energy recovery is a massive slow down of the car.

Most of these cars are driven as a one pedal car where your rarely ever touch the brakes.

Even if no brakes the weight transfer to the front is very significant and at least my Rivian has an owner experience where you need to replace the front tires relatively often (pirelli too so maybe it’s their fault) because they get eaten through by the recovery brake.

Yes, weight transfer is exactly the same, it depends only on the real acceleration, not on which axis you use to break.

[matteosc]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

Definitely not simpler (as openly stated by Williams, for example), since both wings are more complex. The engine may be cheaper, but electric part is definitely more expensive, not to mention the astronomically more expensive fuel.
Driveability seems to have improved a lot, though, at least when they are not busy checking the energy left...

Drivability has not improved a lot. There was way more off track excursions, spins and crashes in the first leg of testing in 2026 than there was in 2022. In the first leg of 2022, Max spun once. And nobody spun or crashes or anything on day 2.

Maybe we are using a different definition of drivability. I meant more fun to drive and more rewarding a good pilot, not easier to drive.
In the end not sure you can call it driveability, to be fair...

[dialtone]

Whatever their goals were, it seems like the result was (successfully or accidentally):

The new aero/chasses formula reduces construction cost (simpler and smaller bodywork, fewer wings/season via AA)
The new engine formula reduces construction cost (simpler turbo, more reliability via greater E power & less stressed ICE)

While also improving driveability--no more porpoising and spine-harming rear ride height (yes this probably could have been achieved while keeping venturi tunnels but I'm talking about observed results, not unpursued concepts)--and may be seeing the return of conventional suspension geometry as shown on the RB22

Dual DRS setups is not simpler bodywork. The previous wings were basically flat with a simple almost spec endplate. How anyone could say that these wavey front wings with the Quinton Tarantino end plates is simpler is beyond me. Same goes for the whole power unit. That is a bold claim to say a higher stressed battery, MGUK and associated parts and wiring is going to be more reliable than the previous regs, which were reliable in the extreme.

It has already been reported that these cars are still intensely physical on the drivers. The anti dive is more extreme on some of the new cars than it was before. Specifically the Aston Martin.

They had one job. Just keep the venturi floor so that cars could follow in the corners without overheating the tires. The venturi in the corners with the active aero on the straight would have been the best of both worlds but nope. They had to fumble it.

I don't know why some people don't just watch Formula E. The new FE car looks good and is going to be faster. At least it is going in the right direction.

They already had fewer batteries per season than engines available since 2014. The battery is of course more reliable than the engine, this is a straight fact.

Also because half power is from a component that is relatively standard it makes all manufacturers closer. Yes a better engine will be better and is critical, but it’s less important than before for the overall power of the car.

I like the new technology, I’m not upset at the complexity, the drivers don’t seem upset either. F1 is an engineering sport, this is new automotive technology and it needs to be in the sport.

[ScottB]

"Super clipping"? Unserious sport

This set of regulations is just completely mad, it's band-aids covering other band-aids, for self-inflicted cuts. And it's all extremely obtuse and complicated, I wouldn't want to be a F1 Commentator, just imagine trying to describe all this malarkey to random people who just want to watch fast cars?

"Well, you see, he is now going slower to go faster later on, and the wings can now be open and go into MODE X, but wait, we are now in MODE VF - Are you sure Martin, the frequency of the brake lights indicate it could be MODE 667FH!"

I think they could have fix 90% of the issues by simply allowing a slightly more powerful thermal engine, a little more energy flow and/or a slightly bigger battery. Not sure why they had to corner themself in this situation.

If I recall right, by the time people started publicly talking about issues, it was too close for unilateral change? Added to that was Horner very publicly leading the 'we should change this' side against Wolff and the 'our engine will be good actually' faction presumably making any broad agreement impossible.

[vorticism]

The '22 formula probably had a relatively cleaner wake but this was offset by the floors still being sensitive to wake. Pretty simple. So while following was closer (seemed so those years) it was probably not as good as it could have been and ultimately the drivers still complained. Yes, it probably could have been tweaked, but ultimately the '22 formula was not perfect, including the driveability issues independent of driving inside of wakes.

As for wings (and costs) three elements are fewer than four (and yes, three are more than two). More tracks per wing means fewer wings per season (if it occurs). Of course the actuators add complexity but only as ME/FEA items ie relatively simple non-aero geometries. The nosecone is simpler as it only has to interace with two pylons instead of eight wing elements. The melted RW endplates and complex flap endplates are gone, as are the beam wings (ommitting two to four wing elements). The wing/season manufacturing conceivably becomes cheaper via reduced part count and simpler parts (RW endplates much simpler now f.e.) and potentially reduced part count/season. Think of it like choosing eight gear ratios for an entire season instead of multiple 6 or 7 speed sets of gears per season. On one hand, an eight speed is more complex, on the other hand, they only have to design and fabricate one spec that is used for a greater distance.