2026 car comparisons

[djos]

I watched some highlights of the 2024 & 2025 Chinese GP's and it's crazy how large the cars look compared to the 2026 cars even though by F1 standards these a very large.

It’s true - the size reduction this year is much more noticeable than I was expecting. It shows that it’s good to keep chipping away at this - if it were me, I would have small, incremental reductions in car dimensions and weight each year within this regulatory cycle.

All they need to do now is throw the hybrids in the bin and bring back purely NA V8’s or even better, V10’s running on bio fuels and we’ll be able to shrink them even more!

We just don’t need heavy batteries taking up valuable space and making the cars bigger and heavier.

[f1316]

I watched some highlights of the 2024 & 2025 Chinese GP's and it's crazy how large the cars look compared to the 2026 cars even though by F1 standards these a very large.

It’s true - the size reduction this year is much more noticeable than I was expecting. It shows that it’s good to keep chipping away at this - if it were me, I would have small, incremental reductions in car dimensions and weight each year within this regulatory cycle.

All they need to do now is throw the hybrids in the bin and bring back purely NA V8’s or even better, V10’s running on bio fuels and we’ll be able to shrink them even more!

We just don’t need heavy batteries taking up valuable space and making the cars bigger and heavier.

I mean, I agree. That said, I think there are ways to optimise what we have - I’ve said this before on here but I think it would make sense to also continually decrease minimum weight for the PU to incentivise finding lightweight battery solutions (eg solid state).

[Brahmal]

That's interesting. It probably helps the teams to reduce weight.

About 25% according to Czinger guy.

I mean, I agree. That said, I think there are ways to optimise what we have - I’ve said this before on here but I think it would make sense to also continually decrease minimum weight for the PU to incentivise finding lightweight battery solutions (eg solid state).

There are much heavier hitters than F1 teams working on solid-state without much success so far; the Donut Labs battery that made some noise recently appears to be BS and/or vaporware unfortunately.

[f1316]

That's interesting. It probably helps the teams to reduce weight.

About 25% according to Czinger guy.

I mean, I agree. That said, I think there are ways to optimise what we have - I’ve said this before on here but I think it would make sense to also continually decrease minimum weight for the PU to incentivise finding lightweight battery solutions (eg solid state).

There are much heavier hitters than F1 teams working on solid-state without much success so far; the Donut Labs battery that made some noise recently appears to be BS and/or vaporware unfortunately.

I certainly don’t know enough about the specific technology to opine intelligently - I do think though that when you create incentives for F1 teams/manufacturers to find weight savings, they tend to come up with ingenious solutions.

[aberracus]

[/quote]
There are much heavier hitters than F1 teams working on solid-state without much success so far; the Donut Labs battery that made some noise recently appears to be BS and/or vaporware unfortunately.
[/quote]
Have you seen the test of Donuts labs battery on the bike ? Astounding results after the labs somewhat controversial findings.

[AR3-GP]

Have you seen the test of Donuts labs battery on the bike ? Astounding results after the labs somewhat controversial findings.

The F1 teams are only allowed 2 ES for the entire season. We are simply years away from any solid state technology that meets the power and endurance requirements of F1.

[Brahmal]

The F1 teams are only allowed 2 ES for the entire season. We are simply years away from any solid state technology that meets the power and endurance requirements of F1.

And they have absolutely zero incentive to invest in that kind of medium to long-term R&D, especially with the cost cap. The parent companies are a different story though.

[mzso]

There are much heavier hitters than F1 teams working on solid-state without much success so far; the Donut Labs battery that made some noise recently appears to be BS and/or vaporware unfortunately.

And a lot of not so "heavy" startups that develop a variety of batteries. F1's contribution could be mutually beneficial.

The F1 teams are only allowed 2 ES for the entire season. We are simply years away from any solid state technology that meets the power and endurance requirements of F1.

Irrelevant. The rules are made for the goals. If more experimental higher energy-dense batteries are wanted, they can change that.

[Brahmal]

Irrelevant. The rules are made for the goals. If more experimental higher energy-dense batteries are wanted, they can change that.

The teams have to agree to the formula rules, and they won't do that if there isn't a clear path for the technology in question being mature enough to be implemented. F1 teams just aren't well suited for these kinds of blue-sky, long-term R&D projects because their primary goal is to win the next race.

[AR3-GP]

Irrelevant. The rules are made for the goals. If more experimental higher energy-dense batteries are wanted, they can change that.

Well no. It's already been restricted to 2 for cost reasons. Formula 1 teams don't make battery cells. It is third party timelines. No one wants to triple the cost of the batteries, and then have to use 10 of them during the season to shoehorn in experimental technology that isn't ready.

[mzso]

Irrelevant. The rules are made for the goals. If more experimental higher energy-dense batteries are wanted, they can change that.

The teams have to agree to the formula rules, and they won't do that if there isn't a clear path for the technology in question being mature enough to be implemented. F1 teams just aren't well suited for these kinds of blue-sky, long-term R&D projects because their primary goal is to win the next race.

No they don't. Only to extraordinary rule changes. I don't mean funding basic research. I mean find one or more with projects that can already produce cells.

Well no. It's already been restricted to 2 for cost reasons. Formula 1 teams don't make battery cells. It is third party timelines. No one wants to triple the cost of the batteries, and then have to use 10 of them during the season to shoehorn in experimental technology that isn't ready.

It's weird take when they wast billions on aero.
Not being ready to be marketed doesn't mean it's not excellent for racing. Give a little money to a project that at least got to a small scale pilot production. Get a few 100 to 1000 cells a week, use it for a few races and be done with it.

I think many batteries are stuck at not being cheap enough to compete with li-ion for various reason, rather than being technologically flawed.
No-one wants a 50% raise on phone prices and even less so on BEVs.

[venkyhere]

Irrelevant. The rules are made for the goals. If more experimental higher energy-dense batteries are wanted, they can change that.

The teams have to agree to the formula rules, and they won't do that if there isn't a clear path for the technology in question being mature enough to be implemented. F1 teams just aren't well suited for these kinds of blue-sky, long-term R&D projects because their primary goal is to win the next race.

Well no. It's already been restricted to 2 for cost reasons. Formula 1 teams don't make battery cells. It is third party timelines. No one wants to triple the cost of the batteries, and then have to use 10 of them during the season to shoehorn in experimental technology that isn't ready.

If I am not mistaken, the 'tech' of the battery store is same as that evisaged by the 2014 ruleset, isn't it ? Poor energy density ? Now imagine if there was 8MJ storage for the same weight as current 4MJ storage, everything else (deployment/recharge allowances) remaining same. It would have allowed far greater breathing room for the energy management algorithm, more breathing room for drivers to use their 'button', better quali laps - everything would have been so much better.
Yeah, it's an expensive sport, but when the engineers are teetering on the edge of optimizing performance-per-mass from every single nut/screw from the rest of the car, this battery store sticks out like how someone like me would, if I was forced to become a part of a commando team.

[De Wet]

I watched some highlights of the 2024 & 2025 Chinese GP's and it's crazy how large the cars look compared to the 2026 cars even though by F1 standards these a very large.

It’s true - the size reduction this year is much more noticeable than I was expecting. It shows that it’s good to keep chipping away at this - if it were me, I would have small, incremental reductions in car dimensions and weight each year within this regulatory cycle.

All they need to do now is throw the hybrids in the bin and bring back purely NA V8’s or even better, V10’s running on bio fuels and we’ll be able to shrink them even more!

We just don’t need heavy batteries taking up valuable space and making the cars bigger and heavier.

[djos]

It’s true - the size reduction this year is much more noticeable than I was expecting. It shows that it’s good to keep chipping away at this - if it were me, I would have small, incremental reductions in car dimensions and weight each year within this regulatory cycle.

All they need to do now is throw the hybrids in the bin and bring back purely NA V8’s or even better, V10’s running on bio fuels and we’ll be able to shrink them even more!

We just don’t need heavy batteries taking up valuable space and making the cars bigger and heavier.

Some one disagreed so much they down voted me. I love technology and that includes EV tech and ICE tech, but all the extra weight just doesn’t make F1 better.

Thankfully some one else agreed we with too.

[Brahmal]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ars-design