Possible solutions to improve the 2026 Engine Regulations

[F1Sara]

This

[LeQuick]

At the end of the day, we moan about every set of regs, but, and it's a big but, these new regs produced one of the best Chinese GP's in a long time.

Me personally, I think all that is required in a car is a steering wheel, a throttle pedal, clutch & brake.

[amr]

My opinion is that the changes need to move the focus from software lead driving to driver lead driving. After all, the most valuable outcome for the media and the fans is the Driver champion rather than the Constructor champion. People tend to be more inclined to support/root for a Person rather than a brand.

With that in mind, I would think:

-The regen should be limited to the braking zones. No regen unless the brake pedal is at least say 30% pressed. Super clipping on the straits when the driver has no input is just nonsense.
The driver can make a difference by either braking super late at the grip limit and gaining lap time, or braking more smoothly and losing time but gaining energy for after the corner. Similar variance with the racing lines and late/early apex.
From next year, front axle regen can be introduced to recover more energy.

-Deploying energy should be limited to traction zones. No deploy over say 175kph and above 4th gear. Extra power when the driver has not input is just Mario Kart mushrooms. Pedal traces that look like Boolean data are not showing driver skill; it's arcade racing.
The driver can make a difference by modulating the acceleration pedal application and making sure that it is as close to the grip level as possible. This will open different racing lines, like Verstappen is doing in the rain. The driver can minimise distance and time, but the grip level may be lower, or they can try to search for higher grip levels on different lines to maximise deployment.

[bananapeel23]

1. Offer a spec MGUH at a fixed price, but let the teams have the possibility to make their own also. The trick is to balance the rules so it's worth it making your own, but not be doomed with the spec part.

Realistically Audi could perhaps try to purchase the Renault MGU-H IP to get a solid start. You could also straight up limit MGU-H harvesting to a level which would be easily achievable, instead of having the 2014 style battery bypass (which resulted in unlimited harvesting).

If you reintroduce the MGU-H I'd say it should be spec only; not road-relevant, so not much to gain there for any OEM.

In my humble opinion any regen should never prevent the max performance for at least cornering, and topspeed should top out flat instead of falling back by 20/25%. No one cares if top speed is let's say 330 or 360 kph, the superclipping or LiCo on straights looks really silly and takes away the wow-factor.

I think capping MGU-H harvesting is the best option.

It still ensures that there isn’t any turbo lag and makes it easier to implement into your overall engine concept, since you have more control over packaging and overall synergy than with a spec part.

Still, a modest harvesting cap should prevent the insane spending wars on the MGU-H, since they wouldn’t be chasing the insane harvesting rates the last engines got. A harvesting level relatively easily achievable by Audi from day 1 should be where it is capped.

That would still increase harvesting on the order of several MJ per lap, while eliminating turbo lag and thus decreasing the required amount of low speed deployment.

At that point I think these engines would function relatively normally. Perhaps a steeper deployment dropoff would still be required to prevent people from having to top it off with super clipping, but it would probably go 75% or more of the wya towards fixing it.

[LM10]

The simple thing to say is that no one in this forum has experienced F1 other than for it‘s famousness for cornering performance. Since the beginning of modern F1 (starting in the 70s) the goal has always been maximizing downforce and cornering performance.
Now we’re in an era where cornering seems to be a byproduct, like means to an end. Corners are there to prepare yourself for the straights, in order to max out your speed. It’s ridiculous in all honesty. It goes against the grain of F1.

[LeQuick]

The simple thing to say is that no one in this forum has experienced F1 other than for it‘s famousness for cornering performance. Since the beginning of modern F1 (starting in the 70s) the goal has always been maximizing downforce and cornering performance.
Now we’re in an era where cornering seems to be a byproduct, like means to an end. Corners are there to prepare yourself for the straights, in order to max out your speed. It’s ridiculous in all honesty. It goes against the grain of F1.

And those who claim it's the best thing since sliced bread are only doing so because their star driver is in a good position.

[Bence]

Solution: bin them ASAP (the day before yesterday). Bring back last year's powerplants and save what's still possible. I think Audi would gladly accept a Honda PU for the time being, as they already had Honda connection before.

[gearboxtrouble]

It is not realistic to expect radical changes to the engine like bringing back the MGUH. There just isn't enough time and support for that. The best they can do is to tweak the current formula by increasing the fuel flow to the engine and reduce the electrical power 1:1 to make full power available every time the driver is full throttle while moving forward a more rational set of engine regs to 2030. I think a 35% increase in fuel flow will get us to a ~750hp ICE and a 50% lower peak MGUK to ~200hp (+50 hp with overtake) while ramping the deployment linearly in both directions will get us a lot closer to the 2025 engines in terms of characteristics. The changes should be relatively simple and doable in the offseason and while there's a fuel weight penalty, that would be more than compensated for by the extra average power available every lap.

[Lt_Boards]

The max energy harvested per lap is variable across different circuits and mandated by the FIA. The max power form the Elec motor could easily be capped based on the max allowable harvest energy, spread across the total time expected at full throttle per lap. You could also mess around with when the MGU-K power can be used reduce the full throttle Elec power demand. MGU-K power could be limited for use only in straight line mode, further increasing the Max MGU-K power.

E.g Max harvest of 9MJ across expected 60s at full throttle, gives max power out put of 150kW (completely made up scenario)

This would remove the yoyo overtakes as drivers wouldn't "run out of battery". To be honest though, a little bit of real time power strategizing by drivers on track is fun to watch when its not so exaggerated and meaningless.

For overtake, let the drivers use the full 350kW but only when using the additional overtake energy. This could be translated from overtake simply being an increased energy allowance, to an time allowance per lap in which the driver can utilize the full 350kW.

The above approach doesn't require any modification to the cars, only software and control.

[Bence]

Each and every solution which is overcomplicated WILL damage the entire sport long term. F1 is a bit lost in a huge sea of regulations. And it does NOT need even more stewpid lettervomiting, but simple solutions which are existing BECAUSE OF & FOR the most important thing that makes F1 as valuable as is today: the entire fanbase. Without these people F1 could run its hyperspace-efficient, irrelevant tech - and NO ONE would care less.

[FittingMechanics]

Reduce the harvesting allowance, this will remove the major complaint of drivers coasting/harvesting on straights or in high speed corners. It is that simple. Lap times will be slower, but the cars will improve their aero and negate this. You can then fine tune this each year (or even throughout the year) until you reach a level where harvesting is not visible.

Yoyo overtaking is a plus, not a thing to change.

[Stu]

My opinion is that the changes need to move the focus from software lead driving to driver lead driving. After all, the most valuable outcome for the media and the fans is the Driver champion rather than the Constructor champion. People tend to be more inclined to support/root for a Person rather than a brand.

With that in mind, I would think:

-The regen should be limited to the braking zones. No regen unless the brake pedal is at least say 30% pressed. Super clipping on the straits when the driver has no input is just nonsense.
The driver can make a difference by either braking super late at the grip limit and gaining lap time, or braking more smoothly and losing time but gaining energy for after the corner. Similar variance with the racing lines and late/early apex.
From next year, front axle regen can be introduced to recover more energy.

-Deploying energy should be limited to traction zones. No deploy over say 175kph and above 4th gear. Extra power when the driver has not input is just Mario Kart mushrooms. Pedal traces that look like Boolean data are not showing driver skill; it's arcade racing.
The driver can make a difference by modulating the acceleration pedal application and making sure that it is as close to the grip level as possible. This will open different racing lines, like Verstappen is doing in the rain. The driver can minimise distance and time, but the grip level may be lower, or they can try to search for higher grip levels on different lines to maximise deployment.

There is only one method to create “driver lead driving” and that is no live telemetry.
If the amount of information required to drive the car is in excess of what can be read from either the screen or warning lights, reduce what can be controlled from the steering wheel until it is manageable.

I think that the drivers would go nuts at such a suggestion!

[amr]

There is only one method to create “driver lead driving” and that is no live telemetry.
If the amount of information required to drive the car is in excess of what can be read from either the screen or warning lights, reduce what can be controlled from the steering wheel until it is manageable.

I think that the drivers would go nuts at such a suggestion!

That is one way. not suggesting we go that far.

For me, the "driver lead driving" means that the driver needs to be the performance differentiator way more than the car is at the moment.
If the race results are dictated by the optimised simulation ran before the race, then we don't need to watch the races; we just need an executive summary telling us which team has the best software optimisation process.

I know this is the beginning of the regulation set, and we get this at the start of most regulation sets. In a few years, the regulations will tend to iron this out, and the driver's role will tend to grow larger and larger. The suggestions I made were a short-term solution until that happens.

[De Wet]

Each and every solution which is overcomplicated WILL damage the entire sport long term. F1 is a bit lost in a huge sea of regulations. And it does NOT need even more stewpid lettervomiting, but simple solutions which are existing BECAUSE OF & FOR the most important thing that makes F1 as valuable as is today: the entire fanbase. Without these people F1 could run its hyperspace-efficient, irrelevant tech - and NO ONE would care less.

Spot On. I missed the Chinese GP - My First in over 45 years.

[dren]

We just need more holy juice.