2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[wuzak]

That kind of CoP shift is quite big. We know floors will have a lot smaller downforce yield than right now, maybe rear wing will be much more important than today so taking that away causes such a big shift...

Wouldn't it be better to keep as much downforce from teh floor, and have lower downforce/drag wings?

Do away with the active aero, no need for DRS now they have included an override mode for the PU.

[Vanja #66]

Wouldn't it be better to keep as much downforce from teh floor, and have lower downforce/drag wings?

Do away with the active aero, no need for DRS now they have included an override mode for the PU.

It would, but floors will get at least 15% smaller in planform surface in any case. Front wings will also have smaller yield (by design) than today for sure, with shorter foil span and maybe even shorter total chord.

[FW17]

I am kind of surprised by accersions in that article that the low drag does not work:

1. At high speed, car cannot turn - I am not sure what F1 low drag in 2026 would be, but F1 car (will not be lower drag and downforce than a superspeedway Indycar) cannot make a turn, Indy car would be laughing. They go into Turn 1 and 3 at Indy at 230+, speeds F1 will not be any where near

2. Car unstable on straights when accelerating that they become slower than F2 : Again this seems to be an exaggeration. 2026 was supposed to be an active aero car, not a DRS with 2 or 3 flaps. My understanding was that the wing will constantly be changing in AOA as per teams input program

[AR3-GP]

Active rear wing does not work as there is too much of an imbalance, resulting in lap times comparable to F2

They are looking at front wing also to be active, but by doing that wont it change the entire flow to the floor? Something that could be its own can of worms

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1s- ... /10596682/

Wow, that's unexpected. We've had 4 generations of cars with DRS since 2011 and the latest generation is very different from those before, none of them shown too much inherent instability with DRS open on straights and fast corners. I think some important info wasn't given to the media. My first guess is either the low drag configuration is massively lower drag and downforce level than current DRS by design (and actual DRS would be even lower drag obviously) or somehow it triggers a massive CoP shift on the floor when switching to low drag mode.

The problem is the power unit screw up. They have to massively overcompensate with wing drag reduction (Just as RB warned, which many interpreted as RB's power unit being bad).


Do these guys think you will be able to open and close front wing angle willy nilly? The front wing that controls and conditions all of the air to the floor?

What happens when it rains? Will they disable the active aero for drag reduction? Will the cars derate in the middle of the straight when they can't use the band-aid for the PU regs?

[AR3-GP]

I am kind of surprised by accersions in that article that the low drag does not work:

1. At high speed, car cannot turn - I am not sure what F1 low drag in 2026 would be, but F1 car (will not be lower drag and downforce than a superspeedway Indycar) cannot make a turn, Indy car would be laughing. They go into Turn 1 and 3 at Indy at 230+, speeds F1 will not be any where near

2. Car unstable on straights when accelerating that they become slower than F2 : Again this seems to be an exaggeration. 2026 was supposed to be an active aero car, not a DRS with 2 or 3 flaps. My understanding was that the wing will constantly be changing in AOA as per teams input program

1) Indianaoplis has banking. Indycar would go much slower in a corner without banking.

2) Many "straight" sections of track are not truly straight and what if a driver needs to pull out of the slipstream?

[Stu]

To be honest, I think that the “curves cannot be taken flat out” comment is weird, Eau Rouge never used to be flat, 130R never used to flat; this being so is a recent phenomenon.
Unstable downforce & massive CoP change is an issue and to be taken seriously.

Maybe a Mercedes-like double DRS could be considered, to achieve a more balanced aero package?
Rear wing mounting/pivot could be behind the CoP of the wing assembly for a ‘default to stability/downforce’ configuration.

[Vanja #66]

The problem is the power unit screw up. They have to massively overcompensate with wing drag reduction (Just as RB warned, which many interpreted as RB's power unit being bad).


Do these guys think you will be able to open and close front wing angle willy nilly? The front wing that controls and conditions all of the air to the floor?

What happens when it rains? Will they disable the active aero for drag reduction? Will the cars derate in the middle of the straight when they can't use the band-aid for the PU regs?

PU rules are excellent. Road relevant, oriented towards energy efficiency and maximising performance where it's worth the most, ie electric acceleration with power harvested elsewhere. In late 80's fuel tank limit was around 200 litres and refuelling was allowed since 1982. In 2000s teams still used more than 150kg of fuel per race even with better engines. In 2026 cars will be 50% heavier (because they are safer) than 20+ years ago, yet will use 50% less fuel.

This will open up a whole new area for simulation, performance and PU engineers. When to harvest more, when to harvest less, how to defend, how to attack. Can you combine DRS and harvesting to attack on acceleration? Can you sacrifice harvesting completely and use low drag mode to defend again DRS attack? Possibilities are abundant, tactics will be a big thing.

Active aero is also 10-15 years too late, it was road relevant before DRS was introduced. Ground effect aero should have been introduced way earlier, but it is what it is. 2026 rules are almost what 2009 rules could have been, those too were made to improve racing and introduced KERS as first version of hybrid tech.

[FW17]

The problem is the power unit screw up. They have to massively overcompensate with wing drag reduction (Just as RB warned, which many interpreted as RB's power unit being bad).


Do these guys think you will be able to open and close front wing angle willy nilly? The front wing that controls and conditions all of the air to the floor?

What happens when it rains? Will they disable the active aero for drag reduction? Will the cars derate in the middle of the straight when they can't use the band-aid for the PU regs?

PU rules are excellent. Road relevant, oriented towards energy efficiency and maximising performance where it's worth the most, ie electric acceleration with power harvested elsewhere. In late 80's fuel tank limit was around 200 litres and refuelling was allowed since 1982. In 2000s teams still used more than 150kg of fuel per race even with better engines. In 2026 cars will be 50% heavier (because they are safer) than 20+ years ago, yet will use 50% less fuel.

This will open up a whole new area for simulation, performance and PU engineers. When to harvest more, when to harvest less, how to defend, how to attack. Can you combine DRS and harvesting to attack on acceleration? Can you sacrifice harvesting completely and use low drag mode to defend again DRS attack? Possibilities are abundant, tactics will be a big thing.

Active aero is also 10-15 years too late, it was road relevant before DRS was introduced. Ground effect aero should have been introduced way earlier, but it is what it is. 2026 rules are almost what 2009 rules could have been, those too were made to improve racing and introduced KERS as first version of hybrid tech.

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

[wuzak]

The problem is the power unit screw up. They have to massively overcompensate with wing drag reduction (Just as RB warned, which many interpreted as RB's power unit being bad).


Do these guys think you will be able to open and close front wing angle willy nilly? The front wing that controls and conditions all of the air to the floor?

What happens when it rains? Will they disable the active aero for drag reduction? Will the cars derate in the middle of the straight when they can't use the band-aid for the PU regs?

PU rules are excellent. Road relevant, oriented towards energy efficiency and maximising performance where it's worth the most, ie electric acceleration with power harvested elsewhere. In late 80's fuel tank limit was around 200 litres and refuelling was allowed since 1982. In 2000s teams still used more than 150kg of fuel per race even with better engines. In 2026 cars will be 50% heavier (because they are safer) than 20+ years ago, yet will use 50% less fuel.

This will open up a whole new area for simulation, performance and PU engineers. When to harvest more, when to harvest less, how to defend, how to attack. Can you combine DRS and harvesting to attack on acceleration? Can you sacrifice harvesting completely and use low drag mode to defend again DRS attack? Possibilities are abundant, tactics will be a big thing.

Active aero is also 10-15 years too late, it was road relevant before DRS was introduced. Ground effect aero should have been introduced way earlier, but it is what it is. 2026 rules are almost what 2009 rules could have been, those too were made to improve racing and introduced KERS as first version of hybrid tech.

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

8.5MJ/lap * 50 laps = 425MJ.
8.5MJ/lap * 60 laps = 510MJ.

3000MJ/h is down from ~4500MJ/h.

The electrical energy used comes from the fuel as well - either through braking the car from speed, or by using the ICE to generate energy.

No electrical energy is from outside the car except, maybe, when they leave the pits before the race.

[FW17]

PU rules are excellent. Road relevant, oriented towards energy efficiency and maximising performance where it's worth the most, ie electric acceleration with power harvested elsewhere. In late 80's fuel tank limit was around 200 litres and refuelling was allowed since 1982. In 2000s teams still used more than 150kg of fuel per race even with better engines. In 2026 cars will be 50% heavier (because they are safer) than 20+ years ago, yet will use 50% less fuel.

This will open up a whole new area for simulation, performance and PU engineers. When to harvest more, when to harvest less, how to defend, how to attack. Can you combine DRS and harvesting to attack on acceleration? Can you sacrifice harvesting completely and use low drag mode to defend again DRS attack? Possibilities are abundant, tactics will be a big thing.

Active aero is also 10-15 years too late, it was road relevant before DRS was introduced. Ground effect aero should have been introduced way earlier, but it is what it is. 2026 rules are almost what 2009 rules could have been, those too were made to improve racing and introduced KERS as first version of hybrid tech.

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

8.5MJ/lap * 50 laps = 425MJ.
8.5MJ/lap * 60 laps = 510MJ.

8.5 MJ recovery from braking?

[Vanja #66]

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

I understand your confusion, but I'm not talking about green cars, I'm talking about energy efficiency which is one of the main performance drivers. Less drag is more efficient, harvesting more over a lap is more efficient (when later translated into acceleration) etc. The first Prius from Toyota in 1997 introduced hybrid technology simply because they wanted to reuse the energy lost while braking, not because it was "green" and "climate friendly" etc. Efficiency is green, but it's also fast.

[FW17]

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

I understand your confusion, but I'm not talking about green cars, I'm talking about energy efficiency which is one of the main performance drivers. Less drag is more efficient, harvesting more over a lap is more efficient (when later translated into acceleration) etc. The first Prius from Toyota in 1997 introduced hybrid technology simply because they wanted to reuse the energy lost while braking, not because it was "green" and "climate friendly" etc. Efficiency is green, but it's also fast.

FOM and manufacturers pushed for the 50% electric headline.
There was no reason for them to drop 4500 MJ to 3000 MJ

[wuzak]

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

8.5MJ/lap * 50 laps = 425MJ.
8.5MJ/lap * 60 laps = 510MJ.

8.5 MJ recovery from braking?

No, there is no way they will recover that energy in braking.

Less than half, most likely, will come from braking.

[wuzak]

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

I understand your confusion, but I'm not talking about green cars, I'm talking about energy efficiency which is one of the main performance drivers. Less drag is more efficient, harvesting more over a lap is more efficient (when later translated into acceleration) etc. The first Prius from Toyota in 1997 introduced hybrid technology simply because they wanted to reuse the energy lost while braking, not because it was "green" and "climate friendly" etc. Efficiency is green, but it's also fast.

FOM and manufacturers pushed for the 50% electric headline.
There was no reason for them to drop 4500 MJ to 3000 MJ

They cut the fuel flow from 100kg/h (~4500MJ/h) to 3000MJ/h.

It would seem sensible enough that they drop from 110kg race fuel allowance (was 100kg when they had lower drag cars 2014-2016) down to roughly 3000MJ for the race.

The race fuel limit is not yet defined, at least as far as I have seen. We don't even know if it will be based on mass (kg) or energy (MJ).

[wuzak]

50% ice 50% electric is just BS. That is something that can be done today with larger electrical motor and CE on the car.

Touting the 2026 as greener is just wrong, the gasoline consumption is 3000mj/hr do they also have 3000 mj/hr of electrical energy?

At best they are going to have 250mj for a race or 170mj/hr

This is prime greenwashing

I understand your confusion, but I'm not talking about green cars, I'm talking about energy efficiency which is one of the main performance drivers. Less drag is more efficient, harvesting more over a lap is more efficient (when later translated into acceleration) etc. The first Prius from Toyota in 1997 introduced hybrid technology simply because they wanted to reuse the energy lost while braking, not because it was "green" and "climate friendly" etc. Efficiency is green, but it's also fast.

Just imagine the lower drag package combined with a non-hybrid turbo ICE.

Up the fuel flow rate to get around 700hp, save around 100kg from not having all the ERS, save drag by not having to run the ERS coolers.

Cars could be even smaller.

How would that compare for efficiency?