2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[vorticism]

Look at those inwash boards. The whole claim to fame of these regs is inwash and yet they couldn't even manage to get these boards to actually inwash. Air just goes right through them.

https://i.postimg.cc/5N82Lbnw/q11.jpg

They are still inwashing. It's only a general term. The legality box for the floor board forces an inward angle regardless of interpretation. Even if that box wasn't angled inward, say the box was straight or even slightly turned outward, the presence of vertical bodywork in that location will be impeding outward flow through that area (generally speaking, paired with a typical outwashing sidepod). "Impeding outwash" would be another way of saying inwash, ultimately.

That inboard will be useless when the teams power up the sidepod outwash. If they truly wanted to get rid of outwash they needed to square the sidepod from the inwash flap all the way to the rear wheels.

In fact, that's where I was going with the concept I presented earlier. Maximize sidepod outwash to power the floor board and foot.

People keep implying "the FIA's inwash concept" as though the FIA ever used these terms to describe the concept. Now they are condemning this same terminology. The FIA place a fin behind the front wheel. The fin impedes airflow through that area. That's "an inwash concept" only in part. Might even be more accurate to say that it's a "front tyre wake energizer" rather than think of it as a magic wing that pushes all air into a place where it can't go anyway: the center of the car, which is occupied by... the car.

[mzso]

Qvist design worked on this car for over a year and is the closest representation. Look at those inwash boards. The whole claim to fame of these regs is inwash and yet they couldn't even manage to get these boards to actually inwash. Air just goes right through them.

Why did they go away from the no endplate rear wing ? It is an Indycar wing. Did all the research into 2022 mean nothing ? Say what you want about the 2022 car but they could follow without burning off their tires. And that was the whole point.

https://i.postimg.cc/5N82Lbnw/q11.jpg

Judging by the BSport video it will be worse than that. Mostly outwashing even from the shape. Also the nose can be lifted a fair bit by the looks of it. I don't think that was intentional.

But the underbody downforce had to go because the power units couldn't handle the drag. And that is also why we have active aero. And F1 is trying to cover it all up. They don't like admitting that all of this is because of the 50% electric gimmick. They are even saying now, that the underbody downforce kicked up too much water. As if any car going 300+ km/h isn't going to kick up water. Or even this driver comfort thing. Yes, the 2022 cars were low and stiff. And seemed to cross a line for the drivers in certain situations. But all F1 cars are low and stiff. All circuit race cars are low and stiff ffs.

I think the "low and stiff" issue is a very solvable problem with that style of car.

Underbody downforce has the least drag penalty of any downforce generating device. They got rid of it because the teams were pushing it too far and the cars became less nimble and much less raceable.

Adjustable wings should have less drag (and DF) in the straights. Though I guess you could make those adjustable as well.

They shouldn't have gotten rid of it. They should have improved it.

[carisi2k]

In fact, that's where I was going with the concept I presented earlier. Maximize sidepod outwash to power the floor board and foot.

People keep implying "the FIA's inwash concept" as though the FIA ever used these terms to describe the concept. Now they are condemning this same terminology. The FIA place a fin behind the front wheel. The fin impedes airflow through that area. That's "an inwash concept" only in part. Might even be more accurate to say that it's a "front tyre wake energizer" rather than think of it as a magic wing that pushes all air into a place where it can't go anyway: the center of the car, which is occupied by... the car.

I have a feeling that these cars will be as bad as the 2021 cars for dirty air. The 22 cars were great for dirty air but then they lifted the floor edge for 23 (because a certain team couldn't stop bouncing) allowing the teams to outwash with the underfloor and also those cut off rear wings. The FIA never learns and there always seemed to be some bias in favour of a certain team or team with a particular engine being given leeway while the other teams always got the hammer thrown at them.

[mzso]

Ben S is a politician, he has no idea what he’s talking about. Here’s another article that’s only 7 days old and sums up the reason for the changes quite well.

But the cars it created ultimately became exactly what the rules set out to avoid, extremely difficult to race thanks to how difficult it became to follow.

They produced enormous levels of downforce and were seriously fast, and were challenging to drive even if they did take a big physical toll on the drivers. But they struggled to follow closely and created processional races.

So what went wrong?

The short answer is that the teams did everything they could to ‘break’ the regulations in their relentless pursuit of performance and race wins.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/how- ... ffect-era/

You saying this is ironic, because you just believe in the more blatant PR justification.
From the inception it was clear that the botched motor formula required the active areo. Maybe botched isn't even the right term, more like sabotaged, because initially it was supposed to have front wheel recovery. Before politics took over the design of the new formula.

Why are the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions in place for 2026 if everybody is starting with a clean slate ?

F1 uses balance of performance to make sure everybody wins.

No, it uses a slight negative feedback to prevent runaway successes. Even so the results were pretty modest so far. At least one team caught up to the dominant force, by the third year of the cycle.
In fairness it should have been more. But Mercedes was repeating its own blunders, and blundering the only thing what Ferrari does.

What does the ruleset change have to do with it? A different team must win.

Why ? The best team must win. If it's Mclaren again, so be it.

Don't bother with his invented narrative...

Clearly the huge venturi floors produce more drag than a flat floor with a diffuser. Even if it is less relative drag than wings. And that is why the flat floor is back.

Everything , including the narrower car and narrower tires, flat floor and active aero was introduced because the new PU's could not handle the drag after the simulations were done in late 2023.

Can you show me anywhere where it says that the chassis regulations were up for renewal in 2026 ?

I don't think this is true as such. If they removed the strakes I think the difference would be minimal. But you'd probably still need to implements some form of active aero for it, which might not be as simple as flapping a wing.

[djos]

Ben S is a politician, he has no idea what he’s talking about. Here’s another article that’s only 7 days old and sums up the reason for the changes quite well.

But the cars it created ultimately became exactly what the rules set out to avoid, extremely difficult to race thanks to how difficult it became to follow.

They produced enormous levels of downforce and were seriously fast, and were challenging to drive even if they did take a big physical toll on the drivers. But they struggled to follow closely and created processional races.

So what went wrong?

The short answer is that the teams did everything they could to ‘break’ the regulations in their relentless pursuit of performance and race wins.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/how- ... ffect-era/

You saying this is ironic, because you just believe in the more blatant PR justification.
From the inception it was clear that the botched motor formula required the active areo. Maybe botched isn't even the right term, more like sabotaged, because initially it was supposed to have front wheel recovery. Before politics took over the design of the new formula.

Why are the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions in place for 2026 if everybody is starting with a clean slate ?

F1 uses balance of performance to make sure everybody wins.

No, it uses a slight negative feedback to prevent runaway successes. Even so the results were pretty modest so far. At least one team caught up to the dominant force, by the third year of the cycle.
In fairness it should have been more. But Mercedes was repeating its own blunders, and blundering the only thing what Ferrari does.

What does the ruleset change have to do with it? A different team must win.

Why ? The best team must win. If it's Mclaren again, so be it.

Don't bother with his invented narrative...

Clearly the huge venturi floors produce more drag than a flat floor with a diffuser. Even if it is less relative drag than wings. And that is why the flat floor is back.

Everything , including the narrower car and narrower tires, flat floor and active aero was introduced because the new PU's could not handle the drag after the simulations were done in late 2023.

Can you show me anywhere where it says that the chassis regulations were up for renewal in 2026 ?

I don't think this is true as such. If they removed the strakes I think the difference would be minimal. But you'd probably still need to implements some form of active aero for it, which might not be as simple as flapping a wing.

Yes they botched the engine formula, but getting rid of the Venturi tunnels has nothing to do with reducing drag.

[SiLo]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet?



Seems like outwash will still be a big thing, and team will easily find ways around the intention of the rules.

[mzso]

Yes they botched the engine formula, but getting rid of the Venturi tunnels has nothing to do with reducing drag.

That's debatable. It may have been a factor, misguided or not.
It seems easier to shed drag merely by flipping wings. I'm quite sure down-force can be decreased of the undersiside by manipulating the leading a trailing edges, however I'm not sure it would result in significant energy savings.
As for comparing wings in straight line mode with the hypothetical floors in low downforce mode, I have no idea what would the values turn out to be.

My best guess is, going for active wings, might have been a qick and dirty way of fixing low ride heights and lowering drag at the same time. Meanwhile completely ignoring the reason venturi tunnels were introduced in the first place.
Probably to horrible results for racing quality. Depending how extra power mode turns out. Whether it is powerful enough to compensate, and whether it will result in simple drive-by overtakes.

[mzso]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet?



Seems like outwash will still be a big thing, and team will easily find ways around the intention of the rules.

It was, at least in one of the 2026 topics. People didn't respond much to it. It's not a huge surprise that the FIA fails even in their basic goals, if teams figure out how to use for good effect.


I wonder more about the higher stubby nose, driver-forward design proposed in the other video. Whether it has any merits. It's rather unlike the models people made for 2026, including the Qvist one.

[AR3-GP]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet?



Seems like outwash will still be a big thing, and team will easily find ways around the intention of the rules.

This is how you generate outwash that destroys folllowing:




The "workaround" that is illustrated in that video is a cheap imitation at best and it will be far less effective. That is the point.