2026 Aerodynamic & Chassis Regulations

[mzso]

The regulations are the FIA's responsibility, not FOM's.

Also, the 2026 power units were formulated with input from the existing and prospective PU manufacturers.

That the PU regulatiosn are what they are is largely down to them.

It doesn't stop them from entrusting FOM (or someone) else to come up with the regulations. As they did for 2026. Apparently on their own they can come up with anything functional...
There's zero constraint for them to consider what PU manufacturers or anyone else wants. If they did, they chose to do so.
Also there's nothing preventing them to set up a proper task force to come up with an ideal set of regulations, like FOM did. They should have hired Brawn, kept Symonds and brought on others. They could have asked for engineer input form teams as well.

[mzso]

This latest BSport video is also not encouraging. And it doesn't even have the outwashy "inwash" bargeboards he proposed.

There is no reason to draw a conclusion from an out of context CFD image. The cars have less downforce (30% less than 2025). This is the biggest predictor for how well cars follow, not CFD streamlines. Less downforce equals better following.

This seems to be the missing factor from lots of these analysis videos. While the cars do not have venturi tunnels anymore for the ground effect, the 2026 cars have 50% of their down for from the floor, and 25% from each wing. Where as the 2022-2025 cars were roughly 33% each for the wings and floor.

So the ground effect era cars produced only 33% from the floor and the new flat floor formula will produce 50%. How do you imagine that?

[Martin Keene]

There is no reason to draw a conclusion from an out of context CFD image. The cars have less downforce (30% less than 2025). This is the biggest predictor for how well cars follow, not CFD streamlines. Less downforce equals better following.

This seems to be the missing factor from lots of these analysis videos. While the cars do not have venturi tunnels anymore for the ground effect, the 2026 cars have 50% of their down for from the floor, and 25% from each wing. Where as the 2022-2025 cars were roughly 33% each for the wings and floor.

So the ground effect era cars produced only 33% from the floor and the new flat floor formula will produce 50%. How do you imagine that?

I didn't imagine it, I read it Racecar Engineering magazine.

The 50% figure from the floor, is probably less total load than the previous 33% remember.

[wuzak]

The regulations are the FIA's responsibility, not FOM's.

Also, the 2026 power units were formulated with input from the existing and prospective PU manufacturers.

That the PU regulatiosn are what they are is largely down to them.

It doesn't stop them from entrusting FOM (or someone) else to come up with the regulations. As they did for 2026. Apparently on their own they can come up with anything functional...
There's zero constraint for them to consider what PU manufacturers or anyone else wants. If they did, they chose to do so.
Also there's nothing preventing them to set up a proper task force to come up with an ideal set of regulations, like FOM did. They should have hired Brawn, kept Symonds and brought on others. They could have asked for engineer input form teams as well.

My understanding is that the 2026 aero rules were devised by the FIA with feedback from the teams.

Symonds was complaining about FOM not being involved in the 2026 PU process.

I say he should not, because the FOM has no say in regulations unless the FIA asks them for input.

Also, Symonds' idea would not, IMO, be significantly better than what we have.

As for why they didn't hire Brawn, etc. Money.

FOM is swimming in it, but, due to Bernie's 100 year lease deal, the FIA isn't.

[FW17]

The regulations are the FIA's responsibility, not FOM's.

Also, the 2026 power units were formulated with input from the existing and prospective PU manufacturers.

That the PU regulatiosn are what they are is largely down to them.

It doesn't stop them from entrusting FOM (or someone) else to come up with the regulations. As they did for 2026. Apparently on their own they can come up with anything functional...
There's zero constraint for them to consider what PU manufacturers or anyone else wants. If they did, they chose to do so.
Also there's nothing preventing them to set up a proper task force to come up with an ideal set of regulations, like FOM did. They should have hired Brawn, kept Symonds and brought on others. They could have asked for engineer input form teams as well.

My understanding is that the 2026 aero rules were devised by the FIA with feedback from the teams.

Symonds was complaining about FOM not being involved in the 2026 PU process.

I say he should not, because the FOM has no say in regulations unless the FIA asks them for input.

Also, Symonds' idea would not, IMO, be significantly better than what we have.

As for why they didn't hire Brawn, etc. Money.

FOM is swimming in it, but, due to Bernie's 100 year lease deal, the FIA isn't.

The people from FOM technical were absorbed into FIA, Symonds did not go or was not invited.

I wonder what he is bitching about taking a stance on front driven generator, when he knows it is more about political consensus than putting your foot down.

[mzso]

My understanding is that the 2026 aero rules were devised by the FIA with feedback from the teams.

Symonds was complaining about FOM not being involved in the 2026 PU process.

I say he should not, because the FOM has no say in regulations unless the FIA asks them for input.

Seeing the result, I think he is right to complain...

Also, Symonds' idea would not, IMO, be significantly better than what we have.

As for why they didn't hire Brawn, etc. Money.

FOM is swimming in it, but, due to Bernie's 100 year lease deal, the FIA isn't.

I think it would be a lot better. There would be no need to regen with the K all the time.

They have money on this level. Anyway, since the FOM side is complaining, they could have coaxed them to set up a task force again, and put on of their people at the top of it. (Or just let them come up with something again.)

[wuzak]

I think it would be a lot better. There would be no need to regen with the K all the time.

Symond's "idea" would have seen the same, more or less, generation capacity, but split on the front and rear axle.

Presumably also would have awd.

Adding recovery to the front wheels doesn't make up for the big difference between braking recovery potential and the allowed energy recovery per lap.

[dialtone]

FIA took teams’ input for the PU but they didn’t participate in the process.

We had threads here about going back to NA V10s not much more than a few months ago. Ferrari was reported to have gone to the FIA to show how the simulations were wrong and how the charge wouldn’t last a full straight and hence they invented the double DRS instead of changing the engine.

FIA wanted a given formula, worked with the teams to figure out how to make it work, but not as design partners.

[Stu]

FIA took teams’ input for the PU but they didn’t participate in the process.

We had threads here about going back to NA V10s not much more than a few months ago. Ferrari was reported to have gone to the FIA to show how the simulations were wrong and how the charge wouldn’t last a full straight and hence they invented the double DRS instead of changing the engine.

FIA wanted a given formula, worked with the teams to figure out how to make it work, but not as design partners.

It shows how far things have changed…
Throughout the history of F1 the organising body have repeatedly thrown ‘grenade’ regulation changes into the mix for various, and sometimes, spurious, reasons.
ALWAYS followed by a note wrapped around a brick saying “deal with it” .
Bernie’s legacy lease has turned teams into franchise partners - who all think that as mass-market manufacturers investing marketing dollars into a sport, that they deserve some steerage rights - are strangling the sport.
The idea of competition and being better than the opposition has descended into buying better lawyers to lobby for rules that are more favourable to each manufacturer’s marketing purposes.
Money (and the leveraging of it) has killed the engineering challenge of a limited rule book and a great idea.

[BassVirolla]

FIA took teams’ input for the PU but they didn’t participate in the process.

We had threads here about going back to NA V10s not much more than a few months ago. Ferrari was reported to have gone to the FIA to show how the simulations were wrong and how the charge wouldn’t last a full straight and hence they invented the double DRS instead of changing the engine.

FIA wanted a given formula, worked with the teams to figure out how to make it work, but not as design partners.

It shows how far things have changed…
Throughout the history of F1 the organising body have repeatedly thrown ‘grenade’ regulation changes into the mix for various, and sometimes, spurious, reasons.
ALWAYS followed by a note wrapped around a brick saying “deal with it” .
Bernie’s legacy lease has turned teams into franchise partners - who all think that as mass-market manufacturers investing marketing dollars into a sport, that they deserve some steerage rights - are strangling the sport.
The idea of competition and being better than the opposition has descended into buying better lawyers to lobby for rules that are more favourable to each manufacturer’s marketing purposes.
Money (and the leveraging of it) has killed the engineering challenge of a limited rule book and a great idea.

And none more than the manufacturers put F1 in such a mess, when wanting to get rid of MGUH.

Even worse, manufacturers not competing in F1 were asked, and, for final nail in the coffin, one of such manufacturers that modelled such engine chickened out, and another one that was into F1, got out.

Edit: I'd rather see more "garagistes" with few (but capable) engine manufacturers.

[Xyz22]

Think this should interest some people around here.

[deadhead]

[mzso]

I think it would be a lot better. There would be no need to regen with the K all the time.

Symond's "idea" would have seen the same, more or less, generation capacity, but split on the front and rear axle.

Presumably also would have awd.

Adding recovery to the front wheels doesn't make up for the big difference between braking recovery potential and the allowed energy recovery per lap.

Well Symonds said something in the realm of it would have compensated for the loss of the H.

[SealTheRealDeal]

Looking at the cars that have been seen so far there seems to be quite the variety of side pods.

Are the "waterslides" likely to continue now that there's no longer a beam wing? Would there be any benefit in bringing the waterslide all the way forward via a 2011 McLaren style L-shaped intake?

Alternatively could a side pod designed to capture the front wheel wake in it's intake (I think the '96[?] Ferrari did that?) be a viable solution to the forced in-washing?

[AR3-GP]

Alternatively could a side pod designed to capture the front wheel wake in it's intake (I think the '96[?] Ferrari did that?) be a viable solution to the forced in-washing?

The wheel wake is quite large. A sidepod couldn't hope to capture it.