[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Now translate that into running around Monaco.....

Is the problem that the circuit is no longer fit for purpose, or that the cars (regulations) have morphed into something more grotesque?

The cars are the issue, not the circuits. People often bang on about how the current width of the cars is a penalising factor in the overtaking debate, however the cars now are the same width (or a touch narrower I think) as the cars were during the 80s and they had no problem with passing.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The cars are the issue, not the circuits. People often bang on about how the current width of the cars is a penalising factor in the overtaking debate, however the cars now are the same width (or a touch narrower I think) as the cars were during the 80s and they had no problem with passing.

You’re absolutely right. From the mid-1970s until 1993 the cars were 15cm wider.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

None of which changes the fact that the current cars are big, heavy units compared to their predecessors.

They are. The 2026 cars will be closer to F2 size. F2 is currently about 10cm narrower, about 30cm shorter and about 50 kg lighter than F1.

Don't forget that at least 70-80kg of the weight increase since 2005 is more severe crash testing and safety stuff (halo alone is 20kg), so that weight is non-negotiable and applies to both F2 and F1, hence F2 cars weighing in at 750kg now.




LMP1 cars became tiny -- the maximum width was reduced from 2.0m to 1.8m and that Toyota is only 4.6m long, compared to 5.5m for a F1 Grand Prix car and about 5.2m for a F2 car. [Yet the Toyota LMP1 weighs 1040kg -- far more than any F1 car despite being smaller!]

By all means the FIA could mandate LMP1 dimensions (so about the size of the RB1) if the teams and the FIA considered this to be desirable.

Personally I think the narrow track F1 cars looked dumb and the wider cars, at least 2.0m wide, looked better:

2.15m track


2.00m track


1.80m track


That maximum width rule was death by a thousand cuts. I'm kind of surprised so many people were against the return to 2.0m track width and reinstatement of the rear tyres to their proper size in 2017. [Albeit the fronts are comically wide due to the way they were never reduced in width since 1992 but then were scaled equally with the rear tyres in 2017.]

[Teretonga]

Narrow F1 cars looked dumb?
Yes they did'

Mid 70's F1 cars looked great! McLaren M23, Ferrari 312, Tyrrell 006.

Weights'

Formula Atlantic car 480kg.
1966 F1 weight 500kg
1 litre F3? Lotus 41, Brabham BT 21? 400kg!

[Sodemo]

I never liked the look of the narrow track 1998 reg cars. With wet tyres on they looked marginally better but not much.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I never liked the look of the narrow track 1998 reg cars. With wet tyres on they looked marginally better but not much.

Yes, especially with those horrible grooved tyres introduced at the same time. One of the worst decisions in F1

[Sodemo]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/an...blem/10584169/

Article about the cars in 2024 having a "dirty air" problem.

I know I am perhaps oversimplifying the issue, but if they shrank the size of the front (and rear) wing by half, then lowered the front wing more towards the ground, I really think that would improve the ability for cars to be able to follow each other.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I know I am perhaps oversimplifying the issue, but if they shrank the size of the front (and rear) wing by half, then lowered the front wing more towards the ground, I really think that would improve the ability for cars to be able to follow each other.

You'd have to do the modelling.

Newey wanted FW14B style front wings with the little fins running inside the front wheels, but most categories including Indycar and F2 now use the wide front wings as they obviously significantly reduce drag from the front tyres.

The big rear wing's counter rotating vortex pair is an important part of lifting the wake of the car over and above the following car, so the dirty air goes over the following car instead of at it.

Obviously Formula Ford-style cars with no aerofoils or downforce at all would have no difficulty with dirty air, and indeed a beneficial draft instead. But is there an appetite to reduce cornering from 5G to only 1.5-2G? That will make the cars at least 25-30 seconds per lap slower.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

You'd have to do the modelling.

Newey wanted FW14B style front wings with the little fins running inside the front wheels, but most categories including Indycar and F2 now use the wide front wings as they obviously significantly reduce drag from the front tyres.

The big rear wing's counter rotating vortex pair is an important part of lifting the wake of the car over and above the following car, so the dirty air goes over the following car instead of at it.

Obviously Formula Ford-style cars with no aerofoils or downforce at all would have no difficulty with dirty air, and indeed a beneficial draft instead. But is there an appetite to reduce cornering from 5G to only 1.5-2G? That will make the cars at least 25-30 seconds per lap slower.

Id rather they mandate they have F3 sized front and rear wings. Part of the problem is the reliance on the front wing to A) generate downforce and B) be integral to the handling profile, ie offering a handling balance. As soon as a car gets close to the rear of another, air hits that front wing first and disrupts it, producing understeer. If you reduced the reliance on it, when a car gets close to another, the DF loss wouldnt be so significant. If you had F3 sized wings, lets suppose that the current F1 wings as a baseline produce 500kg at 200kph and an F3 wing produces 200kg at the same speed, again using a general rule, if you are a second behind another car you lose half of the downforce from the front wing, with the F1 wing, thats 250kg but with an F3 wing it would only be 100kg.

Also that front wing should be scraping along the tarmac, ive no idea why they mandated to position them so high (well actually I do, its to provide airflow to the floor, but it seems like they have prioritised overall downforce generation over the ability for a car to be able to follow, because if the front wing was lower, ok it may give less airflow to the floor, but the wing would be in cleaner air.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Obviously Formula Ford-style cars with no aerofoils or downforce at all would have no difficulty with dirty air, and indeed a beneficial draft instead. But is there an appetite to reduce cornering from 5G to only 1.5-2G? That will make the cars at least 25-30 seconds per lap slower.

I have an appetite for it! I'd love to see aerofoils and ground effect go away. They are an anachronism and cause many of the problems that we spend time discussing.

Meanwhile the drivers are complaining again about the damaging effect of cars bottoming. Simple solution: get rid of the skid blocks in the plank and enforce the plank wear rule. The teams would have to run a higher ride height and the drivers would have to keep off the kerbs.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Id rather they mandate they have F3 sized front and rear wings. Part of the problem is the reliance on the front wing to A) generate downforce and B) be integral to the handling profile, ie offering a handling balance. As soon as a car gets close to the rear of another, air hits that front wing first and disrupts it, producing understeer. If you reduced the reliance on it, when a car gets close to another, the DF loss wouldnt be so significant. If you had F3 sized wings, lets suppose that the current F1 wings as a baseline produce 500kg at 200kph and an F3 wing produces 200kg at the same speed, again using a general rule, if you are a second behind another car you lose half of the downforce from the front wing, with the F1 wing, thats 250kg but with an F3 wing it would only be 100kg.

Also that front wing should be scraping along the tarmac, ive no idea why they mandated to position them so high (well actually I do, its to provide airflow to the floor, but it seems like they have prioritised overall downforce generation over the ability for a car to be able to follow, because if the front wing was lower, ok it may give less airflow to the floor, but the wing would be in cleaner air.

The front wings are positioned that high mainly to improve the airflow towards the underbody.

Having said that, all teams but Red Bull are simply too close together - the cars have converged yet again. If two cars have almost identical speeds and characteristics, there will be no overtaking.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Having said that, all teams but Red Bull are simply too close together - the cars have converged yet again. If two cars have almost identical speeds and characteristics, there will be no overtaking.

I will be honest, I am usually very puzzled by this type of logic. Either performance is too different so they can't run close enough to pass, now their performance is too similar so they can't pass?

Now the "characteristics" part might have some validity. But what I think you saying (?) is that if cars had different pros/cons of that some cars might be able to pass in some situations (such as circuit or type of corner preference)? For example one car might be optimized for top speed and another for cornering.

I think the flaw in this thinking is that ALL cars will need some type of specific "flaw" that can be exploited by a car that doesn't have that same flaw? But what happens when all cars start to approach some type of hypothetical performance limit? That modeling and design shows that all teams see the same characteristics results in the fastest car?

Lets say that the most perfect lap time (given weight, power, traction) might be a 1:30. A decade ago (with less knowledge) cars might be running something like a 1:50 and those running that average lap time might have various things they get right and some things they get wrong on the lap (hence the slower lap time). Now, lets say cars are running a 1:35 on average. So the variability of performance between the entire field will be much lower. That results in much closer performance parity and also... harder to make a pass unless someone makes a mistake. And along with improved performance also can mean improved drivability, so while mistakes happen, they are less of an issue.

Richard

[v8supes]

F1 cars are too efficient at standing starts. I think they should be made harder to get off the line. I dont mean easier to stall, thats dangerous.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by v8supes

F1 cars are too efficient at standing starts. I think they should be made harder to get off the line. I dont mean easier to stall, thats dangerous.

H pattern gear lever at drivers leg and 3 pedals like a car?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by v8supes

F1 cars are too efficient at standing starts. I think they should be made harder to get off the line. I dont mean easier to stall, thats dangerous.

Well there is seemingly no wheel spin any more or nothing like the blazing blue smoked wheel spinning starts of a few decades ago. My thoughts on that was that most teams are running some kind of “start map” which mimics traction control.

[Richard C]

Trouble in the land of 2026 technical regulations. As the cars are going to have a lesser ability to maintain high speeds on long straights (as they can today) given the 2026 engines that run out of "oomph" once the battery power has been used up, they needed the 2026 cars to have much less drag to maintain parity to current cars. So the plan was to incorporate an enhanced DRS like active aero solution and it was to be focused on reducing drag via the rear wing.

Apparently there is a baseline example 2026 computer model (named the "Fangio") that has been provided for teams to run in their simulators. What this has revealed is that with the active aero enabled on the rear wing, it removes so much rear downforce that the cars are difficult to drive with the rear wheels loosing traction easily. And that to drive the cars safely you have to go so easy on the throttle that the cars end up being slower than F2. So it is back to the drawing board as they are trying to find a combo solution for both front and rear wings to reduce drag but not upset the balance so much and prevent drivers from being able to put the power down.

The first time I read this, I was thinking... I can imagine some might like this. Because it would create cars that can easily overpower the rear wheels at most any moment. This brings back the "no aero F1" debate with the realization that low or no aero F1 results in VERY slow cars.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...ings/10596682/

Richard

[Sodemo]

I mean, who'd have thought that dumping a load of rear aero would make the cars undriveable?! Say it isn't so!

[Taxi645]

Verstappen and Sainz on:
- Active aero
- Size and weight of the car
- Acceptable ride quality and active suspension.


I agree with Sainz that it is possible to have active suspension which would help to aleviate the extreme compromise between stable underside aero and ride quality. It's just important to write the regulation such that it's capabilities is well contained and not a pandoras box of performance enhancing avenues.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Verstappen and Sainz on:
- Active aero
- Size and weight of the car
- Acceptable ride quality and active suspension.


I agree with Sainz that it is possible to have active suspension which would help to aleviate the extreme compromise between stable underside aero and ride quality. It's just important to write the regulation such that it's capabilities is well contained and not a pandoras box of performance enhancing avenues.

I feel like there is some missing context on your post. Was there to be a link to an article in which they give their opinions in which you agree with?

Richarc

Edit... I just stumbled across this. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...2026/10596756/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I agree with Sainz that it is possible to have active suspension which would help to aleviate the extreme compromise between stable underside aero and ride quality. It's just important to write the regulation such that it's capabilities is well contained and not a pandoras box of performance enhancing avenues.

I would love to see active suspension return. I think it was considered for the next and even current regulations but didn't move forward. I have had a specific idea that I periodically post here on how to address cost and the pandoras box issue you mention.

* Teams must use a spec control unit (similar to ecu rules)
* A fixed/maximum number of sensors and actuators

That would be the core limits. The creativity would exist in software vs hardware. Addition constraints might be...

* spec/homolated sensors, actuators and pump
* segregate active suspension from existing ecu (engine and transmission can't talk to suspension and vice versa)
* fixed number of driver modes (no infinite number of driver settings)
* system can coordinate with any active aero solution

There would also need to be driver wellbeing components of the regulations. Such as preclude cars from being excessively stiff to maintain exact ride height in such a way that drivers are beat to death on bumpy circuits.

Richard

[chillibowl]

question then,

why cant weight and size reduction happen at the same time as an active suspension system is developed? will the latter add weight or make the designers less interested in changing the car dimensions until they sort their active suspension system out? too many changes to make at once? too costly or complicated given he cap system? all, none, or some of the above?

also could be way off base here, but how much of this active suspension is only necessary because they are going down the wrong engine path?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

question then,

why cant weight and size reduction happen at the same time as an active suspension system is developed? will the latter add weight or make the designers less interested in changing the car dimensions until they sort their active suspension system out? too many changes to make at once? too costly or complicated given he cap system? all, none, or some of the above?

also could be way off base here, but how much of this active suspension is only necessary because they are going down the wrong engine path?

Good questions. My opinions...

I think they could tackle things like weight/size reduction and other things at the same time, but as you speculate, it might be too much at once. For example I think I read somewhere that one of the reasons they abandoned more "active" components in the current spec (or I might be confusing it with the 2026 spec) was that it was just too much going on. That they would have to solve multiple "new" problems at the same time.

The limitations of the new power unit are driving the need for drag reduction (with a more comprehensive active aero being the targeted solution). I don't think the active suspension is tightly tied to solving the power unit issue, but maybe it is just another way to help optimize aero (i.e. active ride height changes might result in less drag on straights... see comments on this in article below).

It would be interesting to hear from an F1 designer if an active suspension system would be less, the same or heavier than a current mechanical solution. It should be mechanically "simpler" and maybe even with less parts, but is swapping things like springs and dampers for actuators and hydraulic pumps moving the weight in the right or wrong direction? I don't know.

F1 for years has been trying to tighten controls around improvements to the mechanical suspension systems. As active systems were previously banned, teams have continued to try to implement passive systems that give some of the benefits of an active solution. Recent mechanical solutions that have been banned includes Inerters, Front to rear interlinked suspension (FRIC) and hydraulic heave springs. I think banning that tech was primarily to help reduce cost and to try to stop expensive mechanical arms race on suspension design. My idea is that moving to an active suspension setup, allows cheaper solutions for the problems those complex mechanical solutions were trying to solve.

Here is a few year old article that talks about it and how there probably is a desire by the technical staff to do it, but that it might be too big of a change to implement.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/a...-but-wont-get/

Richard

[Sodemo]

What about unbanning things like the mass damper? A great mechanical innovation that I think suffered from a political game and then got banned.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What about unbanning things like the mass damper? A great mechanical innovation that I think suffered from a political game and then got banned.

My opinion is that it just recreates the prior problem. In that things like mass damper and interer/j-damper are passive solutions that are like high end mechanical watches. They are very well made but as a timekeeper they are less accurate than a much less expensive quartz watch. Why bring back relatively expensive mechanical solutions in which teams try to optimize when higher tech active solutions might provide a better and cheaper solution. Plus it can be an element of "F1 technical prowess" that may not exist in other series.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Here is a few year old article that talks about it and how there probably is a desire by the technical staff to do it, but that it might be too big of a change to implement.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/a...-but-wont-get/

Richard

thanks for the response and link Richard.

definitely like the idea of a cheaper simpler solution but what happens if everyone is fast in the corners as well as fast in the straights? rather where would one find the performance and speed differences needed to affect overtaking? is this trading one solution for another problem kind of situation?

about the porpoising issue...i guess this will also be a problem for the post 2026 cars hence why they are looking at active suspension?