[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Adam43]

Excellent, bring it on. It will make the racing more exciting. I’d do it by turning down the power unit.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Maybe one of those things where you threaten something, everyone complains and then you go with something still bad but not as bad so people are relieved it wasn’t the first option.

Active aero could be a good way of eliminating the dirty air effect and scrapping DRS, but it sounds more like it will be used just as more gimmicks, and the idea suggested is truly horrendous. Liberty Media are on the path of destroying Formula 1 if they introduce nonsense like this and they certainly look like they are going to.

I have been a proponent for active aero. I think I read somewhere they seriously considered it for the current/new technical spec, but decided it might be too much all at once (active aero + underbody wing).

I agree that there might be some level of floating this publicly for other purposes. Such as... It was floated internally, has supporters, but also has detractors that consider it dumb. And putting it out in public as a way to kill it before it gains momentum and becomes much harder to stop.

I think to actively penalize someone whose only crime is to be leading the race doesn't sit well with me and probably a majority of fans.

Richard

[S griffin]

This season past has shown we don't need DRS anymore. The cars can now follow closely that we should just let the drivers decide how and when to overtake. At least they are now proposing to limit DRS though.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

This season past has shown we don't need DRS anymore. The cars can now follow closely that we should just let the drivers decide how and when to overtake. At least they are now proposing to limit DRS though.

I don’t even think the cars can follow that closely, I mean is it better than 2021? Probably, but it’s not as good as say a GP2 car or a early 2000s Champcar, both of which I believe used Venturi tunnels for ground effect

i still think they need to lower that front wing, get it working in cleaner air, my guess is they prioritised the underbody aero load rather than the front wing aero so when a car is behind another the higher front wing is more disturbed than say if it was scraping the tarmac. There is a reason why in nearly all modern racing disciplines that use aero that they will try and get as close to the ground as possible for the front aero device, as such I don’t follow the thinking behind placing the front wing a foot into the air.

[chillibowl]

with a new team set to take over for Brawn and leading up to the 2026 changes, i suspect there will be a number of 'new' ideas put forward aimed at making the racing more 'exciting' by breaking it down into 'more digestible' clips more suited to the length of a social media tweet/clip.

or perhaps the new team will try to make things more 'traditional'?

at this point, i dont know who the new group of people who will be coming in or what their philosophies about racing are?

but cynically i suspect its about low costs with greater monetization and/or if Liberty are looking to sell now as they believe they have added significant value to sport.

of the 3 core people Liberty brought in, Chase Carey, Sean Bratches, and now Ross Brawn all gone from the day to day operations or now just in advisory roles or seen at the expensive races...do have to wonder what Liberty's future with the sport is?

[Richard C]

To me, while F1 can still improve, I think they should use a light hand at the moment. See how things progress under this new formula (financial and technical regulations). Small changes vs. large revolutionary shifts.

The worst thing that can happen is that new people come in and feel the need to "make a mark" and make changes just to show they are doing something.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The worst thing that can happen is that new people come in and feel the need to "make a mark" and make changes just to show they are doing something.

for sure im always going to find something to complain about but i agree about just small changes as i generally like where F1 is at the moment and the direction it is heading in under the cap system.

maybe this year the competition seemed unbalanced but that's more on account of Merc and Ferrari not getting it right which imo had very little to do with the rule set per say and more to do with their own internal team workings...if that makes sense.

to be honest, if there is any (easily achievable) change i would like to see...top of my list right now would be more oversight on the teams and how they talk to the press. no doubt there is some advantage to this storm in a netflix teacup approach but the acrimony has, for me anyways, become a major distraction. would like to see fines and censures applied to reign it in.

for me there is a big difference between letting people talk/show their personalities vs enabling a platform that encourages people to act like entitled clowns. right now its too much of the latter imo.

[1969MGCGTdriver]

DRS can't go away soon enough for me. Getting rid of it along with the winglets that are still in the cars would be great. Things such as standard mirror shapes and mounts that cannot be turned into an aero device. The only wing type devices should be the front and rear wings. Suspension components should have a clearly defined shape/profile that everybody must follow with no deviations allowed.

Speaking of wings, single element front wings, or 2 element at most.

I'd like a return to refueling just to bring another strategic element back into play.

I'd also prefer an open engine formula, ala WEC/IMSA, but I know that's a pipe dream.

If we're going to stick with hybrids, then go ahead and put motors in the front wheels. I'm sure Audi would love to be able to advertise this as Quattro just like they did with the prototypes.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

Speaking of wings, single element front wings, or 2 element at most.

At the moment the rules mandate a very forward weight distribution, which is why they need so much front downforce to avoid understeering horribly.

I am in favour of what you propose though. You'd ideally reduce the front tyre section width significantly (from the oversized 305mm back down to the traditional 245mm) and either drop the weight distribution rule or put the mandatory weight distribution more rearwards. This would hopefully spell an end to the spacer that currently exists between the engine and gearbox.

The 1980's cars like the FW09-FW11 had the one element front wing as they had a much more rearwards weight distribution (you'll note that the rear wing was still very large back then, particularly on some of earlier cars when there was a loophole allowing two extra legality boxes ahead of the main rear wing).

Williams FW09, note the **huge** rear wing despite the single element front wing:

[chunterer]

And the front wing of the Fw09 is not full width either. It is between the width front wheels. Current front wings are still enormous. This is significant.

[chillibowl]

talk about changes to the 2026 cars.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...2026/10422851/

from the article:

Speaking at Autosport International last week, F1 chief technical officer Pat Symonds said the following performance of the 2026 cars would be “even better than the ’22 cars”.

DRS is set to remain part of the rules package, but Symonds explained how the active aerodynamics could be used to augment downforce and make up for the amount lost when it is closely following a car in front.

“We won’t lose DRS, because there’s totally active aerodynamics on the ’26 car,” said Symonds.



the one line that got me though was this:

“Our idea now is to augment the downforce back to where it should have been if the leading car wasn’t there.”

as a philosophy i think i like this approach.

as a side thought/concern tho...how much of this works if there are more than 20 cars on track at the same time? rather the leading car doesnt necessarily mean leading in position...so with more cars on track, will the front runners now have more chances to use DRS against back markers as well as benefit from the addition of more active aero concepts?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as a side thought/concern tho...how much of this works if there are more than 20 cars on track at the same time? rather the leading car doesnt necessarily mean leading in position...so with more cars on track, will the front runners now have more chances to use DRS against back markers as well as benefit from the addition of more active aero concepts?

To your question. I think the simple answer is "yes". The more complex answer is, they already have DRS. But this should "help" in situations in which faster cars just get stuck behind slightly slower cars.

My take is that it sounds like they are looking to allow for the natural pace of the cars to exist. So if you catch someone under DRS, but you loose downforce when you get close (the classic issue) you can catch, but not pass. And it is particularly bad if you are in a DRS train.

I suspect this active aero is about increasing reducing drag to catch and then increase downforce as you get close so you can put yourself into a position to pass. They are contrary goals in a sense (usually more downforce = more drag). But I expect they want to find a way to increase downforce dynamically in an efficient (low drag) way. Devil is in the details on how they do this.

Richard

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

DRS can't go away soon enough for me. Getting rid of it along with the winglets that are still in the cars would be great. Things such as standard mirror shapes and mounts that cannot be turned into an aero device. The only wing type devices should be the front and rear wings. Suspension components should have a clearly defined shape/profile that everybody must follow with no deviations allowed.

Speaking of wings, single element front wings, or 2 element at most.

I'd like a return to refueling just to bring another strategic element back into play.

I'd also prefer an open engine formula, ala WEC/IMSA, but I know that's a pipe dream.

If we're going to stick with hybrids, then go ahead and put motors in the front wheels. I'm sure Audi would love to be able to advertise this as Quattro just like they did with the prototypes.

This is where everyone has a different opinion.I disagree with all of your proposed changes except maybe the simplification of wings and even there not single element wings.I like DRS.All they have to do is find the sweet spot in calculating zones so it is not too easy or too hard to pass.Your chassis suggestions are closer to a spec formula than I want F1 to be.Refueling reduces F1 strategy in a lot of other areas and has in the past.No to open motors for sure and definitely not motors in front wheels.Go to Le Mans if that is important to you as a manufacturer.
This is not meant as a personal criticism but just as a way of showing how varied peoples opinions are.

[S griffin]

Really DRS needs to go. The cars can follow a lot closer now, so why do we need it? It's outstayed it's welcome

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...But I expect they want to find a way to increase downforce dynamically in an efficient (low drag) way. Devil is in the details on how they do this.

a return of flexible front wings?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

a return of flexible front wings?

My crystal ball is fuzzy, so take this with a grain of salt. I think the solution will be more prescribed and probably less elegant than flexible wings. Where will this "new" active aero exist? Who knows. DRS already at the rear. Maybe the new will impact the underbody or more likely front wing? Just like how DRS is specifically controlled, I expect active aero will be the same. It will be a specific solution that lives within a specific place, with specific movement, triggered in specific ways, etc. Much easier for the FIA to govern and determine/enforce legality that way.

Richard

[Richard C]

It seem that most everyone (well almost everyone) wants the cars to be on a diet. But we can't quite get there. I have to say... I am not shocked. I just don't see them having the cars drop in weight without removing some level of complexity or "complication" that might be imposed upon the teams.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/p...tion/10429894/

Richard

[S griffin]

FIA ignores teams concerns shock. To be fair it would have been very hard to achieve at short notice, so it's probably best to leave things as they are

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It seem that most everyone (well almost everyone) wants the cars to be on a diet. But we can't quite get there. I have to say... I am not shocked. I just don't see them having the cars drop in weight without removing some level of complexity or "complication" that might be imposed upon the teams.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/p...tion/10429894/

Richard

im a bit confused by the article to be honest.

putting aside the logic of lighter smaller cars...why would the teams that came in at the lower and originally set 796kgs weight object to the minimum weight now being held the same as last year's higher 798kgs?

all things being equal, wouldn't the lighter 796kgs car teams have an extra 2kgs to play around with/distribute in a more optimal fashion then the teams constrained by the 798kgs weight (ostensibly set by weight they cannot redistribute in a more optimal fashion)? or as the year goes on move around that 2kgs of weight as needed to strengthen their floors or wherever?

out of my element here for sure but also combined with a poorly worded article i think?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im a bit confused by the article to be honest.

putting aside the logic of lighter smaller cars...why would the teams that came in at the lower and originally set 796kgs weight object to the minimum weight now being held the same as last year's higher 798kgs?

all things being equal, wouldn't the lighter 796kgs car teams have an extra 2kgs to play around with/distribute in a more optimal fashion then the teams constrained by the 798kgs weight (ostensibly set by weight they cannot redistribute in a more optimal fashion)? or as the year goes on move around that 2kgs of weight as needed to strengthen their floors or wherever?

out of my element here for sure but also combined with a poorly worded article i think?

I "think" it was the teams who could make 796 wanted the minimum to stay at 798 as they figured other teams might just gets to 798 minimum while, as you say, they are at 796 and can place ballast to their liking. If minimum was 796, then everyone (including them) might be closer to 796 and they might loose any advantage of being naturally under weight.

I do find it interesting that given it seems a big advantage to being under weight that teams still struggle to get to weight or under weight. I am not discounting the struggle, but hey... it is F1!!

Richard

[S griffin]

The main problem of reducing the weight limit is it punishes heavier drivers and means a lot of them have to go on diets, which can be dangerous. We've seen drivers pass out post race a couple of times because of it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The main problem of reducing the weight limit is it punishes heavier drivers and means a lot of them have to go on diets, which can be dangerous. We've seen drivers pass out post race a couple of times because of it.

Yes and no. I think a few years ago they set driver minimum weight at 80kg. So any driver under that limit requires ballast in the car to bring up to minimum. Car minimum and driver minimum are separate. I think all current drivers are under that 80kg minimum? What I don't know is where they put the driver ballast. Can they position it anywhere (which could push drivers to lose weight) or is there a location close to driver CG that is used (would negate or minimize advantage of underweight drivers)

Richard

[Richard C]

I just looked up how the driver ballast works. It is driver + seat that is 80kg. So seat/cockpit is location of ballast to get up to minimum.

Richard

[S griffin]

That's probably a sensible solution, means heavier drivers aren't punished and won't need to get down to a ridiculous light weight

[tux]

I dont get it, banning tyre warmers seems like a sensible decision to introduce more variables and reliance on driver skill. So why is it so controversial?