[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

FOM: Perhaps reconsidering the whole hybrid idea, when sustainable fuel make the argument of hybrid moot?:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...oise/10611063/

So, Formula One is already considering to ditch the 2026 power units, which are still under development. Talking about a waste of money!

However, if Formula One is considering the re-introduction of normally-aspirated engines, why not going to the old V10's? I never liked the sound of the pre-2014 V8's.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

So, Formula One is already considering to ditch the 2026 power units, which are still under development. Talking about a waste of money!

Is not each move to a new technical spec "ditching" the prior one? Heaven forbid anyone talk about what might happen in the next spec!

Originally Posted by Pingguest

However, if Formula One is considering the re-introduction of normally-aspirated engines, why not going to the old V10's? I never liked the sound of the pre-2014 V8's.

There is zero chance of them reimplementing a prior spec as is and to have all of those prior characteristics. But it might feel similar to some prior specs.

I don't expect them to neuter some of the combustion efficiencies (and related technology) that has been created since circa 2014, that technology (efficient use of fuel) will continue going forward. Why throw away power?

What does my crystal ball say will happen in 2030?

* V8 (compact)
* Normally Aspirated (no turbo to muffle exhaust)
* High Revving (higher than current, but maybe not setting new records)
* Carry over of highly efficient combustion concepts from today
* Fully sustainable fuels
* Hybrid may remain, but balance of power will be on ICE side.
* Substantial spec dimensions of large portions of the ICE (like today)
* Generally these will be low tech engines

So think something like a blend between 2008-2013 engines with combustion efficiency of today plus sustainable fuel source.

Richard

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Is not each move to a new technical spec "ditching" the prior one? Heaven forbid anyone talk about what might happen in the next spec!

You missed my point. I can't remember Formula One ever considered ditching a spec or format years (!) prior its introduction.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

You missed my point. I can't remember Formula One ever considered ditching a spec or format years (!) prior its introduction.

Quotes attributed to Domenicali from the article...

Domenicali outlined his desire for F1 to get some noise back on the engine front.

As soon as the 2026 regulations are defined, we will start to think about what the next steps will be, such as the 2030 engine,

It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available.

While Domenicali did not offer any details about what the alternative options could be

In short, the article is pretty much speculation of people trying to connect the dots. Not FIA/FOM saying they are going in a different direction in 2030. Not that I disagree with the speculation!

What I do think is different these days is that clearly NOT creating the power unit spec and chassis spec at the same time has resulted in a level of "build a car to suit the engine" and somewhat realizing that they may have painted themselves into a corner. So I think we go into the 2026 power unit (and chassis spec) with public realizations that how they have done this has been painful. I think the chances for unintended consequences popping up on 2026 is real. I suspect that when they approach 2030, they will likely follow a different process and more tightly integrate the power unit and chassis spec process to ensure they are more aligned.

I think there is parallels between how F1 is handling 2026 specs and how a non-manufacture team ends up having to deal with non-optimal solutions with respect to their power unit integration. For example Mercedes will use their own requirements to drive packaging for the power unit. McLaren may have little or not input on how Mercedes does that. So their integration might be compromised somewhere, somehow. F1 is treat itself like a customer for it's own engine.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

I think people may be reading too much into the Domenicali statement.What if he's signalling that it might be a 1200cc straight 4 with a much greater electrical element,all running on renewable fuel?Alternatively,might it be a move to pushrod V8's to interest the home audience of Liberty Media?

[Sodemo]

If they have to have Hybrid why don’t they just go back to the basic KERS system they had in about 2009 and revert to V8s?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If they have to have Hybrid why don’t they just go back to the basic KERS system they had in about 2009 and revert to V8s?

This is basically what I say in a post above (see quote below)

Originally Posted by Richard C

So think something like a blend between 2008-2013 engines with combustion efficiency of today plus sustainable fuel source.

It could be in the same "style" as that spec, but no doubt there would be differences (they couldn't copy-n-paste prior regulations "as is")

Richard

[Mike Harte]

The FIA, using a Ferrari at Fiorino, tested a more sophisticated wheel covering this week, and due to the poor results, have shelved the idea. This according to the Autosport magazine out today.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The FIA, using a Ferrari at Fiorino, tested a more sophisticated wheel covering this week, and due to the poor results, have shelved the idea. This according to the Autosport magazine out today.

Story here from last week's online Autosport (must have just missed the deadline for the print edition).

Good that some common sense has come into play - was always a long shot and brought additional complications in races (pit stops, on-track clashes, debris).

[Sodemo]

Whatever happened to the reduced spray tarmac? This was tested years ago, I recall reading about it in Autosport maybe 20 years back?

[Greem]

It's porous. The pores fill with rubber, oil, dust, dirt etc. Then it isn't porous any more...

The surface is also quite weak iirc and would tear up under the forces exerted by F1 cars.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Greem

It's porous. The pores fill with rubber, oil, dust, dirt etc. Then it isn't porous any more...

The surface is also quite weak iirc and would tear up under the forces exerted by F1 cars.

I could imagine given some of those surfaces have been destroyed in testing here in Atlanta with just regular car use. And the city was promised 20 year replacement cycles with every 5 year scrubbing to open the pores

[P38 in workshop]

What many of us suspected seems to be gradually clarifying. https://www.pitpass.com/77861/F1-sho...el-says-Maffei .I very much hope that the FIA,the EU and even Congress will point out that such a restraint of trade is totally counter to the notion

of an actual championship.

[broadrun96]

But his example of the NFL is a very very closed shop, to buy in and build a new team is VERY costly and restricted. I would argue it is more closed than F1 is currently and ruled with more Bernie style restriction just quietly instead of in the media. Any discussion outside of what the NFL wants/demands is shunned and fined

[Ferrari333SP]

"FIA unveils Formula 1 regulations for 2026 and beyond featuring more agile cars and active aerodynamics"

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...XgeJqsVQtDr2UB

[Ferrari333SP]

More agile cars, which are 30kg lighter and thus better able to battle on track
A redesigned power unit featuring increased battery power and an even split between internal combustion engine and electric power plus the use of 100% sustainable fuels
Active aerodynamics in the form of moveable front and rear wings to allow for closer racing
Increased overtaking opportunities through the introduction of a new system that gives drivers a short burst of additional battery power when within one second of the car in front

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

But his example of the NFL is a very very closed shop, to buy in and build a new team is VERY costly and restricted. I would argue it is more closed than F1 is currently and ruled with more Bernie style restriction just quietly instead of in the media. Any discussion outside of what the NFL wants/demands is shunned and fined

I don't follow US Football, and while there is always some level of drama in any league, my impression is the NFL is relatively stable with respect to the topic of new teams. And when I say "stable" I mean as they are at 32 teams it's likely a good equilibrium with respect to quantity vs. quality, market penetration and pressure (or lack thereof) for new teams. And yes, entry into the NFL is very expensive, but I suspect new entry is largely driven by market realities (i.e. can a specific city support a new team) vs. the league actively trying to stop growth in number of teams. But entry is achievable. I think for the NFL they are pretty full so it maybe is not a big topic.

I think comparisons to something like the NFL is fine. There will always be differences (US Football is not F1 and F1 is not US Football), but for me what stands out at a key difference is how F1 current is actively trying to exclude new entries. While we as fans can't all agree on this topic, I suspect the majority of fans would support an increase beyond 10 teams. So regardless of which model they follow the general attitude in F1 toward league growth is IMHO not working or healthy.

Richard

[Ferrari333SP]

EXPLAINED: FIA reveals NEW details about 2026 F1 Regulations

https://youtu.be/kuOizcXJzb4?si=IZMCz_4hPiPpUQQz

[steve_r]

Making the cars smaller is a good idea. Not sure about the constantly flapping flaps, but I guess if that improves fuel economy it kind of makes sense.

[chillibowl]

Am I understanding that video correctly?

DRS will be gone and the following car will just have additional battery power to facilitate passing while the car in front no longer can deploy their own extra battery juice for defence?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Am I understanding that video correctly?

DRS will be gone and the following car will just have additional battery power to facilitate passing while the car in front no longer can deploy their own extra battery juice for defence?

My understanding is they will have both an additional battery power push to pass type thing but in addition be allowed to use the new DRS replacing front and rear flappy bits. It gets worse..... the flappy bits when in use will mean the driver has entered X-Mode (I kid you not.... there is also a Z-Mode which to be honest im too scared to read about!)

FIA Single Seater TD Nikolas Tombazis said

:......In addition we are introducing two exciting new features to enhance racing – active aerodynamics to achieve very low drag on the straights and the Manual Override system that will provide drivers with an on-demand burst of battery power when close enough to the car ahead of them.

This might help. EXPLAINED: From more agile cars to 'X-mode' and 'Z-mode' – unpicking the 2026 aerodynamics

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Am I understanding that video correctly?

DRS will be gone and the following car will just have additional battery power to facilitate passing while the car in front no longer can deploy their own extra battery juice for defence?

Yes and no.

DRS today uses a low drag rear wing configuration, specific zones and rules on when it can be deployed (must be within 1 sec in detection zone of leading car). DRS was used as a passing aid.

For 2026, DRS is being rebranded with a new name as "X-mode" and a new purpose. Now this low drag mode is to help ensure the less powerful cars can maintain higher speeds on long straights. This also does away with detection zones and need to be within one second of a leading car. It sounds like they will only continue to be allowed within specific zones.

But they still recognize that they need a passing aid. So while DRS as a passing aid is gone, welcome "Manual Override" which is basically a "Push to Pass" solution, but they don't want to use the term "Push to Pass" even if it is "Push to Pass". I haven't looked at all of the released info today, but I think it is some type of limited resource "extra power" that is available, but not all the time. So I assume you get to save up for some extra release of batter power to allow for passing. I assume this will be fully controlled by the driver (meaning they can use it whenever they want). So for those who hated DRS, get ready to hate the new MO/PTP solution as it really just does the same thing as DRS, but in a different way.

And if you are not in "X Mode", I think you are in "Z Mode" which is a more high downforce (with implied higher drag) aero configuration for cornering. The level of active aero changes to support X/Z Modes is more than what is done today with DRS on just the rear wing.

For me the big "news" is the move back toward flat floors. They are looking to turn back some of the reliance upon underbody wing/ground effects for downforce and to break the need for strong control over ride height and the resulting stiffly sprung cars. Or if you are cynical, break Red Bull dominance!

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

For me the big "news" is the move back toward flat floors. They are looking to turn back some of the reliance upon underbody wing/ground effects for downforce and to break the need for strong control over ride height and the resulting stiffly sprung cars. Or if you are cynical, break Red Bull dominance!

I find it quite strange that they're going back towards flat floors but not all the way back, when they theory from the FIA for the 2022 cars was that the wake effect preventing passing was due to the aero reliance on flow over the front and rear wings. The underbody reliance was meant to fix that (& certainly did to begin with).

Maybe they feel that they went too far and want to pare it back part way? For the cynical, the 2026 changes address the current aero, where RBR had been dominant but also address the power unit formula, where Mercedes was dominant. As long as they don't go down the stoopid path of freezing power unit spec at the start of the new rules again, it'll be game on.

The 2026 cars are still way too big and heavy of course and I think that the loss of only 30kg is a joke but the reduction in size (particularly the reduction in wheelbase) is a positive step. Also really noticeable how much the front wing element is pulled back closer to the wheels in the FIA rendering - that alone would make the cars less unwieldy.

Personally, I expect the gun teams to be up the front the way they are now and although I think they (as usual) have gone way too complicated with the tech for assisting passing / racing, we'll really only know if the new regs are any good once they're in use.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by E.B

This might help. EXPLAINED: From more agile cars to 'X-mode' and 'Z-mode' – unpicking the 2026 aerodynamics

Let's hope it is as straight forward as that. Too often have Formula 1 sought a solution to a problem and then make it overly complicated.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I find it quite strange that they're going back towards flat floors but not all the way back, when they theory from the FIA for the 2022 cars was that the wake effect preventing passing was due to the aero reliance on flow over the front and rear wings. The underbody reliance was meant to fix that (& certainly did to begin with).

Right!?

Originally Posted by Tourer

Maybe they feel that they went too far and want to pare it back part way? For the cynical, the 2026 changes address the current aero, where RBR had been dominant but also address the power unit formula, where Mercedes was dominant. As long as they don't go down the stoopid path of freezing power unit spec at the start of the new rules again, it'll be game on.

I agree it might be indirectly targeting Red Bull. It feels a bit like a committee decision. Maybe some pushed to abandon the ground effects, others wanted to keep it unchanged. Maybe it's some middle ground that maybe keeps people happy (or everyone equally unhappy!), but creates other problems (such as what you point about above). Time will tell. I saw a post on another forum that said it was more like F2 solution (I have no idea what F2 underbody aero looks like, so I can't comment if that might be a model)

Originally Posted by Tourer

The 2026 cars are still way too big and heavy of course and I think that the loss of only 30kg is a joke but the reduction in size (particularly the reduction in wheelbase) is a positive step. Also really noticeable how much the front wing element is pulled back closer to the wheels in the FIA rendering - that alone would make the cars less unwieldy.

So even in the Sky video linked earlier, they make the same point of "move in right direction", but likely mostly pointless. And even the narrow cars... at first he calls out improvement at Monaco and at then backtracks in that... in reality not a big enough change (my words not his). I think overall it's a token improvement that may not create measurable differences. I think until they revert to VERY solutions (No turbo, no hybrid, no active aero, etc.) that weight is not going to be significantly reduced.

Richard