F1 2026 regulations

I believe Ross Brawn/Brown is aiming for smaller and lighter cars. Not sure he’s sticking round for much longer, but really hope we finally get a reduction in size and weight in F1

It’s only 4 years away which isn’t a long period for us to have the current cars…

F1 usually waits until the last minute to finalise the regulations. I usually think this is a bad thing, but in the case of the 2026 regs, this might actually be a bit of a saving grace when it comes to the engine regs.

2024 to 2030 is going to be absolutely transformative for the car industry. In a few years we're likely to be going from a world where ICE engines dominate the market to a world where they're an increasingly niche purchase. Under current plans, it won't even be legal to sell new ICE cars in the UK by 2030. More importantly, if sales numbers keep going the way they are, electric vehicles might make up the majority of the market in countries like the UK, Germany, France and even China by the time these 2026 regs are kicking in.

Obviously I'm not saying that F1 necessarily needs to go fully electric in 2026 or ever (horse racing is still pretty popular even though not many of us commute to work on a horse any more), but I think that 2026 becomes F1's "s**t or get off the pot" moment. Do they want the new engine regs to be road relevant, or do they want F1 to be about cool racing cars which are nothing to do with what anyone buying a new car will be driving?

At the moment it looks like they want to go for a bit of a fudge (the electric elements of the engine will be a little bit more powerful). This might be the best move, but if I was making half-billion Pound decisions for a manufacturer involved in motorsport, I'd want an extra couple of years to see which way the market's going and to see how younger people's attitudes towards non-electric vehicles are evolving before I decided to commit that kind of cash to a specific set of regulations!

Edited by Grayson, 20 April 2022 - 08:38.

F1 usually waits until the last minute to finalise the regulations. I usually think this is a bad thing, but in the case of the 2026 regs, this might actually be a bit of a saving grace when it comes to the engine regs.

 

2024 to 2030 is going to be absolutely transformative for the car industry. In a few years we're likely to be going from a world where ICE engines dominate the market to a world where they're an increasingly niche purchase. Under current plans, it won't even be legal to sell new ICE cars in the UK by 2030. More importantly, if sales numbers keep going the way they are, electric vehicles might make up the majority of the market in countries like the UK, Germany, France and even China by the time these 2026 regs are kicking in.

 

Obviously I'm not saying that F1 necessarily needs to go fully electric in 2026 or ever (horse racing is still pretty popular even though not many of us commute to work on a horse any more), but I think that 2026 becomes F1's "s**t or get off the pot" moment. Do they want the new engine regs to be road relevant, or do they want F1 to be about cool racing cars which are nothing to do with what anyone buying a new car will be driving?

 

At the moment it looks like they want to go for a bit of a fudge (the electric elements of the engine will be a little bit more powerful). This might be the best move, but if I was making half-billion Pound decisions for a manufacturer involved in motorsport, I'd want an extra couple of years to see which way the market's going and to see how younger people's attitudes towards non-electric vehicles are evolving before I decided to commit that kind of cash to a specific set of regulations!

Nightmare scenario. Almost all electric and hybrid cars are garbage.

Edited by Astandahl, 20 April 2022 - 08:47.

I want more battery power and Hydrogen fuel.

In your mind would that be F1 using hydrogen in combustion or in a fuel cell? 

V10s with sustainable fuel (biofuel?) and KERS please. 
 

A move away from DRS if possible.

Active suspension?

V10s with sustainable fuel (biofuel?) and KERS please. 
 

A move away from DRS if possible.

 

Active suspension?

You do know that Ross Brawn will bow out at the end of this year? Perhaps a good idea for you to apply for his position?

 

I don't want any batteries - hence no need for regen equipment (weight).

....

I want the length to be about 4.3-4.5 metres (weight)

I'm not against this as I'm pro-returning to refueling but not many people will be keen on it, sadly. Having cars that can start themselves is a nice idea though. 

+1 for SHORTER CARS, although again, once you include a crash structure and a V engine then you're not leaving much room for a full tank of fuel as we know it today. 

 

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head...

 

I don't want road relevance to interfere with F1 Driver competition.

I want to retain Ross Brawn.

I don't want any batteries - hence no need for regen equipment (weight).

I want a cheap, small(ish) turbo powerplant (say 1200bhp - biofuel) (weight)

I don't want any electronic aids (weight)

I want the Drivers to be in control of the car.

I don't want aerodynamics - (small ineffective non DRS spec wings for stabilisation is fine)

I want the length to be about 4.3-4.5 metres (weight)

I don't want manufacturers involved - start with halving the cost cap.

I want engineers to work on superior suspension systems for mechanical grip.

 

I'm sure I'll think of a few other things down the track...

 

Bolded lines describe IndyCar pretty well, though the series is adding electric power in a few years.

So, a chassis overhaul in 2026 is also on the table.
The Race reports on this:
https://the-race.com...s-rule-changes/

6 chassis related alterations, that the FOM wants to see happening, will be defined over the coming months:

1) Significantly reduced drag to improve sustainability and efficiency and complement the power unit characteristics.

 Drag = slipstream.  No drag = no slipstream. Quite simple really. A weird target to have. 

I’ve been arguing for point one for a while, that is encouraging.

Why does it even matter? Does it impact your ability to enjoy the racing, how much drag they have? 

If we have ultra slippery teardrop cars, there will be no slipstream and passing will die off unless aided by DRS or a driver makes a mistake.  

Edited by ARTGP, 26 April 2022 - 22:40.

It's hilarious that they say they'll cut the number of tires available to evaluate the effect of that cut on teams running the car during practice. What effect do they think might be in the cards other than a reduction of running, even if only slight?

They will probably drop 50-60kg and call it a massive success, bringing them back in line with the really light and nimble 2021 cars

Yep. Since 2010 iirc the minimum weight has increased 33%, from 600 to 798 kg. Unreal.

These cars are absolute pigs, and it really shows in slow corners, in the rain, and with the sudden snaps of oversteer that the drivers frequently have no chance of catching.

Why does it even matter? Does it impact your ability to enjoy the racing, how much drag they have?

If we have ultra slippery teardrop cars, there will be no slipstream and passing will die off unless aided by DRS or a driver makes a mistake.

Edited by Ben1445, 27 April 2022 - 00:01.

Let’s suppose the natural slipstream effect between instantaneously evenly paced cars was practically eliminated… you’re absolutely sure those would be the only two possible remaining ways by which overtaking could occur in future incarnations of Formula One?

Ultimately, maximising efficiency has always been a central part of motor racing in order to gain a competitive advantage.

I think it’s the logical progression for a sport which does rest a pillar of its appeal on tackling advanced engineering challenges. One of the biggest of those out there right now is in how to reduce emissions and mitigate rising energy costs. The name of the game is therefore to do more with less, and it just so happens that this goal is naturally reflected very well in motorsport.

I would personally enjoy seeing F1 embracing that philosophy wholesale. It is, of course, perfectly fine to disagree.

Edited by ARTGP, 27 April 2022 - 00:18.

They will probably drop 50-60kg and call it a massive success, bringing them back in line with the really light and nimble 2021 cars

V-10,  No batteries or energy recovery.  Continue with ground effects downforce.  Similar electronics and standardized engine management systems.  Set a max wheelbase and lower the minimum weight by 200 kg.  Cover the whole green thing with "biofuel".  I want to see, hear and FEEL the cars.  Never happen but how cool would it be?

V-10,  No batteries or energy recovery.  Continue with ground effects downforce.  Similar electronics and standardized engine management systems.  Set a max wheelbase and lower the minimum weight by 200 kg.  Cover the whole green thing with "biofuel".  I want to see, hear and FEEL the cars.  Never happen but how cool would it be?

Extremely cool.

V-10,  No batteries or energy recovery.  Continue with ground effects downforce.  Similar electronics and standardized engine management systems.  Set a max wheelbase and lower the minimum weight by 200 kg.  Cover the whole green thing with "biofuel".  I want to see, hear and FEEL the cars.  Never happen but how cool would it be?

Bring back refueling and switch to a single dry/intermediate/wet tyre and I will take up arms for this vision of F1.

It wouldn’t eliminate overtaking. It would just make it even more infrequent

And you're still sure about that? With all the possible factors at play - known and unknown - within the future technical and sporting regulations of a lower drag philosophy F1 ruleset, overtaking would definitely be less frequent than today? 

Slipstreaming is one of the last non-artificial elements that enables overtaking. Why would we want to get rid of it?

If you think I'm looking at natural slipstream overtakes and thinking 'Hey that sucks, let's end that' you are very much mistaken

It is very much about how F1's philosophy evolves with the world it exists in, one in which efficient and smart use of finite resources it paramount. I fully believe a compelling racing product exists within that space and if F1 does track this way I would be pleased. I do respect, though, that another equally valid philosophy is that F1 should exist solely for itself and simply not worry about any outside factors from the sport. 

At the end of the day the one that wins out will be the one that offers the best business case for Formula One's stakeholders. 

Edited by Ben1445, 27 April 2022 - 10:32.

I am well aware of the principles. It is indeed the trade offs within a wider set of variables I am focussed on. 

Edited by Ben1445, 27 April 2022 - 11:21.

And you're still sure about that? With all the possible factors at play - known and unknown - within the future technical and sporting regulations of a lower drag philosophy F1 ruleset, overtaking would definitely be less frequent than today?

If you think I'm looking at natural slipstream overtakes and thinking 'Hey that sucks, let's end that' you are very much mistaken

It is very much about how F1's philosophy evolves with the world it exists in, one in which efficient and smart use of finite resources it paramount. I fully believe a compelling racing product exists within that space and if F1 does track this way I would be pleased. I do respect, though, that another equally valid philosophy is that F1 should exist solely for itself and simply not worry about any outside factors from the sport.

At the end of the day the one that wins out will be the one that offers the best business case for Formula One's stakeholders.

Edited by ARTGP, 27 April 2022 - 13:32.

I'm not against this as I'm pro-returning to refueling but not many people will be keen on it, sadly. Having cars that can start themselves is a nice idea though. 

 

+1 for SHORTER CARS, although again, once you include a crash structure and a V engine then you're not leaving much room for a full tank of fuel as we know it today. 

A 3.5 litre -era car was only about 4.3-4.5 metres long and managed to fit more fuel and a V10 or V12 though, so I think it would be possible.  It just might hurt the aerodynamicists feelings to have big enough side pods.

A lower-drag car, assuming it was also producing less downforce might be able to deliver roughly the same level of overtaking, as the reduced slipstream effect would be traded off against worse braking performance.  But ideally you'd want to test that out to figure the actual relationship between the two.

Or you could go lower-drag by enclosing the wheels, and then you could have a Gen2 Formula E style BTCC-amateur hour feel to F1 as everyone kvetchs about Max Verstappen not knowing how to pass other cars*.

*I'm joking people, don't waste a thread on that.

Bring back refueling and switch to a single dry/intermediate/wet tyre and I will take up arms for this vision of F1.

Refueling brought absolutely nothing to F1 other than more danger to the pitcrew.

Not true. It also brought inflexible, predictable pit stop strategies.

Ben, a slipstream is a direct result of drag, of the turbulence coming off the car. A low drag formula would result in more difficult overtaking as that’s removing one of the natural advantages for a following car.

Whether that’s a good trade off is another matter.

Porsche Super Cup anyone...!

Extremely cool.

Exactly, we won't have any of that talk around here thank you very much! 

Refueling brought absolutely nothing to F1 other than more danger to the pitcrew.

Not that I'm particularly disagreeing with you but it could be argued that the sub-3 seconds stops are even more dangerous (or just as dangerous) as refuelling. There were minimal incidents through the refuelling years, but naturally they looked spectacular and worse than they actually were.

Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 29 April 2022 - 09:28.

Edited by cbo, 29 May 2022 - 13:51.

Formula 1 develops synthetic sustainable fuel to be introduced in 2026.

https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/61942876

Formula 1 develops synthetic sustainable fuel to be introduced in 2026.

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/61942876

All the more reason to ditch turbo engines and go back to the glorious V10s.

All the more reason to ditch turbo engines and go back to the glorious V10s.

A reminder, when turbocharged engines were new in F1 in the late 70s and early 80s there were fans who felt these little 1.5 l Turbos being glorious too because the reminded us about the days of the Prewar Mercedes W125 with more that 600 HP on board, something that we had not seen since then anymore.

And people being in awe about what an engine only half the size of the contemporary engines.

Once it was clear that the turbos would unsettle the Cosworth then the hate against turbo engines grew and was made public..

Edited by Henri Greuter, 27 June 2022 - 14:29.

Interesting. But my hate doesnt revolve around the engines in general. They are truly masterpieces in efficiency and power output by the standard of its configuration. But I simply miss the awe of the engine sounds on TV and at the track. And the V10 sang the tune the best in my book. And ofcourse a V12 is also in that league, but I prefer the V10. But maybe that last bit is something for the unpopular opinion thread 

Formula 1 develops synthetic sustainable fuel to be introduced in 2026.

https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/61942876

I don’t know what to say about this syntetic sustainable fuel. Sounds a bit bogus

Sounds to be as the future. A better alternative to electric propulsion for the masses.

Sounds to be as the future. A better alternative to electric propulsion for the masses.

How is synthetic combustible that still causes pollution and CO2 better than electric propulsion, for the masses? Liquid fuel is easier to deal with right now, but it's a bad idea long term.

I will accept using ICE for motorsports, it's part of its identity, but the sooner we move to electric cars for the masses, the better it is.

How is synthetic combustible that still causes pollution and CO2 better than electric propulsion, for the masses? Liquid fuel is easier to deal with right now, but it's a bad idea long term.

 

I will accept using ICE for motorsports, it's part of its identity, but the sooner we move to electric cars for the masses, the better it is.

I wholeheartedly believe that those fuels are a step up to more. To fuels that are CO2 neutral. Which would mean that it is to be used as drop in fuel and will also supply the masses in countries that do not have the infrastructure nor the money to supply an electric grid that is steady enough to power millions and millions of electric cars. Because "we" tend to believe that we can change the world by driving electric. But there are tens of millions of old road cars and bikes driving around in countries that are not that developed. Countries who simply can not build a charging network without having to rebuild their electric grid. And if not only for this, then it is because the people of said country are too poor to simply own and maintain an electric car. Most of the people of India and China in the rural countries spring to mind. 

Long term benefit is simply having fully synthetic and sustainable fuels, or hydrogen, to be used. Not having an electric car that has to charge on a power grid. Because one is simply stuffing their head in the mud if one believes internal combustion engines are a thing of the past within 100 years from now. Electric can be part of the solution. But it is most certainly not the entire solution.

Here's a typical power-to-liquid synthetic fuel production diagram using the FT (Fischer-Tropsch) process:

First you need to source hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2), and then react them with a catalyst to produce carbon monoxide (CO). The FT process takes the carbon monoxide and some more hydrogen (+heat and pressure) to create a range of hydrocarbons, which can then be hydroprocessed with more hydrogen (+heat and pressure) into a drop-in fuel which can replace petrol (or diesel or jet or whatever) 

The process itself is about a century old and well established. The challenge is in making it fully renewable and CO2 neutral. That means ensuring that hydrogen sources are from renewable electrolysis and not fossil fuel production. If avoiding bio-sources (as suggested in the article) the CO2 has to be captured from the atmosphere with renewable energy input or from the exhaust gases of another renewable CO2 producing process (though the latter is more debatably net-zero). The application of heat and pressure in the FT and hydroprocessing stages has to be from renewable energy inputs as well. 

Bottom line is that, given the multiple efficiency stages and losses, this requires a lot of renewable energy to power a vehicle per km. Conceivably an order of magnitude more than an EV. 

Not a problem for the ludicrous money world of F1, but if you want it to be a mass personal transport solution then the likelihood is that you will need to produce a lot more renewable energy and/or charge a lot more per km compared to an EV based solution. Then it comes down what people need and what they're willing to pay to do it. 

There is no free lunch, as they say... 

Edited by Ben1445, 28 June 2022 - 09:09.

But as it always goes; if there is a market, prices will drop and solutions will be found. Who would have thought some mere 20 years ago that battery powered cars could take people beyond 1000kms of range? Also who would have thought, back then, hydrogen making its entry into the consumer market?

F1 is tapping into a potential market for the future. One that is more needed in over 3/4th of the world rather than creating a "new" solution that needs a completely new infrastructure, which is electric propulsion for the masses. Said market, that F1 taps into, is a market that will be relevant for generations to come. And so; ludicrous amounts of money will be spend and solutions will be found. I suspect that in those same 20 years, from now, both worlds will exist next to one another. The ICE with those sustainable fuels and fully electric propulsion which is being either battery powered or hydrogen powered.

Edited by Beri, 28 June 2022 - 09:29.