[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[V8 Fireworks]

With 30% less downforce, those who think less downforce will make for better racing ought to be pleased?

The X-mode and Z-mode (lol) seem like a half measure compared to more sophisticated continuously variable wing levels that could be mapped in software, and thus make aero software a real battleground.

Originally Posted by Richard C

It feels a bit like a committee decision.

It does have a whiff of "a camel is a horse designed by committee." It seems like it keeps some 2022 ideas while it also reverts to some older ideas (rear wing endplates return, part flat floor) -- it all seems like a compromise.

[PanozDP01]

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).

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.

The 2026 power unit + battery will be 30+ kg heavier than the current battery and PU. So they seem to think they can find a 60 kg weight reduction everywhere else, to make them 30 kg lighter than current. This looks like a fantasy. They will put the lower weight limit in the rules and nobody will have a hope of hitting it.

This is what The Race put out showing the increased PU and battery weight

[PanozDP01]

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).

.

It really did work in the first half of 2022. Drivers said it was like go-cart racing again. But then the tech directives ruined it.

Even now, the development and TD's have made following worse. But its still far better than 2021 or prior. In 2021, a following car would burn its tires off just by following. And then big gaps would form in the order. Now it is hard to pass, but at least following cars aren't fading away with bad tires after a few laps.

I really hope we don't go back to that. We will actually need DRS again ironically.

[PanozDP01]

From an F1 reporter on Twitter

Apparently today was quite the chaotic day with the release of these new regulations. I’ve been informed that each team has sent a technical representative to meet with the FiA about the release of the regulations at some point today. Apparently the released regs were never finally approved by all teams, and at least two teams are threatening to walk away from the series if they go ahead as released today. There are a LOT of angry team members across the grid.

After a bit more digging, specifically the concerns are around the active aero for the front and rear wings which will NOT be driver controlled, but triggered via control systems and software. The teams feel this is a huge risk in the event of failure. Additionally the concern is that the cost cap would prohibit the cost of replacement active aero parts as well. ��

Sounds like the FiA had a bit of an issue on their hands with this one.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by PanozDP01

From an F1 reporter on Twitter

Apparently today was quite the chaotic day with the release of these new regulations. I’ve been informed that each team has sent a technical representative to meet with the FiA about the release of the regulations at some point today. Apparently the released regs were never finally approved by all teams, and at least two teams are threatening to walk away from the series if they go ahead as released today. There are a LOT of angry team members across the grid.

After a bit more digging, specifically the concerns are around the active aero for the front and rear wings which will NOT be driver controlled, but triggered via control systems and software. The teams feel this is a huge risk in the event of failure. Additionally the concern is that the cost cap would prohibit the cost of replacement active aero parts as well. ??

Sounds like the FiA had a bit of an issue on their hands with this one.

Well, that's a colossal situation by the sound of it - very poorly done if the FIA has pumped out the regs without the teams agreeing.

Don't know how that happens in a professionally run sport but maybe it's indicative of how the FIA is going, particularly after some high-level departures in recent times.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Well, that's a colossal situation by the sound of it - very poorly done if the FIA has pumped out the regs without the teams agreeing.

Don't know how that happens in a professionally run sport but maybe it's indicative of how the FIA is going, particularly after some high-level departures in recent times.

This quote is unattributed; it could be from anyone (I can think of at least one member on here who may be the source ) so we should wait until someone from the teams' management actually makes a statement befor taking it as gospel.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by PanozDP01

The 2026 power unit + battery will be 30+ kg heavier than the current battery and PU. So they seem to think they can find a 60 kg weight reduction everywhere else, to make them 30 kg lighter than current. This looks like a fantasy. They will put the lower weight limit in the rules and nobody will have a hope of hitting it.

This is what The Race put out showing the increased PU and battery weight

That is not a true comparison as one doesn't include the weight of the turbocharger, whilst the other does. Maybe someone here can tell us what they weigh so that can be included because we don't know what other changes are included in those figures. Also, they give a definitive weight for the new engine, but an approximate weight for the current one, and I'm not certain that each manufacturers' engines weigh exactly the same either.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Well, that's a colossal situation by the sound of it - very poorly done if the FIA has pumped out the regs without the teams agreeing.

Don't know how that happens in a professionally run sport but maybe it's indicative of how the FIA is going, particularly after some high-level departures in recent times.

I get a distinct feeling that is used to be a sport and is now morphing into an income stream for the team owners and Liberty Media shareholders.Reverting to partially flat bottoms would take us back too the type of racing that we needed to move on from because of a lack of overtaking opportunities.I also question the wisdom of abandoning the MGU-H as it can only reduce the thermal efficiency of the power units.Which helps the arguments of those opposed to any form of combustion fuelled devices and those outside Europe may not realise how much opposition there actually is to burning fuel for transport.It would have been sensible to make them a control part,provided by the FIA via an approved supplier.



While I understand the cost arguments against such a thing,I do hanker for a reversion to H pattern manual gearshifts as they would actually introduce opportunities for a mistake that could create a place change due to driver error.I know it won't happen.

[Plantagenet]

Originally Posted by PanozDP01

The 2026 power unit + battery will be 30+ kg heavier than the current battery and PU. So they seem to think they can find a 60 kg weight reduction everywhere else, to make them 30 kg lighter than current. This looks like a fantasy. They will put the lower weight limit in the rules and nobody will have a hope of hitting it.

This is what The Race put out showing the increased PU and battery weight

In terms of how they will reduce the weight, Mark Hugh's column in Motorsport is good to explain their thinking. A combination of (slightly) smaller chassis, smaller tyres and then also the putative reduced downforce will mean that some suspension components can be made lighter. Obviously, whether this can be achieved in real life will have to wait.

Symbolically, although a small reduction in weight and size, I think everyone can unite in agreement that smaller cars are a positive step.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Richard C

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

The NFL very very much limits who can even talk about being an owner and when teams come up for sale they only allow the chosen and vetted few get beyond kicking the tires. And no way anyone would try to even mention creating a new team and applying for entry like Andretti did, you would be excluded for life if you did that. A few billionaires have said they wanted to buy x team and never even got to the discussion because they were ahead of the NFL process. It's 100% rigged and biggest difference is the public often finances the sale of the team via taxes to pay billions, yup we're getting to multi-billion dollar stadiums, for a private event space. No F1 team is getting government money to create their offices from scratch on an interest free loan for 25 years

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Plantagenet

In terms of how they will reduce the weight, Mark Hugh's column in Motorsport is good to explain their thinking. A combination of (slightly) smaller chassis, smaller tyres and then also the putative reduced downforce will mean that some suspension components can be made lighter. Obviously, whether this can be achieved in real life will have to wait.

Symbolically, although a small reduction in weight and size, I think everyone can unite in agreement that smaller cars are a positive step.

Definitely a good sign/step in the right direction, but if the engine regs will be fixed over the next 5 years, then how much more can we expect the engine weight to be reduce over that period?

Rather, it’s probably not reasonable to expect much more weight and size reduction over the next 5 years right?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by PanozDP01

From an F1 reporter on Twitter

Apparently today was quite the chaotic day with the release of these new regulations. I’ve been informed that each team has sent a technical representative to meet with the FiA about the release of the regulations at some point today. Apparently the released regs were never finally approved by all teams, and at least two teams are threatening to walk away from the series if they go ahead as released today. There are a LOT of angry team members across the grid.

After a bit more digging, specifically the concerns are around the active aero for the front and rear wings which will NOT be driver controlled, but triggered via control systems and software. The teams feel this is a huge risk in the event of failure. Additionally the concern is that the cost cap would prohibit the cost of replacement active aero parts as well. ??

Sounds like the FiA had a bit of an issue on their hands with this one.

Report in Autosport here - whilst not suggesting that teams are ready to walk away, it seems that there are a number of concerns held by teams re the 2026 rules.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Report in Autosport here - whilst not suggesting that teams are ready to walk away, it seems that there are a number of concerns held by teams re the 2026 rules.

The entire 2026 ruleset seems be an ongoing trainwreck. First starting with them doing whatever it took to get Audi (and almost Porsche) to sign on and apparently Honda as well. Then they tried to figure out how to stuff that engine into a car and found it had issues. Given the clear lack of coordinated design it seems to be a negotiated solution as well? One team wanted an ice cream sundae. Another team wanted pickles. Yet another team wanted lettuce. So now we have an ice cream desert with pickles and lettuce as toppings. So it is some type of Frankenstein at this point with potential for some details to be half baked. And no doubt the FIA feels like it is herding cats at this point as nobody can agree on what the solution will be. Lastly, I can't remember who was running this on the FIA side, but haven't they said they are leaving the FIA? So I can imagine teams feel like they are dealing with a lame duck and can just steam roller FIA on this?

The article calls out good details on needing (or wanting) to have these set by end of June, and also calls out problems with trying to extend the deadlines. I like this quote from that article...

In its presentation documents on Thursday, the FIA said that the rules were anticipated to be ratified by the World Motor Sport Council on June 28.

I wonder if FIA just pushed the issue by releasing details publicly to break log jams with teams not agreeing on moving forward. Either they vote to move forward on the 28th, or if not, then maybe they agree to delay and continue to polish the turd.

Richard

[Tourer]

"Too slow in corners, too fast in straights" - "F2 lap times". Bit more from teams about their concerns.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I wonder if FIA just pushed the issue by releasing details publicly to break log jams with teams not agreeing on moving forward. Either they vote to move forward on the 28th, or if not, then maybe they agree to delay and continue to polish the turd.

I think there's a lot to what you say re the timing of release of details.

We've been hearing for many months now from a range of F1 figures of concerns with how the cars are going to work (other than Toto - he seems to like the new regs). In particular, Adrian Newey's sobering observation that as the ICE would act as a generator for the electric side / battery then having the ICE going at full revs around the hairpin at Monaco (& other slow corners) was to be expected. When the greatest & most free-thinking of designers from the last few decades raises concerns like that, it really does feel like some monumental cluster-fluff is underway.

To me, from the renderings the cars at least look better and more wieldy but all this active aero stuff feels too "speed racer" and if the balance between electric and ICE power is in fact out of whack, then this part is not a good one to be on.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

"Too slow in corners, too fast in straights" - "F2 lap times". Bit more from teams about their concerns.

Many people on here call for less (or no!) downforce and say "who cares if they are slower, I can't tell the difference."

Fundamentally, the performance difference between an F2 car could be as small as a few seconds, and that's starting to get a little bit tight, ... But also these are draft regulations and just this week, in fact, there were two changes which took quite a bit of downforce away.

- James Vowles, Williams Racing

Why are the teams expressing opposite concerns?!

It's more than a little odd that Stella thinks they will be "too slow in corners, too fast on straights, needs rebalancing" and Vowles is worried about "being only a few seconds faster than F2". The comments on Ten-Tenths tend to say this does not matter and it is just about the racing?!

Some even call for all "aerocrap" to banished and to race 1000hp Formula Fords!

Originally Posted by Tourer

having the ICE going at full revs around the hairpin at Monaco (& other slow corners) was to be expected.

It's still physically connected to the wheels so that's impossible, it could be at low revs but full throttle doing generating though. ...Actually it's limited to 30% fuel flow, so about 30% throttle for generating, when the driver is physically off the throttle IIRC.

Unless there's a way to put the car in neutral or hold the clutch in while it's generating...?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It's still physically connected to the wheels so that's impossible, it could be at low revs but full throttle doing generating though. ...Actually it's limited to 30% fuel flow, so about 30% throttle for generating, when the driver is physically off the throttle IIRC.

Unless there's a way to put the car in neutral or hold the clutch in while it's generating...?

Actually, yes I didn't express it well - here's the direct quote from Adrian Newey:

“It’s certainly going to be a strange formula in as much as the engines will be working flat-chat as generators just about the whole time,” he said.

“So, the prospect of the engine working hard in the middle of Loews hairpin is going to take some getting used to.

“It is fair to say that the engine regulations were created and pushed through without very much thought to the chassis side of it.

“And that is now creating quite large problems in terms of trying to come up with a solution to work with it.

From this article in Motorsport magazine.

I get where the team people are coming from re downforce and overall speed around a lap - they don't want to be slower than Super Formula or Indycars and want a gap to F2, but then I think back a few years and the front-running F3000 lap times would get them on the back of an F1 grid and Indycars were big, heavy cars built for ovals that were fast but generated speed very differently to F1 and were faster in terms of top speed but less responsive, less acceleration, less twitchy. F1 was still the pinnacle.

My concern with the 2026 regs is if they are poorly thought through and also that they may be over-complicated with the active aero stuff, plus concerns over heavier power units done only to appease OEMs rather than to add to the racing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Many people on here call for less (or no!) downforce and say "who cares if they are slower, I can't tell the difference."

Yes. And it's funny that it's clear the diversity of opinions we have here (more aero, less aero, slow cars are find, we need the fastest cars) exist all the way up to the top! It's all just one big experiment every few years.

As much as I have slagged some of the new regulations. Wouldn't it be funny if in the end... it all just worked as advertised!

Richard

[chillibowl]

Well the last set of rule changes did seemingly work for a while so there is hope in that!

[Tourer]

Potentially alienate fans - too much "geek speak". More on the concerns that teams have with the 2026 regs as they currently sit.

I actually thought that Jacques v put it really well during the telecast of Friday's activity from Montreal - he said that if F1 is using sustainable fuel for the ICE, why does it need hybrids at all. Couldn't agree more with him.

[bathurst77]

give the teams a few days more testing. To be used AFTER the first few races but at a date and venue of the teams choice. Allowing them to try things if they are way off the pace etc. However the expense of they test parts and day at the track comes from the cost cap.

[Richard C]

There was a recent rule change that is not "future" but for this year. It happened a few weeks ago and I saw it discussed elsewhere then, but then realized I don't think it was mentioned here.

Basically they have added additional text to Article 11.1.2 of the Technical Regulations. See 11.1.2 below is the new text in bold

The brake system must be designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude and act as opposing pairs on a given brake disc. Any system or mechanism which can produce systematically or intentionally, asymmetric braking torques for a given axle is forbidden.

So I would think a mid-season rule change like this due to either a team asking to do it, or a team was found to already be doing it. And the FIA felt it was an area in which they didn't want teams to play, so it has been banned.

Speculation is that maybe Red Bull's drop in performance might be down to them having to remove a device that performed the action above. The gain is that if you can dynamically adjust braking force between the left/right sides of the car you can help rotate the car in corners. A passive system using the generated g-forces could be used as part of a proportional valve setup that would create asymmetric braking forces.

All of this is part of a set of changes approved by WMSC
https://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-si...nges-2024-wmsc

Additional changes of note is an entirely new Article (10.10) in the sporting regulations that covers "Test Mule Cars". As best as I can tell it's to allow for testing of components for future regulations in current cars. But I think it is only as part of FIA governed tests and not any type of general opening of test mule allowance? I can speculate that this is the FIA setting up a structure for them to do some specific testing with the teams either late this season or during next season to iron out minor 2026 issues?

Another interesting change is that the car weight has gone up by 2kg! Minimum car weight moved from 798kg to 800kg. This was done via increasing the reference driver weight (driver + kit + driver ballast) from 80kg to 82kg. I have to wonder what drove that change. The only thing I can think is that teams felt the 80kg was too low or maybe some type of new mandated item (safety related?) that is part of the driver kit?

Minor tweaks to who is allowed to drive the cars during testing. Generally it looks like it add additional flexibility. For example if a driver would qualify to have a super license, he doesn't actually have to "have" a super license.

Article 26.4 of the Sporting Regulations was changed to not allow Stewards to potentially disqualify a car if it is assisted in rejoining? Does this mean marshals can push a car out of a trap? I really must be misunderstanding what is going on with that rule change as that would be a significant change.

There is a smattering of other minor changes around car stoppages, pit lane starts, etc.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

There was a recent rule change that is not "future" but for this year. It happened a few weeks ago and I saw it discussed elsewhere then, but then realized I don't think it was mentioned here.

So I would think a mid-season rule change like this due to either a team asking to do it, or a team was found to already be doing it. And the FIA felt it was an area in which they didn't want teams to play, so it has been banned.

Speculation is that maybe Red Bull's drop in performance might be down to them having to remove a device that performed the action above. The gain is that if you can dynamically adjust braking force between the left/right sides of the car you can help rotate the car in corners. A passive system using the generated g-forces could be used as part of a proportional valve setup that would create asymmetric braking forces.

I've seen similar speculation about this rule clarification, although I suspect that the speculation is wide of the mark - as the clarification / change came out after Belgium, it would only apply from then on - so IF a team was using such a system, we wouldn't yet see any performance impact - that'll come after the Summer break.

Originally Posted by Richard C

Article 26.4 of the Sporting Regulations was changed to not allow Stewards to potentially disqualify a car if it is assisted in rejoining? Does this mean marshals can push a car out of a trap? I really must be misunderstanding what is going on with that rule change as that would be a significant change.

Yeah I think you've read that a little wrong mate (must have been that 23rd glass of red ) - from the article you linked:

Other regulation changes include the tightening of wording relating to a car breakdown – rather than saying a car breaking down “on track” can’t continue in a session, the wording has changed to a car that breaks down “in any area other than the pitlane and receives physical assistance”.

Will be interesting to see if the updated regulation on braking has any impact after the Summer break.

[Mike Harte]

Can someone clarify the rules about assistance given to a competitor on track. I ask because I can recall the occasion that Hamilton, during a wet race, beached the car in the kitty litter- I think that it was at a race in Brazil, but not sure - and managed to keep the engine going. A few moments later, a machine came and lifted the car out of the gravel, possibly with Hamilton still in it, and placed it back on the racing surface. The car was unhooked, and Hamilton continued the race.

Is this still allowed is the question that I would like to know?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Can someone clarify the rules about assistance given to a competitor on track. I ask because I can recall the occasion that Hamilton, during a wet race, beached the car in the kitty litter- I think that it was at a race in Brazil, but not sure - and managed to keep the engine going. A few moments later, a machine came and lifted the car out of the gravel, possibly with Hamilton still in it, and placed it back on the racing surface. The car was unhooked, and Hamilton continued the race.

Is this still allowed is the question that I would like to know?

It was a very specific set of circumstances IIRC.

At the time, his car was considered to be in an unsafe location, and so under the Sporting Code: 'If the driver is not able to move the car out of the potentially dangerous position, it is the duty of the marshals or other officials to help. In that case, if the driver succeeds in re-starting the car without any external help, and rejoins the race without committing any breach of the regulations and without gaining any advantage from the preceding movement of the car to a safer position, he/she will not be excluded from the race.'

The track was considered a safer place at the time - but I think the current situation is that cars are moved elsewhere (other than back to the track) as a safe place.