2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[cheeRS]

I think F1 could do with longer braking distances. It would help overtaking.

Perhaps not if the braking performance of the cars is the same, and the drivers have the same ability.

-Braking performance is basically never the same in reality. Even if the braking tech/regen rules were all identical, you know that aero (and aero differences between cars) directly and greatly affects braking distance, as does the influence of other cars' aero wake. Even more important, tire compound and tire wear directly and greatly affects braking performance and distance. This is all to say that NO, braking performance is hugely variable, even if, specs of the braking system are identical.

-Drivers never have the same ability, although you could argue they're similarly talented. They also have different driving styles, which directly influence racing line and braking application.

-Braking distance increase helps overtaking pretty much 100% of the time, as overtaking takes place pretty much 99% of the time either in DRS zones or braking zones, and infrequently in the middle of a full/partial throttle corner. It also means that there is more room for error as instead of having to brake for 1 second at the 50m board, they might need to brake for 2 seconds at the 150m board (just example numbers).

It's well established that less traction/grip and longer braking distances helps the overtaking and the overall show. MotoGP is probably the best, albeit most extreme, example of this. It's a pipe dream for F1 fans though.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Using the ICE to recharge the battery is not an efficient use of the hybrid system. The hybrid system should be in place to collect 100% of the energy that would otherwise be wasted under normal braking.

Front recovery was quickly vetoed...

..... The hybrid system should be in place to collect 100% of the energy that would otherwise be wasted under normal braking.

peak braking power nowadays is c.5000 kW - and for 2026 may be c.3000 kW
recovering 100% of the braking energy would be counterproductive

I think F1 could do with longer braking distances. It would help overtaking.

Of course front recovery was vetoed. Everyone can see that front recovery is just digging the hole deeper. More weight which means heavier crash structures which means even more weight ect ect. Front recovery would guarantee that the 2026 cars will be heavier than the 2022 cars. (I personally think they will be anyway)

[Zynerji]

Using the ICE to recharge the battery is not an efficient use of the hybrid system. The hybrid system should be in place to collect 100% of the energy that would otherwise be wasted under normal braking.

Front recovery was quickly vetoed...

peak braking power nowadays is c.5000 kW - and for 2026 may be c.3000 kW
recovering 100% of the braking energy would be counterproductive

I think F1 could do with longer braking distances. It would help overtaking.

Of course front recovery was vetoed. Everyone can see that front recovery is just digging the hole deeper. More weight which means heavier crash structures which means even more weight ect ect. Front recovery would guarantee that the 2026 cars will be heavier than the 2022 cars. (I personally think they will be anyway)

I think front wheel hub recovery generators wouldn't be terrible. I think the weight only gets crazy if you are adding a central generator/differential and half-shafts.

[AR3-GP]

I think F1 could do with longer braking distances. It would help overtaking.

Perhaps not if the braking performance of the cars is the same, and the drivers have the same ability.

I don't think the braking performance would be any more "the same" in that case, vs what we have today. Today they have the same brake sizes, same brake suppliers (Brembo), same mass (800kg), and same tires (Pirelli) yet some cars stop better than others. Then at low speeds, you still have to deal with threshold braking and all drivers don't have the same ability, even less likely when the track is wet.

If we imagine 1000kW MGU recovery per axle (peak), you'll still have a different stopping distance for each car because of all of the other parameters that tie into the dynamics of stopping: CoG, CoP, drag, tire temperature, tire compounds (S,M,H), wear state, suspension kinematics, load transfer characteristics, etc.

[Tommy Cookers]

If we imagine 1000kW MGU recovery per axle (peak), you'll still have a different stopping distance for each car because of all of the other parameters that tie into the dynamics of stopping: CoG, CoP, drag, tire temperature, tire compounds (S,M,H), wear state, suspension kinematics, load transfer characteristics, etc.

things you haven't mentioned are the giant can of worms

eg invisibly these (synchronous) MGs already in effect detect and correct eg wheel under-rotation etc
(trivial with the 120kW MG)

synchronous means the 'CE's' continuously adjust to maintain the demanded rpm & torque eg when slip starts
implemented by a machine position 'timing flag' signal via the power cables and a digital register at the CE
(non-trivial I think with 350 kW MG)

2000 kW of MGs is part of a recipe for petrol-electric F1

[AR3-GP]

If we imagine 1000kW MGU recovery per axle (peak), you'll still have a different stopping distance for each car because of all of the other parameters that tie into the dynamics of stopping: CoG, CoP, drag, tire temperature, tire compounds (S,M,H), wear state, suspension kinematics, load transfer characteristics, etc.

things you haven't mentioned are the giant can of worms

eg invisibly these (synchronous) MGs already in effect detect and correct eg wheel under-rotation etc
(trivial with the present 120kW MG)

synchronous means the 'CE's' continuously adjust to maintain the demanded rpm & torque eg when slip starts
implemented by a machine position 'timing flag' signal via the power cables triggering a digital register at the CE
(not trivial with 2000 kW MG)

LMDH cars and Formula E cars spin up the wheels when exiting the pit box in electric-only mode. Formula E cars can lock up their wheels at low speeds as well. There's nothing inherent to an electric motor that works as "traction control" other than the inertia of the rotating assembly.

The pedal position is not an RPM control. It's a torque control.

[Tommy Cookers]

LMDH cars and Formula E cars spin up the wheels when exiting the pit box in electric-only mode. There's nothing inherent to an electric motor that works as "traction control" other than the inertia of the rotating assembly, same as ICE.

'foot down' wheel spin or locking proves nothing as (contrary to EV lovers) - yes there's 'nothing inherent' .....

but for the inherent possibility at rare (or even convenient) moments of pole skipping or at others pole slipplng ....
(which synchronicity lapse doesn't breach the terms of the traction control ban or the PU mapping & PU output rules)
and the need for dynamic stability - which also escapes the ('steady state') mapping etc rules

torque control of a fast-rotating machine cannot exist without it rather behaving like rpm control - and vice-versa
torque control and rpm control are just words
multiple control loops will always work better eg to maintain synchronicity under dynamic conditions

the PU rules of course don't apply during the specified durations of gear-shift activity

[TeamKoolGreen]

Remember they said smaller, lighter cars in 2026. I will predict right now that they will be heavier. The minimum weight rule will be lower. The real car will be heavier

[wuzak]

Remember they said smaller, lighter cars in 2026. I will predict right now that they will be heavier. The minimum weight rule will be lower. The real car will be heavier

https://i.postimg.cc/XqG3gVd7/f126.jpg

The graphic is wrong.

The current PU does not count the battery weight in its minimum weight.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Remember they said smaller, lighter cars in 2026. I will predict right now that they will be heavier. The minimum weight rule will be lower. The real car will be heavier

https://i.postimg.cc/XqG3gVd7/f126.jpg

The graphic is wrong.

The current PU does not count the battery weight in its minimum weight.

The battery weight is going up 10 kg.

[wuzak]

Remember they said smaller, lighter cars in 2026. I will predict right now that they will be heavier. The minimum weight rule will be lower. The real car will be heavier

https://i.postimg.cc/XqG3gVd7/f126.jpg

The graphic is wrong.

The current PU does not count the battery weight in its minimum weight.

The battery weight is going up 10 kg.

More items are included in the battery weight for 2026.

Most of the new items included in the weight of the battery did not have weights specified in the current regulations, so a direct comparison is difficult.

[Tommy Cookers]

There's nothing inherent to an electric motor that works as "traction control" other than the inertia of the rotating assembly.

untrue
electric motors and generators are controlled to prevent transactions involving their imagined 'inherent' behaviours

eg if we have 350 kW MU-K motor action driving the car combined with ICE action driving the car ....
the MU-K torque must be (by the CE control) decreased as rpm (and road speed in any one gear) increases ....
to attain and maintain the full 350 kW entitlement throughout

so with 2026 ICE and MGU-K powers might breach the current PU torque demand-to-output rules
(anyway these rules seem to ignore dynamic effects - or exempt them as gear-shift conditions only)
ie the automatic PU torque reduction with rpm increase eg wheel-spin may be a dubious amount of driver aid
the situation will be worsened if the 2026 gearbox has eg 6 speeds not 8
remember the cars will use more electric drive at lower speeds ie electric drive torques will be much higher

the road EV uses constant torque drive at low speeds - and falling torque with higher speeds
(2026) F1 uses constant power (falling torque) electric drive at all speeds ....
the many-ratioed gearbox greatly helps and flatters the energy recovery scheme


also consider the braking process ....

at high speed rear axle load (DF&weight) is high and friction brake power is much higher than the 350 kW regen braking
as speed falls the 'brake-by-wire' axle load-related term accordingly reduces friction brake pressure ....
but GU-K torque rises with rpm fall in each gear (then falls on downshift) to maintain the entitled 350 kW throughout
so by c. 110 mph friction braking has become zero while regen braking is still 350 kW .....
therafter as regen torque must fall with axle load - so regen brake power strongly falls below 350 kW

ie for all speeds axle load is calculated and the max corresponding GU-K torque set (by control of current) ....
so with any wheel under-rotation/locking the 'rpm/speed' reduces and braking torque reduces automatically .....
seemingly another driver aid being unbanned

[Tommy Cookers]

... I don't think the braking performance would be any more "the same" in that case, vs what we have today....
If we imagine 1000kW MGU recovery per axle (peak), you'll still have a different stopping distance for each car because of all of the other parameters that tie into the dynamics of stopping: CoG, CoP, drag, tire temperature, tire compounds (S,M,H), wear state, suspension kinematics, load transfer characteristics, etc.

not really (and someone gave it a point)

this is essentially braking by regeneration - braking performance isn't separable from recovery performance
using improved grip (the things quoted) increases the friction braking % and reduces the recovery braking % (of the event)
so a reduction in braking distance is always a reduction in energy recovery ....

the car with the greater energy recovery will then make up ground exiting the corner - and cross the finish line ahead

[wuzak]

Will teh 2026 F1 cars be able to use the override mode at Monaco?

They probably have enough recovered energy to use it every lap, but will the cars be going fast enough (>290km/h) for it to make any meaningful difference?

The peak speed on Verstappen's pole lap last year appears to be 290km/h. Alonso didn't quite get that.